Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[Mike Parker]

On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 10:47:49 UTC, Dukc wrote:

>
> 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.

The policy I operate under is basically two items:

1. Is there an obvious personal insult in the post?
2. Is the poster disrupting the thread?

Some people have a lower threshold for what constitutes an 
obvious personal insult, and they sometimes let me know. These 
days, I tend to act when they do let me know. In the past, I 
would often try to convince them of why we should let it go.

Given my timezone, threads unfortunately tend to get disrupted 
while I'm in bed. Then I wake up to several emails and DMs on 
Discord. So I do sometimes step in when it looks like things are 
heading that way.

The thing is, though, we have limited moderation tools available 
to us because of the nature of our forums. I can't put anyone in 
a timeout, I can't suspend an account, I can't lock threads or 
move posts, I can't DM people to give them private warnings...

The biggest problem is that once I delete a post, it's gone. I 
can't restore it. So because of that, I always prefer to give 
people more leeway than I would if I could restore a post I 
shouldn't have deleted.

I've been accused of censorship and I've been accused of letting 
trolls run rampant. I've been accused of bias and I've been 
accused of allowing overly negative people to ruin our image. I'm 
never going to make everyone happy. I've adapted my approach over 
time based on feedback, so I'm always open to that.

In this case, what you consider combative, I consider annoying. 
Some people are just abrasive in their online communications. But 
they still can further a discussion or debate.

What I suggest is that anyone who thinks a poster is being 
combative, please email me and let me know. I've take a closer 
look at the thread in question and, if I don't agree anything 
should be deleted, I'll ask that the language be toned down. Then 
I can start deleting if it isn't. Does that sound better?

I've been deleting posts in the new DIP forums that don't contain 
any information relevant to the discussion. I could also start 
doing that in other forums for posts that are just angry rants. 
But again, some posts that raise red flags for some people raise 
any for me, so I encourage others to let me know if they see 
something like that.