Originally Posted by
GenevaFlyer
For example, who do you hear complaining most about the installation of automatic radars in France to catch speeders .... those who got a ticket for speeding, not those who abide by the maximum speed
Correct, the people at the receiving end of enforcement will always grumble. However, the AMOUNT of grumbling can be diminished by making the rules being enforced as specific as possible.
If your local police had nothing more to enforce than "Every driver shall drive in a safe and prudent manner", can you imagine the number of arguments they would get from motorists they ticket? No matter how well the police applied the rule, they could never escape complaints. Inevitably they would hear "In that other town 10 miles away, that maneuver is allowed", or "You just have a grudge against me because you stopped me twice before".
Let me be perfectly clear: on FT the grumbling is the problem, not the moderation. The moderators are doing a great job, if I say so myself. Moderation, like TalkBoard, is a volunteer duty and a labor of love. But the fact remains that different people will often interpret the same words differently. The less ambiguity in the Terms and Conditions and the more specific examples we can provide, the better off EVERYONE will be, including and especially the moderators. It's a win-win.
The list of examples can grow as moderators encounter new situations. Ideally, every new type of seriously value-subtracting behavior should occur only once before the TalkBoard adds it to the Terms of Service to put everyone on notice not to repeat it. This activity will be a collaborative effort of the TalkBoard and the moderators, in which the moderators and others propose and the TalkBoard makes the decision.
Win or lose in the TalkBoard election, I intend to promote more specific Terms of Service with specific examples.