Enas:
I was planning to open a discussion about moderation myself but i wasnt super motivated. Now that i see one, i should intervene before it goes horribly wrong.
If we are going to have a discussion about moderation, which i hope this is one, we first need to actually understand clearly what moderation is in the first place and agree on a single definition. We can, and we should debate what definition we should proceed with, that is something that needs to happen. Thats because we cannot have any discussion, with which we will reach a helpfull logical conclusion, if Everyone's definitions contradict each other. I think a good way to do this would be to define what are the needs of a community that moderation is an attempt to satisfy, from which we can easily figure out what should the goals of moderation be, and then we can finally figure out how FantasyFeeder should be moderated, so that these goals will be achieved. I think this is a good outline of what we should be really doing, so i would like us to (hopefully) proceeded with that,unless someone can come up with a better idea.
So, what is everyone's thesis on the first question "What are the needs of this community that moderation ought to cover"? (Lets put the Hegelian dialectic to work, and see what are the good points that people bring up, and use those to synthesize a more developed thesis!)
Munchies:
Enas ... there is a literal moderator in this thread. She's the site owner's right-hand woman. Right now, all she is asking for are examples for better praxis. She doesn't need you to tell her how to perform debate.
This is akin to reading a bunch of books about surgical practice and telling a surgeon how to do their job.
All that said, if I am blunt, this is an example of what Morbidly is talking about.
Enas:
I was refering to everybody. I think pluralism is needed here more than anything.
There is also a long debate to be held on what moderation should be in the first place. Im here to talk about that, not to instruct. That is also why i didnt express my thesis on it, i dont have one. The best i can do is see problems in other people's thesis. Which is gonna be helpfull later on, hopefully.
Munchies:
Aaaaand this is what Morbidly was talking about, C00kie. Stuff like this will happen. Some people will throw in their two cents, and most will try to move on to the original topic. But you have some people who just refuse to read the room.
Eventually, the mods will lock the thread. If they deem it worth saving, they will delete all the comments that aren't about the original topic—even the ones that criticize the people who derailed the topic—and then reopen the thread with instructions to stay on topic.
This can leave the people pushing back against the person/people who pushed back against the derailer - even the gentle, respectful ones - with a bad taste in their mouths.
What counts as derailment though? Sometimes it is necesary to talk about a relevant but different, than the original, topic in order to understand the original one. In a natural conversation that happens often and its not a bad thing. Why is this always treated as a derailment here?
