you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Rule 4 example: If a thread is "What's your favorite sports team" in a sub you moderate, and then someone comments "The Bengals" you are not allowed to ban them, even as a joke. It's on topic, and not dragging discussion down the pyramid of debate and so is in good faith. If someone comments something like "kys dummy Bengals are best idiot" then you have the option to ban them because it's not in good faith as per the pyramid of debate, despite being on topic. As a final example, if someone comments in that thread "Gouda cheese melts well" you have the option to ban them, as they're not on topic, despite not dragging discussion downward on the pyramid of debate. However if someone posts something both on topic, and in good faith, you CANNOT delete this type of post repeatedly or else you will lose all moderator privileges on saidit after a couple warnings.

I can understand why you'd need a wiki for all these intricate rules.

Edit:

One person cannot moderate more than 40 subs. Creating multiple accounts to bypass this is not allowed.

Unenforceable rule? Why not just ask if people could not, pls?

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Why not just ask if people could not, pls?

That's what we are doing. Isn't that exactly what rules are? :)

[–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Me breaking unenforceable rules makes you look dumb.

Me disregarding a kind request makes me look dumb.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Consider it a kind request, then. Not sure how else I am supposed to communicate this to thousands of people for years on end, other than by making it an announcement.

And later people can say "Why did I get in trouble? It was just a suggestion" when I actually have to enforce them. So your idea doesn't work in practice, but I get what you mean.

[–]Ian 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

when I actually have to enforce them.

If you can convince me that you can enforce rule #4, I won't try to convince you that social means is the best way to stop asshats. :)

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Enforcing 4 will be easy, you just watch for mods who repeatedly delete comments that are both in good faith and on topic, and users will also report bad mods to me, and I will take action. It's not complex, tbh.

[–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

brain fart, I meant #2.

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah, it's definitely possible to circumvent 2. It's just another roadblock for them to have to deal with though. But we still have access to IP addresses and login/logout timestamps and other information, so it's still possible to figure it out in most cases. It's just one extra step to help prevent powermods, it's not a complete end-all-be-all solution to everything. There is no silver bullet to a lot of these problems, just small steps that add up to make it harder for people to game the system.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sure we'll be reporting mods who get out of line.