Should there be "Consistent Moderation"

[Sopranos Republican]

What is your opinion of "consistent moderation?"

[opebo]

Of course not.  Tyranny by its very nature is more 'authentic' if a bit madcap and unpredictable - the colorful despot is far better than the grim bureaucrat.

[Vosem]

As I understand it, this phrase is being used to describe those who want opebo banned or curtailed. Since I am opposed to this (for the same reason that I opposed the banning of jmfcst back in the day, even though I was not on common ideological ground with jmfcst either -- I don't think posters who have spent years on Atlas and contributed to the community should be banned without some really good overwhelming reason, that I can't see in either case), I voted 'no'.

[Holmes]

Every situation is different. It's impossible to be consistent.

[Joe Republic]

I've always been consistent in my persecution of awful posters, if that helps.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Every situation is different. It's impossible to be consistent.

You can have consistent principles.

[Sopranos Republican]

No one seems to understand the difference between consistent moderation, and "consistent moderation."

[Ban my account ffs!]

Get rid of Inks and Torie... don't replace them.  Just get rid of them.  Be consistent in deleting offensive reported posts... but abandon the infraction system except for instasilences on spambots.

Also, crack down on excessive reporting.

That'd be consistent enough for me.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Get rid of Inks and Torie... don't replace them.  Just get rid of them. 

[Mr. Morden]

"Consistent moderation" will never happen unless/until either Dave or Nym get more authoritarian.  In the current system, the individual mods freely moderate with very different moderating philosophies and styles, and there's no apparent mechanism to enforce consistency.

[PJ]

Moderating consistently is a far away dream about as likely as congress being progressive consistently.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think that older posters should be given more leeway than newer ones, so no.

[opebo]

Get rid of Inks and Torie... don't replace them.  Just get rid of them. 

[minionofmidas]

Dave has hardly been consistent in his direct involvements in the moderation of the site, and thus those calling for it are clearly going against Dave's wishes for the forum and should either drop it or feel free to leave.

[anvi]

"Consistent moderation" will never happen unless/until either Dave or Nym get more authoritarian.  In the current system, the individual mods freely moderate with very different moderating philosophies and styles, and there's no apparent mechanism to enforce consistency.

I do think that, for the most part, the moderators serve the community well.  But couldn't the mods have a conversation and agree, or vote on and agree on the results to implement, on at least a few standards that were consistent with Dave's wishes?  If not, then the reasons for which threads may be deleted and posters infracted or banned would remain highly variable...even risking being arbitrary and "favoritist."  Just reacting to instances and having a conversation about each one of them and then coming to different conclusions based on where the consensus happens to fall on any given day strikes me as slightly inefficient and more likely to cause continued flamewars on the forum, and the latter makes things more unpleasant here.  I realize of course that there will always be unique problems associated with each controversial instance on the forum, and individual moderators are not going to do everything the same way all the time.  But coming up with clear standards that apply for everyone regarding sexual content and what merits different degrees of infraction, and when, might not be that difficult and might reduce either the number or the severity of at least some of the controversies here.   

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"Consistent moderation" will never happen unless/until either Dave or Nym get more authoritarian.  In the current system, the individual mods freely moderate with very different moderating philosophies and styles, and there's no apparent mechanism to enforce consistency.

Depends on what we understand by a "consistent moderation". Obviously the approach varies by individual mods', but I'd wish each of them would apply the rules indiscriminately on his board.

[Mr. Morden]

"Consistent moderation" will never happen unless/until either Dave or Nym get more authoritarian.  In the current system, the individual mods freely moderate with very different moderating philosophies and styles, and there's no apparent mechanism to enforce consistency.

I do think that, for the most part, the moderators serve the community well.  But couldn't the mods have a conversation and agree, or vote on and agree on the results to implement, on at least a few standards that were consistent with Dave's wishes?  If not, then the reasons for which threads may be deleted and posters infracted or banned would remain highly variable...even risking being arbitrary and "favoritist."  Just reacting to instances and having a conversation about each one of them and then coming to different conclusions based on where the consensus happens to fall on any given day strikes me as slightly inefficient and more likely to cause continued flamewars on the forum, and the latter makes things more unpleasant here.  I realize of course that there will always be unique problems associated with each controversial instance on the forum, and individual moderators are not going to do everything the same way all the time.  But coming up with clear standards that apply for everyone regarding sexual content and what merits different degrees of infraction, and when, might not be that difficult and might reduce either the number or the severity of at least some of the controversies here.   

We do discuss a lot of these things (though less so now than we used to), but everyone has their say, and then the conversation drifts, and there's no one who then says "OK, here's the consensus decision, and this is what we'll do from now on."  That's what I mean by consistency not being achievable unless Dave or Nym get more authoritarian.  You can discuss these things and give everyone their say.  But then at the end of the conversation, *someone* with authority has to step in and say, "OK, based on what was discussed, here's how we'll deal with this from now on."

[anvi]

Can't the individual mods put different simple proposals, consistent with Dave's standards, together, discuss them, see if you can synthesize something, and then just see which one in the end gets a majority vote and then apply that one?

[muon2]

Can't the individual mods put different simple proposals, consistent with Dave's standards, together, discuss them, see if you can synthesize something, and then just see which one in the end gets a majority vote and then apply that one?

It seems to me that the issues that get forum-level attention, are precisely those that involve unique aspects. Any synthesis would likely be one-of-a-kind. That said, there are times where there is consensus through mod cave comments about the action taken. The barfbag ban is a recent example that involved considerable discussion among mods.

[© tweed]

'equals before the law' is always a fiction and should absolutely not be policy on a message board.  as Xahar said,

I think that older posters should be given more leeway than newer ones, so no.

[opebo]

'equals before the law' is always a fiction and should absolutely not be policy on a message board.  as Xahar said,

I think that older posters should be given more leeway than newer ones, so no.

Aside from mere seniority, genius should be recognized.

[WalterMitty]

i think most moderators are okay.  there are two horribles.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think that older posters should be given more leeway than newer ones, so no.

Is there actually any rational argument in favor of such discrimination? I never understood why it is so popular.

[Oak Hills]

I think that older posters should be given more leeway than newer ones, so no.

Why?

That is an insane and idiotic position.

[PJ]

Using forum seniority as a moderating policy is laughable.