Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[Dukc]

On Wednesday, 1 May 2024 at 01:44:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Having a written moderation policy is a lot like trying to 
> define the difference between porn and art.

I agree on the analogy. I could well see myself, let alone 
multiple people, being unsure how to classify a borderline case. 
I definitely can't claim I 100% know when I see it. It's maybe 
futile to try coming up with a fully generic definition. But if 
you need a policy to classify between them it's useful to have 
rules how to make the classification for the sake of the policy. 
For example, a picture someone swimming naked, when stated reason 
and... details... for the picture are [imagine something you feel 
would make it borderline]. The rules can't be 100% precise like a 
switch statement, but they are still better than having no idea 
what's the aim.

>
> Rather than mire ourselves in endless debates about this, we 
> have Mike Parker. Mike is in charge of moderation, and I can't 
> think of a better, more evenhanded moderator than Mike. He 
> adjusts policy with the evolution of the D community.

Mike decides the policy, not only enforces it? Okay, let's call 
this a proposal for Mike then.

> If you disagree with decisions he's made, he'll listen to your 
> appeal and adjust course as he feels is appropriate.
>
> Mike has my full confidence and support as moderator.

I don't have any issues with decisions Mike has made, and I agree 
he is doing a great job.

I'm writing this because there are two parts of moderation: the 
policy, and it's enforcement. I'm very happy with the enforcement 
part (although see Razvan's idea earlier in this thread), but I 
suggest a change to the policy.

Also it's not that I'd think there's anything wrong with the 
current policy. There are many possible policies all right and 
reasonable, it's only about what works best for each community. I 
feel my proposed policy might work better - reasonable poeple can 
disagree of course.