Definitions

[lighthorseman]

After recent unpleasantness, l'd like to ask for a clarification of "the rules".

It seems people are operating with diffingerent ideas of what "trolling" and "being a dick" mean.
So, l'd like a clarification, because one person's "trying to provoke thoughtful discussion", seems to be another's trolling. I will state here that l do not, and never have, posted here with the intention of trolling, and apologise to anyone who genuinely thinks l have. That said, l don.'t think voicing an unpopular opinion, or defending an unpopular position, should be considered trolling, though of course they could, in some cases.

So, l suggest a clear, unambiguous definition be givem, so that consistent standards can be fairly applied. A clear defination should make it easier for those who genuinely want to avoid being thought of as trolls to do so, as well as make it easier for people to identify and report genuine cad

[lighthorseman]

Identify and report genuine cases.

[Oriet]

The reason those are not concisely defined is because they are somewhat nebulous, and also highly dependant on context. Such a definition you are asking for would require good size essays, and even then they would not be able to cover all circumstances where they apply.

With "Don't Be A Dick" specifically there are currently 14 sub-points illustrating examples of Being A Dick. If you are unable to infer from those what other examples might be then I suggest you follow the advice that is given in Da Rulesâ„¢ on this:

If you are unsure on a rule, or if a topic, picture, or other thing is within the rules, ask a moderator.

Also: Why didn't you just edit the first post to correct the spelling mistake instead of making a second post to do so? - Nevermind this last bit, didn't realise that members on post approval were not able to edit their posts.

[lighthorseman]

The reason those are not concisely defined is because they are somewhat nebulous, and also highly dependant on context. Such a definition you are asking for would require good size essays, and even then they would not be able to cover all circumstances where they apply.

With "Don't Be A Dick" specifically there are currently 14 sub-points illustrating examples of Being A Dick. If you are unable to infer from those what other examples might be then I suggest you follow the advice that is given in Da Rulesâ„¢ on this:

If you are unsure on a rule, or if a topic, picture, or other thing is within the rules, ask a moderator.

Also: Why didn't you just edit the first post to correct the spelling mistake instead of making a second post to do so? - Nevermind this last bit, didn't realise that members on post approval were not able to edit their posts.

So... isn't that sort of open to abuse and double standards?

And I didn't edit the first post because as part of the post moderation thing (something the rules don't seem to mention) the edit post option is disabled.

Oh, you said nevermind, sorry, already responded.

[Oriet]

So... isn't that sort of open to abuse and double standards?

Potentially, yes, but actually less so than most forums out there. Any mod that does abuse the rule and uses it as a double standard is then violating the Don't Be A Dick rule, and thus gets moderated by the other mods and/or admins.

If someone feels that the mods have made an incorrect decision it is perfectly allowed, and in fact encouraged, for them to speak up about it, either in an appropriate thread, a PM or email to the mod in question, a PM or email to another mod, or through messengers or IRC. Now, I will also admit that a person who voices such an opinion will need to make sure they have a well constructed and solid argument, but that is because they are trying to appeal a decision that was already thought out, and sometimes discussed amongst several mods (which is what we do when we are personally unsure on something).

[Shane for Wax]

I will point out Lexikon did exactly what Oriet suggested over one of his warnings and we hashed it out via PM, eventually leading to me rescinding his warning publicly and personally apologizing to him.

It does happen. You just have to be polite and argue your point properly.

[lighthorseman]

While we're talking about it, listed rules and guidelines for the moderators might be beneficial, so one knows what to expect.

[Oriet]

While we're talking about it, listed rules and guidelines for the moderators might be beneficial, so one knows what to expect.

Those are listed in the rules, which is basically the exact same rules everyone else abides by.

[rosenewock21]

May I make a small suggestion? Perhaps multiple mods, or better yet the majority of them, have to reach an agreement before actions like post moderation and bans are taken? Things like moving posts to their proper categories, locking threads that have derailed too badly, etc would remain untouched by this.

Pro:
-Members are less likely to call "foul" or accuse mods of favoritism/baiting.

