Site Management > Site Support / Feedback

Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)

<< < (2/17) > >>

I don't know if you want to cover this explicitly in the guidelines but we've edited posts before to fix broken download links. As far as I understand point 11, that would no longer be allowed. I'm not sure if fixing links counts as editing since it doesn't actually change what the poster said, it just restores the original message.

The E:
A remark that posts may be edited for maintenance purposes would be good, yes.

However, I don't think it's really that necessary -- After all, I would assume that everyone is okay with "resource" type posts being kept up to date and maintained even if the original poster isn't around or available to do so. The rules against editing or deletion should serve as an assurance that moderators and admins will not misuse their editing powers in order to win silly internet fights; they shouldn't be read as a hindrance for moderators as they perform forum maintenance.

A clarification on that is fine, so I made it.

Rhymes, with respect to your comment, the idea is we can use more moderators and would like to have volunteers and nominees.  Actual addition will still be subject to the existing moderation team to provide some balance.  The point isn't to do this by popularity, but to make these additions more generally transparent so it's less dictatorship, more meritocracy/democracy.  One constant complaint is a lack of trust/transparency, so we're trying to enhance that.

These rules are based on strong principles and I'm pretty sure they'll help settling things down. My concern however is one I've already showed in the past, and MP-Ryan kind of agreed with me back then.

A while ago, I argued over the "democracy" behind the formal actions of Admins and Global Moderators. In one particular case, I extrapolated that several admins did not even participate to a vote of critical importance for this community. I will not mention the circumstance as per Ryan's suggestion right at the beginning of this thread.

I believe (and most associations are based on this principle) that the most critical decisions should be taken by the absolute majority of Admins, not the "temporary" majority that happens to be online during a rather medium-to-short time window.

In poor words, if the website happens to have 10 Administrators, the absolute majority would be 6, all the time. No major decision should be taken by 5 or less Admins. All Admins should vote and should also be active users of these boards.

I think that touches on a related issue which is that if admins/moderators are not around, their continuation in the role should be re-evaluated--perhaps by placing them on an inactive list after a set period of inactivity.

If they're not actively participating in the community, and the moderation staff is supposed to be tethered to the community rather than removed from it, then maybe they shouldn't be moderating and shouldn't get a vote?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version