I am creating this post to answer some issues raised in the Discussion on Site Focus thread which pertain to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RJWood, Discussion on Site Focus Sometimes a moderator has to step in and make sure a resolution or agreement between the two parties occurs, otherwise it's fruitless to let people argue constantly. Moderators have to have some wisdom |
I agree with this point. You cannot set rules for every eventuality. Moderators will have to use their judgement to some extent. However, moderators can always ask advice from other moderators or admins. Also as members they are subject to the same rules and guidelines. By this I mean a member can bring a dispute with a moderator or admin to the same conflict resolution procedure as they would with any other member.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charbucks, Discussion on Site Focus What if the mods just don't take action until a post is reported? I don't know how often that happens, but I know I've never done it. I agree with Dave though, I think it's better to let the argument run its course rather than lock it down. What's the point of a discussion forum if we're not allowed to discuss? |
I wholeheartedly agree. The aim of this is not to impose more rules but rather to create a set of rules that are conducive to free discussion. I would like to see a situation where members are not banned for their posts regardless of how poorly they express their views. Every effort needs to be made to facilitate the resolution of conflicts when they arise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big Dave, A site-wide official definition of "hijacking" has to be agreed upon. If a rule were just to say:
"Hijacking any thread is disallowed. If any thread is hijacked, it will be locked. Repeat offenders will be punished." |
This has been mentioned in this thread already and I would welcome any and all suggestions on how this could be phrased.
