Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[aberba]

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

I've come to trust Mike too. He's doing a great job already. 
Happy to have things be the way it is.