[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftypol.org)

Discussions, querries, feedback and complaints about the site and its administration.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/
/edu/ want your help building a library! >>>/edu/7066
New /roulette/ topic: /AK-47/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.
New board /draw/


File: 1628468575436.jpg (261.48 KB, 1435x1616, 1627323564790.jpg)

 No.8627

The problem with the site is that the staff believe they are above the rules, and this is because the rules are up to personal interpretation. The staff believe they are a superior clique above the userbase, and that this site should be moderated according to their will. In order to stop another staff chimp out you need to engage in a different set of policies or else this shit will happen again every now and then.

1.- Purge them every four-six months. Under no circumstances should the staff stay in power for over four-six months. This just causes them to power trip eternally. Create a better set of rules and make the staff police the site according to those policies, not according to personal interpretation.

2. They should be held accountable by the userbase, every ban should display who gave the user a ban and people should be allowed to discuss bans. That way people will be able to notice if a staff member is power tripping and can demand action against this person.

3.- The reason for a ban shouldn't be up to personal interpretation, the staff member should point out which rule the poster broke and it should be displayed in the ban notice.

4.- Do away with shitposts. At this point in time it is well known that certain shitposts are common occurance, create a general for those topics in /b/ and any post about these topics should be deleted and the poster should be directed there, some examples of these cyclical generals could be:
- The police question
- The nation/ethnicity question
- The religious question
- The race/IQ question
- Anything related to sexuality and gender
Etc.

The OP of these generals should have a document that states the position of the site on these topics, as well as positions that are bannable offenses. For example, arguing that a certain race has a lower IQ is reactionary and this a bannable offense, and this would be stated in the document.

The community can redact different set of rules and then the community can decide which of then are ought to be inplemented

 No.8629

Thanks for the information!

 No.8630

>>8627
>Create a better set of rules and make the staff police the site according to those policies, not according to personal interpretation.
This never works. There is always a degree of discretion involved in these kinds of things. Far better to have appropriate contact between mods and the userbase (and here I would again emphasize the importance of a thread on-site, rather than a Matrix chat or whatever) so that where bans that users object to are handed out or whatever, users can discuss back and forth with the moderation team. That gives far more flexibility while still ensuring accountability. Trying to stick rigidly to rigidly written rules just results in rules lawyering even in cases where the userbase will go "yes, you're a cunt and should be banned" but may disagree, for example, if you should be banned for this rule or that rule, or if a new rule should be created.

Proposals 2 onwards are fine and even good, however. (Yes, even the ones about having to name a specific rule that someone's been banned for! Although mods will apply their interpretation in making the ban, making them give a reason helps users to see the moderator's reasoning when they give feedback on the matter.)

 No.8632

>>8630
The current set of rules is incredibly limited when it comes to banning users, which is why the staff start thinking that they should ban people according to their personal interpretation of them

 No.8634

>>8627
>1
Logistically infeasible.
>2
This is already the case.
>3
Good luck writing specific rules, I'm sure you can do better than every human society that has tried and failed to do so in the past 10000 years. In reality, we do not need iron clad rules as long as there exists an appeal process which in theory, already exists (meta/element chat).
>4
Sure why not

 No.8640

>>8634
How is it infeasible? People can learn to moderate this site in an hour, it isn't rocket science.

 No.8647

did some people actually take the joke imageboard cultural revolution proposal seriously?allendeAllende

 No.8648

>>8647
Humor on /leftypol/ is no laughing matter.

 No.8656

Agree with everything but point 4, these questions are popular because they are important and we shouldn't punish users, especially new ones for talking about them.

 No.9997

>>8648
That's true, there is a distinct no fun allowed atmosphere here

 No.10013

>>9997
FUN IS COUNTEREVOLUTIONARY


Unique IPs: 3

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]