Originally Posted by
Jenbel
Many people just cannot accept that their behaviour has been at odds with what we expect on FT.
This is very common. Some people like to annoy readers, or at the very least they are indifferent to whether their posts annoy readers. When challenged about this, they will often reply "I have a right to post whatever I want". This, I submit, is the hallmark of a value-destroying member. FT is better without such attitudes. If you see any part of yourself in this, please try to re-read your posts and soften them before pressing Submit.
Originally Posted by
RichMSN
When everything is done in secrecy, it's easy for people (on both sides) to distort the truth. Allowing some sunlight into the process would be best for both general members and moderators over the long haul.
+1
Originally Posted by
kokonutz
I think that many (most?) posters are under the (mistaken, btw, according to the current TOS) impression that ANY public discussion of moderation is strictly forbidden. I personally think some mods mistakenly believe this too, btw.
+1 and I am hoping for greater clarity on this issue in a future TOS.
Originally Posted by
kokonutz
when people are allowed to say how they think and feel, even if it is not the majority opinion, they feel better about the final decisions taken. It's all about having a say, even if your say is not the final say, and it leads to far greater user satisfaction.
+1
Originally Posted by
essxjay
I'll bet the farm that no matter how clearly stated up front the intended purpose and scope of such a thread, it will slide into one about specific actions.
That's a reasonable concern. Which is why the version I posted a day or two ago addresses it:
FWIW, I have floated in the private TalkBoard forum the idea to mandate a non-sticky thread for discussion of moderation policy and practices in the forum excluding any discussion of specific past actions but allowing discussion of hypothetical future actions. The second part of this idea is that each forum's moderators would be allowed (as apparently they already are) to allow discussion of specific past actions to whatever extent and under whatever ground rules the forum's moderators see fit, subject to constraints, if any, set by the Community Director.
This version is both innocuous and flexible, IMHO. It could promote valuable feedback for some forums.
In other words, the forum's moderators are free to constrain or prohibit discussion of specific past actions as needed to avoid excessive moderation of the thread about moderation. In my experience, it takes only two weeks for members to learn to post within new constraints. Two weeks of diligent coaching of posters can yield long-term peace in the forum.