Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[Dukc]

On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:08:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> 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?

Basically, I'm suggesting the first item to be replaced with:

1. Does the poster have to know their post is likely to anger or 
annoy others, insult or no?
2. If so, is it necessary or understandable given the point they 
are trying to make?

> 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.

This explains a lot. Thanks - I can see why it's worth erring to 
the side of not intervening. So that even with my proposal, you 
will have to keep a light touch - and that's fine.

> 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?

It's a good idea. But could you go further? I think you can give 
a warning right away when you, using your own judgement, find 
something combative. When people have been warned, you can hardly 
do a gross injustice by deleting posts of someone ignoring the 
warnings. If they really think you're suppressing any valid 
talking points they can privately tell you.

To be clear, while there is one thread that gave me the impulse 
to write this, it's not that I'm particulary annoyed with it or 
any other of them, and certainly not with any of your decisions. 
If you think the two examples I devised and/or the DIP thread 
weren't that combative, I'm not complaining - I might be wrong 
easily as well as you. It's just a general policy improvement 
idea.