These forums aren't really moderated, and it seems some of you guys want them to be more moderated. I'm not really sure what exactly is wanted. Right now, admins only moderate areas that don't fall into any government official's purview. We've given very few warnings and have only issued punishments to a couple players in the past couple years. The Assembly and election forums are where most heated arguments happen. But I do think people tend to get upset whenever these discussions are actually moderated. It's viewed is silencing or oppression.
So what exactly do TSPers think "moderation" is? What should government officials and admins be doing? We can be stricter, but somehow I think that's not actually wanted here.
I think that moderation should be more along the lines of just making sure the potential SPAM is under control and stuff like that. Also being able to demand calm if an argument gets too heated would need to be a moderator quality. Anything else?
I have to agree with Glen's question here of what exactly do people want?
Recent history shows that when I shut down a thread everyone AGREED was off topic, I got hell for it. The stronger the moderation we have ... the more charges are silencing opinions we're going to have.
Id say strict warnings for 'bad behavior' (case of debate how we´ll define this) would do for a start.
(04-03-2016, 10:10 AM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: [ -> ]Id say strict warnings for 'bad behavior' (case of debate how we´ll define this) would do for a start.
Fair. Who should be tasked with doing this?
Whomever the administration feels would be good moderators.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Elected officials should have moderation over their respective areas with admins as a backup. The forum has and rate function that allows you to subract one's rating. Moderators should never feel "threatened" to lock a thread for a day or so to calm things down or keep it on track and anyone that gets negative ratings should be made to sit on the sidelines for a day or so. Maybe one day for every multilpe of 5 (1 day for a -5 rating, 2 days when/if they hit -10 and maybe a limit like -20 when you get shown the door.).
Just takes people who want to do it and keep things calm. Admins should always have the right to deeal with/delete spam and personal attacks.
(04-03-2016, 04:36 PM)Cathalea Wrote: [ -> ]Whomever the administration feels would be good moderators.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That does certainly disqualify a large amount of the people who fequently visit these forums.
(04-03-2016, 04:58 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: [ -> ] (04-03-2016, 04:36 PM)Cathalea Wrote: [ -> ]Whomever the administration feels would be good moderators.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That does certainly disqualify a large amount of the people who fequently visit these forums.
Not really, we just mostly don't see the point in adding moderators when Cabinet members are supposed to do it themselves. If pressed, there are plenty of people we could choose.
(04-03-2016, 05:01 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: [ -> ] (04-03-2016, 04:58 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: [ -> ] (04-03-2016, 04:36 PM)Cathalea Wrote: [ -> ]Whomever the administration feels would be good moderators.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That does certainly disqualify a large amount of the people who fequently visit these forums.
Not really, we just mostly don't see the point in adding moderators when Cabinet members are supposed to do it themselves. If pressed, there are plenty of people we could choose.
rather not. cabinet members should better focus on running their ressorts, instead of monitoring the people and their behavior. such tasks naturally require ppl who entirely focus on this matter.