Firstly, I obviously don't speak for the administration of the site directly, and as such the below isn't necessarily site policy. Obviously, I believe it should be.
If one more person bitches about the site being corrupt (in a public forum, without some reasonable measure of proof), they will face consequences. Shit is getting old.
Now, to the topic at hand:
Zombie said:
Compare a "not nice" to a commentary such as "you have violated rule <X> of the site by stating sentence <Y> in thread <Z>. Please refrain from violating rule <X> with actions such as <A>, <B> or <C." Imo, the latter does portray an aura of proper insight, professionalism and surveillance, leaving a smaller factor of bias or unsatisfaction to persist.
Here Zombie raises what the issue of the thread is. My issue lies not in the fact it would be too much effort to include this message, because it would be trivial to include this level of information. My concerns are twofold:
- It won't work. The kind of people who are having problems with understanding why they got negative reputation, will not be able conceptualize it any better if we quote rules directely. As an example, let's look at these rules: does quoting "Even though race and other personal details can be masked in this environment, do not post racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory messages. make the message so much clearer than saying "Don't be racist.", or even "Don't". It is my assumption that a user who is capable of/interested in change is also capable of realizing what they did wrong, or in exceptionally confusing cases, seeking clarification. Our rule on flaming links to Wikipedia. Is that really more clear than a message a moderator might leave?
- So much of what we do is up to moderator discretion, and dependent on factors that are difficult to lay down in a readable and understandable rule set. This is why moderators are selected. We need people moderating whom Ralle feels are capable of enforcing the rules in a reasonable manner. We don't have the man or will power to set up a judicial system as complex as you would see implemented in the physical world because let's face it: it matters less.
I feel the
proper way to approach an occurrence of unclear messages would be to a) contact the moderator in question, and ask them (POLITELY) to explain their justification. If this then fails, you move to plan b) POST IN ADMIN CONTACT/PM AN ADMIN. If this fails after a week or so, PM me and I'll look into the status of your thread for you. Or ask someone else. Point it out to some staff in chat (via WHISPERS).
Zombie again said:
If you discussed a topic similar to this in ML, it obviously means the problem is existent.
Firstly, what happens in ML stays in ML. However given that it was already introduced, it was resolved to be a non-issue there, but something to keep an eye on. Moderators are encouraged to be helpful. But to speak directly to your logic, no that isn't true. Simply because certain users feel repressed doesn't mean they actually are.
for creating pointless threads that is an obvious troll.
wait -what?
)
