So if I'm annoyed, it's because while everyone was willing to queue up to trash the first set of guidelines, not a single person disagreed with the idea that Zacam should write the new guidelines, not a single person said "Hang on a second, Karajorma and MP-Ryan seem to be doing a good job, why don't we leave it to them?"
To be fair, when Goober suggested it and Zacam showed willingness to do it, I, at least, assumed that that was the decision of the admin/mod team and was owed some deference as a result - input was given, input was listened to, task was assigned, progress was imminent.
Of course, it has since become apparent that that was not at all the case and the ruleset that had been worked upon in the thread should have at least been adopted as a temporary measure while more comprehensive reform was underway.
But this just adds fuel to the fire - admins roles and tasks have not been clearly defined, it seems, to themselves OR the community at large (kara, I legitimately had no idea you weren't involved in the tech side). had this been abundantly clear, then I would have argued then, as I have been now, that tasks should be assigned to those most able to do them as a function of both time and skillset.
The major issue that I think most of us have with how things are run around here is the complete lack of transparency when there is no need for secrecy. Everyone could point out that Lorric was being a problem, but it was improper to discuss that outside the admin internal. Why? Like I keep emphasizing, this is one of the communities most fit to self-policing of any I've been a part of. And by self-policing I don't mean giving admin rights to everyone, but I do mean that admins/mods should be making their informal and formal actions transparently within the expectations of the broader community.
That guideline in the thread would cover every possible justification for both the community and the admin/mod team saying "enough" to the disruptive elements and dealing with them immediately. No, Lorric hadn't broken any particular rule, but virtually everyone on this bloody board could tell you that his behaviour was destructive and disruptive, and the issue could have been dealt with much sooner. As it is, the fellow really doesn't have a clue what he's doing that gets everyone so perturbed; if the shackles came off the community at large and the mod team intervened early, directly, and with the minimum force required (there I go channeling work again) then it would not have reached this point... or if it did, we could at least say we've tried everything. As it stands, can anyone here REALLY say that?
Frankly, the admin board should only exist to discuss internal, technical issues with the site management. For that, limited access by trusted community members is appropriate.
All the design, rules, disciplinary measures, disruption, etc should be part of a board that can at least be publicly read, if not necessarily commented on. There is no need for policing of posting behaviour, etc to be a secretive thing, and the fact that it is - and is done by a very small percentage of community members - is perhaps one of the biggest reasons you get pushback. If moderation were a community activity enforced technically by moderators and admins, it would be a much less controversial thing. And that has to be preciptated by both a rulset change and a governance structure change.
I see mjn.mixael made a post very much along these lines as I wrote this one.
