💡Other Limits on Mods\Admins

[Alexander Scamilton]

I want to start by saying I am not against administrators. This is just an honest suggestion to improve clarity and fairness for everyone. I am not trying to be a bother, I just want the community to work better for all members.

HEAR ME OUT, PLEASE, BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING!

I am proposing a User Bill of Rights because current moderation rules mostly apply to members while administrators have almost no restrictions. Most rules clearly define what users can or cannot do, but there are no clear limits on how admins can moderate, remove posts, or enforce rules. This imbalance can create confusion, inconsistency, and frustration.


I suggest this based on my own experiences with unclear enforcement:

• One of my posts was deleted for "arguing against a moderator." I only challenged the moderator because he wrongly claimed I had violated the rules, which I proved I did not. After my post was deleted, I could not even ask why because I had no way of knowing which admin removed it.
• Another post of mine was deleted for saying "WTF is that supposed to mean." The rules say no swearing, but I did not realize acronyms were included. Previously, another user had posted an image with a swear word and nothing happened to them.

These incidents show the need for transparency, accountability, and consistent enforcement. To address this, I propose the following User Bill of Rights

• Right to Clear Rules: Users should only be moderated for actions explicitly prohibited in the rulebook.
• Right to Explanation: Users should know exactly which rule was violated when moderated.
• Right to Transparency: The admin responsible for any moderation action should be identified.
• Right to Respectful Disagreement: Disagreeing with moderators, when done respectfully, should not be treated as a violation unless explicitly stated.
• Right to Consistent Enforcement: Rules should be applied uniformly across users, without selective interpretation.
• Right to Appeal or Clarification: Users should have a clear way to ask for clarification or appeal moderation decisions without fear of retaliation.

Implementing these rights would make moderation fair, predictable, and professional, and it would strengthen the community instead of weakening it.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

But of course...
Annatar was your real name, is it?
SPEAK!
You're the guy that claims that knows how to polish the rings? Right?

Let's stop pretending on who we are.
Do I ask too much?

Well I am Annatar and Annatar means, well, me.

 

[Eldacar]

I suggest this based on my own experiences with unclear enforcement:

• One of my posts was deleted for "arguing against a moderator." I only challenged the moderator because he wrongly claimed I had violated the rules, which I proved I did not. After my post was deleted, I could not even ask why because I had no way of knowing which admin removed it.
• Another post of mine was deleted for saying "WTF is that supposed to mean." The rules say no swearing, but I did not realize acronyms were included. Previously, another user had posted an image with a swear word and nothing happened to them.

These incidents show the need for transparency, accountability, and consistent enforcement. To address this, I propose the following User Bill of Rights

Before the discussion devolved a bit into a generalized debate about the principle of content moderation as a whole, this was the reason a Bill of Rights was proposed. Several members made a point, that they themselves feel treated fairly in here, to which I would count myself.

@Alexander Scamilton is this your strongest case to make about the supposed failings of the mods, that lets you put all this energy into this discussion? Yeah, you used swearing in a message? Why is nothing happening to other people that swore? Seemed like nobody took an issue, maybe yours was reported, and the others didn't. If you want to see all the other instances gone, report them. For how much of your message you tried to convey, was the WTF relevant? Rewrite it to "What is that supposed to mean?" And move on. Or make suggestions on what shouldn't count as swearing. That would be a specific solution for a specific problem that itself isn't really a major problem of content moderation.

Concerning the other instance you described: You are unhappy with the decision of a mod? Have you tried asking another moderator to help? I mean any step in your supposed Bill of Rights includes messaging a moderator. If you add a right to appeal how is that going to look like? You would have to message another mod somehow that you want a decision appealed. What was stopping you so far? Have you tried asking any random mod, or did you take the initial decision and were just angry about it?

We are discussing absolutely nothing here but some vague feeling of being mistreated.

 

[Ent]

Well, let's be even-handed here.
There is much to ponder well in @Alexander Scamilton;s 'bill of rights.' The issue of advising when an action is taken by a mod for example.
And we have discussed things regarding all the points made in the "bill".
We always work to take what is said as a "new input event" and pursue it to a clean perception free from prior biases etc., then work it to a proper perspective.

The issue is, our rules already cover all that the "bill" asks for, and we've made decisions on the hows, whens, and wheretofores. So this particular "Occurrence" stimulating our "Wonder" igniting our "Curiosity", and accepted as a "New Input Event" for processing into a clean perception has been processed. The steps from clean "perception" to a "proper perspective" can result in one of three things.

1. A brand new "perspective" indicating a need to jettison the old and adopt the new,
2. A revised perspective, modified to incorporate changes of merit.
3. A decision to make no changes at all. and keep the existing perspective as being appropriate to the need.

Now then:
Once we're through all this hubbub, there ARE some things Ent intends to speak to the mods specifically about for consideration. There are some potential adjustments we could make, that may be profitable.

But again, evaluating the existing rules against the "bill" indicates all the points are contained within the existing rules, except a couple we might or might not tighten.

Given the existing rules really incorporate all the points in the way previously considered appropriate, however, we're not in a hurry to dissect the points to see of some things handled a little differently might improve, or actually make more difficult, the investment.

SO... meanwhile, Ent will refer you back to the rule indicating if you see something you don't like, and want reviewed, PM a Mod about it and we'll cover it. This does NOT mean there will be change. It DOES mean it will be reviewed for its full potential.
This is how real "thinking" works.

(And again, if anyone wants to see Ent's "Growth Diagram" showing the 4 steps to a "New Input Event" to consider accepting, delaying, or dismissing, (which no one should ever do with any "occurrence" whatsoever), the 12 steps to a clean perception, and the 8 steps from the clean perception to a perspective (rather than an opinion, let me know. Ent will be happy to provide it.)

Now... shall we shut this discussion down, and give the Mods more time to review thoughtfully, get to clean perceptions, and check again for the impact on our perspectives?