Asking clarification regarding moderation

[Umbran]

I didn't say the rules were impossible to find, I said they were not in a glaringly obvious location.

And I didn't say you did say that. When someone notes a thing is difficult to find, it is reasonable to say where it can be found, you know?

The point of rules, and laws, is that they are predictable and solid so that people actually know when they have or haven't violated a rule. If you cannot explicate the forum rules in absolutely concrete terms, what that really just means is that moderation is truly and completely subjective - which is exactly my criticism.

And I understand your position, and I can understand the frustration. However, my point is that static fixed rules without human review don't produce better results in the long run.

That said, if you make your case to Morrus, more power to you.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

And I understand your position, and I can understand the frustration. However, my point is that static fixed rules without human review don't produce better results in the long run.

That said, if you make your case to Morrus, more power to you.

I really just want the moderation team and morrus to be honest and explicitly say that the rules are whatever they feel like at any given moment - which is absolutely my impression seeing how people's posts have been flagged/moderated/etc.

That there are acceptable and unacceptable views is definitely up to Morrus - it's his website after all - I just want that to be made obvious.

 

[CleverNickName]

I really just want the moderation team and morrus to be honest and explicitly say that the rules are whatever they feel like at any given moment - which is absolutely my impression seeing how people's posts have been flagged/moderated/etc.

That there are acceptable and unacceptable views is definitely up to Morrus - it's his website after all - I just want that to be made obvious.

But...that would be a lie, because that is not what the rules say.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

But...that would be a lie, because that is not what the rules say.

The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.

So, I would agree with you. The rules DON'T make that claim - I'm saying that they SHOULD make that claim because that is what is done in practice.

 

[CleverNickName]

The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.

So, I would agree with you. The rules DON'T make that claim - I'm saying that they SHOULD make that claim because that is what is done in practice.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but here's as far as I will follow:

Usually, when people ask for an explicit list of DO's and DON'Ts, it isn't for the purpose of clarity or understanding: it's for circumvention. They want to see exactly where the line in the sand is drawn, so that they can get as close to it as they possibly can without fear of consequence. And that is something that the moderators want to avoid, which I appreciate.

That is why these rules do not contain a list of dozens of topics that are off-limits, and a list of ten thousand phrases that will get you in trouble. Instead, the rules assume that people know the difference between being polite and being rude, and expect us all to act accordingly. Nobody accidentally challenges moderation, for example.

Anyway. I'll butt out of the conversation.

 

[Morrus]

I really just want the moderation team and morrus to be honest and explicitly say that the rules are whatever they feel like at any given moment

We reject the premise that we are dishonest.

 

[Fifth Element]

We reject the premise that we are dishonest.

I don't think this a very charitable interpretation of the post. Read it as "be open and up-front", since that seems to be the intent.

 

[Irlo]

The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.

Many years ago, I worked in a large warehouse-style retail facility. We had rules posted, which included “No Spitting.” I dealt with a customer who argued that since the rules did not explicitly prohibit blowing snot out of his nose onto the floor that I couldn’t require him to stop leaving slippery gobs on the floor.

There’s no need for pages and pages of explicit rules (IMO). I don’t see a problem with moderators communicating with posters as things come up.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Usually, when people ask for an explicit list of DO's and DON'Ts, it isn't for the purpose of clarity or understanding: it's for circumvention. They want to see exactly where the line in the sand is drawn, so that they can get as close to it as they possibly can without fear of consequence. And that is something that the moderators want to avoid, and something that I appreciate.

That is absolutely true - and it's the 'unfortunate' double edge of having clear and precise rules. I don't believe in the 'spirit' of laws, just the letter. So, if I'm not breaking an explicit rule that is literally all that matters, regardless of my intention or how hard I'm pressing against it. That is just the very nature of 'technicalities' and it's not something I believe you can stop without making the rules so subjective as to make them pointless.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not sure where you are going with this

I read it as "there are house rules to the modding, it would be great if we were told what the house rules are."