Con:
-It would take longer to get rid of random trolls.

[Osama bin Bambi]

May I make a small suggestion? Perhaps multiple mods, or better yet the majority of them, have to reach an agreement before actions like post moderation and bans are taken? Things like moving posts to their proper categories, locking threads that have derailed too badly, etc would remain untouched by this.

Pro:
-Members are less likely to call "foul" or accuse mods of favoritism/baiting.

Con:
-It would take longer to get rid of random trolls.

I actually like this idea. It seems more balanced.

[Shane for Wax]

May I make a small suggestion? Perhaps multiple mods, or better yet the majority of them, have to reach an agreement before actions like post moderation and bans are taken? Things like moving posts to their proper categories, locking threads that have derailed too badly, etc would remain untouched by this.

Pro:
-Members are less likely to call "foul" or accuse mods of favoritism/baiting.

Con:
-It would take longer to get rid of random trolls.

We already do that both live (in chat which anyone can join if they want to see the process) and on the forums for those mods who don't also go into the IRC. So it's really as public as it can be unless you want a secondary thread made in the public which I think is vastly unnecessary. Especially since you can then see the result in publicly posted warnings in the thread in question that are put there as quickly as possible to be as close to the post that caused it (or of course the post in question is quoted).

[Oriet]

May I make a small suggestion? Perhaps multiple mods, or better yet the majority of them, have to reach an agreement before actions like post moderation and bans are taken? Things like moving posts to their proper categories, locking threads that have derailed too badly, etc would remain untouched by this.

Pro:
-Members are less likely to call "foul" or accuse mods of favoritism/baiting.

Con:
-It would take longer to get rid of random trolls.

This also has the problem if someone is breaking the rules multiple times while only on mod is on. This would then present the issue of either having to give multiple warnings and/or bans at once from the backlog of rule breakage, or they get away with far more rules violations than they should. We already consult the other mods when we can, especially over bans, but we do need to be able to take swift action at times.

[Auri-El]

I don't know how this forum works, meaning what Simple Machines can do, not the way you do things around here, but maybe it'd be possible, when there's a possible violation and only one mod online, to temporarily unapprove it and leave a note explaining, then it could be re-approved after discussion.

May I make a small suggestion? Perhaps multiple mods, or better yet the majority of them, have to reach an agreement before actions like post moderation and bans are taken? Things like moving posts to their proper categories, locking threads that have derailed too badly, etc would remain untouched by this.

Pro:
-Members are less likely to call "foul" or accuse mods of favoritism/baiting.

Con:
-It would take longer to get rid of random trolls.

I like this idea. I also think that random trolls should be fairly obvious, and wouldn't necessarily need a collective decision. The temporary-unapproval could also work for suspected trolls.

[Lithp]

So, l'd like a clarification, because one person's "trying to provoke thoughtful discussion", seems to be another's trolling.

Yeah.

This is what makes it hard to prove to moderators that a person is a troll, & what makes it easy for trolls to frame other people as trolls.

That's the nice thing about a board that is mindful of logical fallacies, it is much easier to show that some sort of conversational standard is being violated.

[Shane for Wax]

I don't know how this forum works, meaning what Simple Machines can do, not the way you do things around here, but maybe it'd be possible, when there's a possible violation and only one mod online, to temporarily unapprove it and leave a note explaining, then it could be re-approved after discussion.

May I make a small suggestion? Perhaps multiple mods, or better yet the majority of them, have to reach an agreement before actions like post moderation and bans are taken? Things like moving posts to their proper categories, locking threads that have derailed too badly, etc would remain untouched by this.

Pro:
-Members are less likely to call "foul" or accuse mods of favoritism/baiting.

Con:
-It would take longer to get rid of random trolls.

I like this idea. I also think that random trolls should be fairly obvious, and wouldn't necessarily need a collective decision. The temporary-unapproval could also work for suspected trolls.

You can't 'unapprove' a post. So I (and other mods) don't have as many tools at my (our) disposal as people like to think.