bub is speaking about a specific sub-forum... the ME Forum. There are enhanced rules there. Here is the sticky that explains them:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/57330-martial-law-me-forum.html/
This is the discussion of this thread.
I'm going to take a chance and allow this discussion with the hope that it neither turns into mod bashing, nor attacks amongst the factions in the ME Forum. I would like ME Forum members to participate, of course, but anyone may. I would appreciate some solid feedback either on what bub is proposing, your own thoughts.
As a newbie, I appreciate the efforts of the moderators here. The last site I posted on was extremely chaotic, the management didn't care what happened on the boards, and there was no meaningful dialogue about issues like this. So, it's good to see the discussion happening and being taken seriously.
From my perspective, while the ME forum doesn't seem particularly civil, it does seem like a place where the moderation is trending toward censorship of content. To me this suggests that martial law, or whatever else has been tried, isn't working very well. Of course, part of that could be because I wasn't here to see it at its worst.
There are a few things I'd like to put in for consideration. The first is that we need an objective measure of how well any given set of rules is working. Whenever there's confusion about what a rule is or should be, I find it helpful to step back and ask why the rule is there in the first place. What is the purpose behind the policy? If you know the answer to that, you'll know how well the policy is working.
Second, no system of rules can ever substitute for good judgment on the part of the people making the calls. The rules can give guidance, set boundaries, and help maintain consistency, but in the end someone is going to be there deciding what things mean and how they should be handled in the context of a particular discussion. "Per se" rules like the ones some have suggested are tempting because they appear to remove the element of human fallibility. But in practice they often lead to absurd results because they don't make sense in context and don't encourage the referees to make carefully considered judgments.
Third, the moderators should be aware that different factions may have different ideas not just about the ME but also about what the underlying purposes of moderation are. I suspect this has something to do with why people on both sides often feel the moderation is unfair.
I would suggest that the purpose of the rules on a political website is to facilitate substantive debate, and that this is the only purpose. All the specific rules should be designed, and all the moderators' decisions should be made, with this is mind. The principle may seem obvious, but it has some implications that may not be so obvious. For example, the purpose of the rules is not to avoid hurt feelings. It's not to educate posters, e.g. about proper definitions and usages--they can do that for each other. It's not to suppress offensive opinions or police logical fallacies, which will always be part of any discussion.
Does this mean the mods should never take steps to avoid hurt feelings, clear up confusion, or eliminate dishonest argument? Not at all. What it means is that they should do everything in light of their primary purpose. They should deal with all these problems to the extent that they interfere with the exchange of ideas...and only to that extent.
Others may disagree about what the purpose of the rules should be. This is my two cents. The mods should come to an agreement on it and work from there, being aware that their decision is going to affect how fair people perceive the moderation to be and that it will affect different people in different ways. For example, here's a dynamic that I think is common. Poster A is someone like me who primarily values free, open debate. Poster B is someone who puts more value on suppressing what they see as offensive speech. Poster A gets warned and gets upset, so naturally he points out other instances where he thinks B got away with worse. The mods respond that if you have a problem with a post you should report it and they'll do their best to handle it. They feel they're being as fair as they can, but A feels that's no help at all because he has no interest in reporting or suppressing B's speech. He only brought it up to gain leeway for himself.
This comes down to different understandings of the reasons behind the rules. If and when a consistent philosophy is adopted, it stands to reason that not everyone will be equally pleased with it. Therefore, uniform acceptance by all factions probably shouldn't be the standard by which the policies are judged. The mods don't have to (and shouldn't) choose between the Israelis and the Pallies. But I think they should articulate the basic principles of moderation in more detail, if only among themselves, and try not to let secondary concerns get in the way too much.
