A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
The problem that I have with the moderator suggestion (aside from what others have already mentioned) is that I feel it’s somewhat premature. We had one problem poster and we handled it in a less than smooth fashion. So, okay, Method A didn’t work. But, with the moderating proposal, I feel like we just skipped to Method E without even considering Methods B, C or D.
Part of why I think the m/S/A situation was so difficult is that it was the first one. There was no existing policy for us to refer to when dealing with him. We had to feel our way through it. In retrospect, I know there are things I wish we’d done differently (like, making mieskie aware of this thread and that he was being discussed).
What if, before going to the moderator option, we tried to create a policy for handling problem posters? I’m not saying it’s going to be the solution but I feel like we need to make the effort before we start talking about empowering posters to be watchdogs.
"Voting Discussion 1: Court is now in session."
"Voting Discussion 1: Deathmatch '03"
(Bitterchick, I hear what you're saying. What do you think B, C, and D are?)
What if, before going to the moderator option, we tried to create a policy for handling problem posters?
We have a policy, yes? Once, warn. Twice, suspend. Three times, ban. What we have a problem with is the details of enforcement.
See, and I thought the Stompies decided, really, whether to warn someone. I mean we can ask all we want, but it is the stompy that types it up.
So obviously we don't really know what we were doing.
I also thought the warning, banning stuff was excluded from the vote because of the poential for public flogging and the time issues.
We have a policy, yes? Once, warn. Twice, suspend. Three times, ban. What we have a problem with is the details of enforcement.
Yes. We have a policy that no one feels empowered to enforce, is what it seems to me is the problem.
Sophia! I am you and you are me and we are one together!
I am the Eggman! Coo-coo-ca-choo!
We have a policy that no one feels empowered to enforce, is what it seems to me is the problem.
This is my perception too. I think when we created the short etiquette including that policy, we were viewing Stompies more as moderators (I know that's how I was thinking when I drafted it.). It turns out that's not how things operate officially.
We have a policy that no one feels empowered to enforce, is what it seems to me is the problem.
Okay. So, first step. We decide if we're a) happy with having the entire community participate in enforcement, b) want the Stompies to handle it by themselves, or c) create a new group of people to handle the enforcement.
We have a policy, yes?
See, I don't think that's a policy. It's kind of vague. When I say policy, I mean something firm and detailed with what constitutes a warning and how we notify that party, etc.
For example, once we have it in place, if we warn someone, I think they should get an email. The email would explain that this is an official warning and then the policy on warnings, suspensions and banning should be included so they are fully aware of what we're talking about.
What do you think B, C, and D are?
I think this is B. I dunno what C and D are yet.
