PDA

View Full Version : Rule 5 Questions



Chris
08-20-2013, 11:43 AM
I have questions about Rule 5. No challenging moderators except by PM. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/6236-The-Political-Forums-Revised-Rules-and-Regulations)


This was a simplification for an older version of the old rule which said and meant (I wrote it, after all) members cannot challenge mod warnings, infractions, etc except by PM, but you were allowed, even encouraged, to ask online general questions about rules and moderation.


Let me be clear, I am not hereby challenging a mod action. Rather, I have questions about the rule, I would like clarification. After all, if members know clearly what rules mean, they can then act accordingly. And I was advised that this is the proper protocol.


The question is simple enough: Is Rule 5 in word and meaning still the same as it was. Challenging mods must be by PM but asking general questions online is OK, even encouraged?


Adelaide, bladimz, Captain Obvious, Chloe, Conley, Dr. Who, IMPress Polly,‎ KC, ‎ Mainecoons, Mister D, oceanloverOH, Peter1469, Private Pickle, roadmaster, zelmo1234

I ask this of VIPs because VIPs are the forum leaders who make and define the rules here--unless that has changed?


Of course any member is welcome to jump in and comment. :smiley:

GrassrootsConservative
08-20-2013, 11:58 AM
I think the problem is when people ask these "general questions" in the same thread they receive the warnings in. Better to have a blanket rule that covers any public discussion. Although maybe there should be a "General Moderator Questions" forum where people ask questions and then mods answer when they get around to it.

I do not think it's a good idea to not have ANY public discussion of it. That's censorship I just think we need to make it very clear that the only off-topic posts in threads should be the warning itself.

If I had a question for moderation that I wanted to put out in public I would put it here in the TIAQ subforum with a link to the warning I have a question about, because those usually have the "problem post" quoted before the warning.

All IMHO of course. :tongue:

oceanloverOH
08-20-2013, 01:32 PM
These questions are best addressed to the Moderator Representatives.
Adelaide
KC

Chris
08-20-2013, 01:43 PM
These questions are best addressed to the Moderator Representatives.
Adelaide
KC

Yes, they can represent mods' answers.

But I'm also asking VIPs who are forum leaders and who decide and define the rules.

I was told this is the proper venue.

oceanloverOH
08-20-2013, 01:51 PM
I'm not saying your thread is improper, Chris. Just that the other four mods should withhold opinions until the Mod Reps can address the issue. Even though the Mods are also VIPs, the question IS about moderation. I don't think six possibly slightly different opinions will help anything....and may only muddy the issue. I have PM'ed Adelaide and Peter to let them know about this thread.

oceanloverOH
08-20-2013, 01:53 PM
These questions are best addressed to the Moderator Representatives.
Adelaide
KC

Whoops, I forgot.... Peter1469 has replaced KC as a Mod Rep. Excuse, please.

Chris
08-20-2013, 02:09 PM
I'm not saying your thread is improper, Chris. Just that the other four mods should withhold opinions until the Mod Reps can address the issue. Even though the Mods are also VIPs, the question IS about moderation. I don't think six possibly slightly different opinions will help anything....and may only muddy the issue. I have PM'ed Adelaide and Peter to let them know about this thread.

I'm fine with mod reps answering for mods. But rules are defined and decided by VIPs so I ask their opinion as well.

I'm asking because the rule is muddy. I'm asking for clarification is all.

The question is NOT about moderation. It is about rule 5, what it means.

Cigar
08-20-2013, 02:11 PM
WTF ... is this long Division or what?

Chris
08-20-2013, 02:13 PM
WTF ... is this long Division or what?

It shouldn't be. It should be clear.

Ravi
08-20-2013, 02:21 PM
What leads you to believe it was changed? It says what it is right there in black and white.

Chris
08-20-2013, 04:20 PM
What leads you to believe it was changed? It says what it is right there in black and white.

Just checking that it means what it meant still. When we simplified the old wordy rules we cut them down to bares bones and some meaning may have been lost.

If it still means no challenging mod actions but yes ask questions, then clarification is not needed, only confirmation. Simple enough, right?

Chris
08-21-2013, 09:22 AM
Here's the thing. I too would have thought this to be a simple confirmation the rule means what it always has. If so, great, question answered.

I can understand VIPs not answering, perhaps not really even knowing, given I wrote the rule back before they became forum leaders and when mods made rules. But I would, since mods apply the rule, expect at least a mod rep to respond. It's important that members know and understand the rules.

Adelaide
08-21-2013, 09:44 AM
I will clarify when I get home from work. I have a bunch of crap I need to do before I leave but I'll be back around 6pm and will respond at that time.

Adelaide
08-21-2013, 05:32 PM
I think it could be best explained as directly challenging moderation by quoting warnings with challenges, or derailing a thread with questioning a warning or action taken by moderation.

I think if a member has a question or concerns about moderation, they don't belong in threads where debates are happening, specifically if it's disruptive to a/the discussion. That's what this specific forum should be for, and what private messaging should be for. Moderation should never become the discussion in an ongoing thread outside this section. Sometimes a question might get thrown out and is quickly answered and the thread goes on, no biggy, but if it's a discussion that completely derails a thread it's a different situation especially if that discussion follows an action taken by moderators.

I don't think any of the moderators have problems answering questions here or via PM. I'd actually personally prefer to have public discussions in this section as opposed to PMs in most cases, but a problem is that it's hard to do that without referring (directly or indirectly or accidentally) to an incident, and I don't think that's fair to any members involved or moderators involved. That would be hard to avoid. But I think for members in general, it's useful to have clarification on where moderators and VIPs stand on definitions and rules and how they're applied through public discussion. It also provides the moderators (and VIPs to an extent) with feedback about the application of the rules, which is useful.

Chris
08-21-2013, 05:41 PM
OK, thanks, that sounds good--sounds right. I can see how even asking questions about rules OK asked here but asked right after an in thread warning can be seen as challenging moderation, that's better in PMs.