Rules for moderating on Modified.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 25 May 2006 09:29

Go ahead and write them up. We'll do a little editing to make them concise and put them together for ratification.

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 25 May 2006 12:32

1) You don't talk about moderation on Modified

2) You don't talk about moderation on Modified

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 25 May 2006 14:21

But be careful what you write... or you might just be sleeping with the fishes tonight

Lol but seriously this is a good start, if we can get a good set of rules that covers everything then there will be a lot less stife in the future.

For a start:

For these offences warnings that eventually lead to banning will be issued:

No crime is to be discussed with the intention of commiting that crime on modified.
(eg talking about the benifits of xxx illegal drug is fine, but arranging to buy or talking about how you use xxx drug over the forum is not ok.)

No racial, religious, sexist or any other discrimitory comments are to be made in the forum.

(These are just my own ideas, i'll add more at a later time)

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 25 May 2006 14:29

Moderators should put their name next to all edits or moved threads, and a reason why it was edited or moved.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 25 May 2006 17:40

I don't think this is the best way for this to occur but if this is how its going to be:

No racial, religious, sexist or any other discrimitory comments are to be made in the forum

Surely we can talk about race, gender and religion, and make discriminations on the forums - i think what you mean is "No derogatory uses of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion will be tolerated.
While course language is permitted in moderation, it may not be directed at other users of the forum in a derogatory manner. I think moderators should provide an example in the rules of how this will be enforced e.g while you can say "fuck" you can't say "you're a #$%ed up #$%-head who #$%s @#$$wits"

or maybe you can - whatever people decide.

No crime is to be discussed with the intention of commiting that crime on modified.
(eg talking about the benifits of xxx illegal drug is fine, but arranging to buy or talking about how you use xxx drug over the forum is not ok.)

Why not specify "it is permitted to discuss the effects of drugs however there may be no direct references to specific methods of drug taking, or methods of obtaining drugs illegally". After all this is a worldwide forum so there are different notions of "illegality" at play.
I would like to see some sort of protocol for the penelties connected to these infringements, as well as a protocol by which moderators can be made accountable. I.e if there is a dispute regarding moderation how should it be dealt with? - I'd suggest a stickied thread somwhere, where the dispute can be aired, and resolved by the moderators as a whole - either upholding the initial moderation, or reversing it and penalising the moderator in some way. There should either be an apology, or the moderator should have his or her status revoked.
There should also be some sort of minimum number of moderators required for making such a descision.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 25 May 2006 20:28

- moderating limited to footbag related forums with the main intention being topic relocation and keeping forums on-topic
- edits and moves need to be accompanied by a moderator's name
- off-topic forums will remain self-moderated unless such events as hacking or topic spamming happen at which point a moderator will be required to clean up the mess

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 25 May 2006 20:44

"...at which point a moderator will be required [asked] to clean up the mess."

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 25 May 2006 21:20

Actually, no, Moxie. Moderators are definitely required to. It's your job, none of us need to ask. Sure, asking is certainly a lovely notion, and thank you's are definitely in order. But, if we *need* to ask a moderator to take care of something, then that moderator definitely isn't on the ball.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 25 May 2006 21:23

All moderators be as cordial as Moxie.

Warm and sincere; friendly: a cordial greeting; cordial relations. See Synonyms at gracious.
Strongly felt; fervent: a cordial abhorrence of waste.
Serving to invigorate; stimulating.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 25 May 2006 23:13

Having the moderators watch all these threads isn't fair, that's like a job or something.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 25 May 2006 23:16

I was thinking the same thing... perhaps we could have more moderators but split the forum up between them? So each moderator only has a set amount of subforums to moderate?

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 26 May 2006 05:05

james_dean wrote:I was thinking the same thing... perhaps we could have more moderators but split the forum up between them? So each moderator only has a set amount of subforums to moderate?

I thought we already had that set up. It was that way on modified a few years back, anyway.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 26 May 2006 07:10

I think Tsiang was kidding... I hope so, anyway.

If more moderators are needed I would love to help out.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 26 May 2006 09:38

- moderating limited to footbag related forums with the main intention being topic relocation and keeping forums on-topic
- edits and moves need to be accompanied by a moderator's name
- off-topic forums will remain self-moderated unless such events as hacking or topic spamming happen at which point a moderator will be required to clean up the mess

co-sign this post.

I think all the moderators/admins should be fired and replaced with new ones. My suggestions: Jeremy O'Wheel, Rory Dawson, Sam Potter. THESE GUYS ARE LEGIT B!

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 26 May 2006 09:39

actually, moxie probably shouldnt be canned.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 26 May 2006 13:05

BainbridgeShred wrote:I think all the moderators/admins should be fired and replaced with new ones. My suggestions: Jeremy O'Wheel, Rory Dawson, Sam Potter. THESE GUYS ARE LEGIT B!

I think this part will be edited before ratification.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 26 May 2006 14:18

MY CIVILZ RIGHT.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 27 May 2006 00:01

Should any and all language be allowed and let people's ignorance speak for itself and the people who are offended by it can make their points known?

OR

Should there be a list of banned terminology?

OR

Something else.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 27 May 2006 03:10

I'm personally for letting the ignorance show. If they don't chill out within say... 50 or so posts, then (temp) ban them or something to that degree. first offence: 1 week. 2nd: 3 weeks. 3rd: perm-a-ban.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 27 May 2006 08:01

People's ignorance should speak for itself. The most important thing to maintain is a lack of interference in moderating. As exemplified by the recent ruckus all of this was caused by moderators doing too much. Editing out offensive stuff left and right, etc. It's done in good will, but the more you make your presence known the easier and more justified it is for people to complain about your moderating techniques, whether they're grounded or not. Plus, it's really not like we're a pack of racists. Not editting out offensive words isn't going to allow a horribly offensive culture to brew on modified. It will just allow for one or two people every once in a while to show up, test the limits of this board a little too extensively, and get checked by the rest of the posters who don't want to listen to that kind of nonsense. It has happened many, many times before on this board. It works.