| My idea of moderation is: 1. Outline rules for a community, make them clear and understandable 2. Enforce those, and only those, rules. 3. If something objectionable happens, and the rules don't cover them but you think they should, then change the rules to how you see fit. 4. Handle the fallout of the rules changing. Steps 3 and 4 are where things mostly fall apart in communities. Personally, any time something happens which leads me to change rules for something, it's reactive and is the voice of the majority of people (not the loudest, the majority). Most people are happy that way. Disagreement is never a rule I'd have. I'd only make sure that people either have the tools to self-censor what they don't want to see, or tell them they might be happier going elsewhere. |
There are many discussions about rules being either clear or understandable, but usually not both.
> Enforce...
Oh. We "just" enforce it? You sure this mechanism will be both clear and understandable, and be enforced as intended?
> change the rules
Change the rules, in reaction to specific instances, while keeping them clear and understandable? This is why they're usually neither both clear and understandable and enforceable.
> Steps 3 and 4 are where things mostly fall apart in communities.
There is no community where this idea of moderation could hold true.