(11-04-2017, 05:57 PM)rolandarmstrong Wrote:

(11-04-2017, 01:43 PM)Drall Wrote: Could you elaborate on how the current moderation policy prevents debate from happening? The only thing I can see it preventing is useless posts.

It is apparent to me that we disagree on the meaning of "useless." Current policy drones on about "less than one sentence" posts being useless. I think that you can't really define policy making in such a simplistic way as the current moderation policy. There's a lot more to it that Farengeto realises. Maybe it's just me, but there have been multiple times when I made a post that got deleted due to the moderation policy even though it was unobjectively useful.

I know this is your campaign, but since it deals with me I thought I would comment.

The one sentence rule was never supposed to be a complete moderation policy. However nearly any case where it applied contributed nearly nothing to the debate. Phrases like "full support" don't really contribute much on their own, personally I've the sheer number that some proposals received negatively effected debate by burying chances for true discussion under a wave of largely uncritical support. Even something like the repeated seconds say little beyond "I will probably vote Aye", something made largely refundant when the actual vote gegs created soon after. Virtually anything less than a sentence long can say a lot more in the debate by simply adding a few more words.

And unless I'm mistaken I only had to enforce this particular rule once, for a post consisting only of a single '^'. I don't think one can reasonably argue a post like that contributed much to the debate.