Dangit2019 said:
My problem personally is that by banning these threads, you really limit the number of topics that can be posted in fear of having to actively monitor them and keep the replies within the site rules.
One of the limitations of any forum is the population that contributes. Forum rules mean nothing to an empty forum, and conversely, any forum with an overly restrictive ruleset will find its users banned out or having abandoned ship. As such, any forum and its rules is dependent entirely on its population.
That means that in cases like that thread, wherein flames and argument become too frequent and discourse too minimal, it means the thread's toxicity level outweighs its discussion value. Which, however interesting the content may be, if it devolves into argument then the thread itself is already lost. Unfortunately, any thread is only as viable as the people posting in it.
I've actually locked a fair number of forum threads I've wanted to participate in. It sucks, but it's also kinda the point of rules to begin with.
Shadowstar38 said:
Why does it always look like Spider-bro is the only mod? Are the rest of them hiding? And what's with the spider obsession in the first place? Why is his avatar a woman?
Sky's a lady. And the rest of us are about. I personally tend to do most of my business in the Escapist IRC [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/chat], so you'll rarely find that channel without me in it. I'm on the forums from time to time, though.
Spidermod is superhuman in her speed though. I almost never see things she hasn't seen, and responded to, already.
The_Great_Galendo said:
I think it would be really nice if, rather than saying "User received a warning for this post", it said something like "User received a warning for this post for low content" or something like that. Just so other people know what mistakes to avoid.
There was a lot of discussion about this several months back, in several moderation threads, about including messages with warnings when things are unclear. Most mods will edit in comments about banjumpers or requested temporary bans. Several others speak for themselves, as you've mentioned, but a lot of it comes down to context or language as well.
Personally, get questions and messages from time to time asking for clarifications on warnings or instances of mod wrath. I don't really like to point fingers or cite specifics, but I'll never turn down the option to look over the post personally and cite what issues I see with it. Whether or not I'm the mod who wrathed, or what the reason was I can't say, but I'm more than happy to talk about how the rules can or cannot be applied to certain posts.
More than once, I've even recommended the poster appeals. It's never a bad idea to ask if you're confused. My inbox is always open.
Zachary Amaranth said:
I've managed this long with a total of two warnings. It's probably possible to go five years and however many posts I have without a single warning, but it's definitely possible to have a clean bill of health after a long time.
It really can't be too hard to avoid mod wrath.
It's often about tone and context, as well. Being inflammatory is so common in internet language, it's almost impossible to go through any thread without seeing something that could offend someone. To me, the difference is largely in intent. If people mean to be inflammatory, there's often very little wiggle room in the rules to not break something, somewhere. Even if it's just the "Don't Be a Jerk" subheading.
TheYellowCellPhone said:
Well, I have moderation qualms with the Sticky'd threads.
Might be a good question to pose to
[user]Nasrin[/user] or the Mod Team group. Although you can always supplement threads by bookmarking threads you find individually useful.
