this comes from partway through the "Is Countertrolling a Troll the Answer" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33029.0) thread, which i only made it about halfway through before my brain short-circuited.
at one point in the thread, though, there was a note that suggestions for better moderation are welcome. if the below is already standard procedure, or if someone else has already offered the below, my bad.
from another (near-zombified, by this point) board i help to moderate, the general consensus among the mods and admins was to have a private discussion on the moderation board if a particular user was trending problematic but still technically following the rules. the user would get a private warning from the admin that there had been the least apparent friction with. if that failed, and if the admins all agreed (with mod input welcome in the discussion), the user would be banned.
the concern about not violating any specific rules was covered by a catch-all rule indicating that repeated irritating behavior could earn a ban. since a private warning was always offered before taking that step, the bans that DID follow such a warning were generally uncontested.
side note, thanks to all the mods/admins who volunteer their sanity time to keep the boards more enjoyable for all.
There is a board that is invisible to regular forum users that moderators can talk in. In addition, the user was warned and at one point needed mod approval to post.
That said, the rules don't need to be perfectly objective like a state law would read. It's the spirit that should matter, not the letter.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2023, 07:15:48 AM
There is a board that is invisible to regular forum users that moderators can talk in. In addition, the user was warned and at one point needed mod approval to post.
i assumed the former and knew the latter from the thread.
Quote from: 1
That said, the rules don't need to be perfectly objective like a state law would read. It's the spirit that should matter, not the letter.
precisely. my primary point was that as long as the admins/mods discuss each situation and are in agreement, then there's a low chance of it becoming (or being perceived as) "absolute power corrupting absolutely" as was expressed to be a concern.