Quote:I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith
(05-18-2015, 06:48 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?
(05-19-2015, 11:51 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.
In regarding the point above, the key here is examples. A general policy when writing rules is that you can never be too specific--or, if you prefer more insulting language, that they should be written in a way that accommodates the lowest common denominator--because someone somewhere will make an incorrect assumption. Clear, definite examples that encompass the variety of threads in which low-effort content is permissible/not permissible would remove any of the ambiguity that the rules may fail to address. With the vagueness of the rules swept away, people who receive minor infractions will ideally fall into three categories:
(1) People who don't think before posting despite being aware of the rulesÂ
(2) People who haven't read the rules and are unaware of them
(3) People who don't care about the rules
In cases (1) and (2), the warning system suits it just fine and prevents further future cases. I hesitate in advocating for the idea of infractions that accumulate to a ban for something that is relatively minor in comparison to flaming, harassment, blatant slurs etc. but regardless, making the user aware of their breach in site rules one way or another is enough to stop it.
Â
People who are (3) are going to get banned by their own actions sooner or later anyway. Like Hammersmith above pointed out, it's a similar argument to, say, gun control: there's no point in making guns illegal because criminals will break the law to obtain them anyway.
That said, it's also important to note just how vital proper communication is, especially in regards to moderator vs. user. This entire brouhaha, like most brouhahas do, came out of the two things that cause 99% of all human conflict: kneejerk reaction and miscommunication. Someone receiving an infraction for an inflammatory post should be made aware that the infraction was given in regards to their language and tone inciting flaming, not because their opinion differed from the topic at hand. I highly doubt anyone on the moderation team is banging a drum for censorship, but when communication isn't effective, people get the wrong idea before they start crying out ignorant "free speech" platitudes.
In the end, I don't particularly have a problem with the moderation in regards to warnings, infractions, and the policies thereof. This is a privately run board that has no obligation--and indeed, should not have any--to guaranteeing the freedoms of its users. I've yet to see an issue where someone was warned or banned for the nature of their opinion as opposed to how they presented it. So long as that doesn't become an issue, and as long as efforts are made to remove any incertitude from the possibilities of how the rules are interpreted things seem dandy.
