> Jeremy, > > You are responding to my comments, Tony, Rather than Marks.
Doh! My apologies, I mistyped but had of course realised that it was you! The fact is that we’ve had moderators quietly moderating the group since 2005, and I don’t think we’ve run into any problems in terms of lightness of touch. The idea of expanding the pool of operators is to enable us to do more fairly specific things, like operating a practical, fair and transparent system for deciding which threads get pinned. Best wishes Jeremy > > If there must be moderators I recommend as soft touch as much as possible. > > I think it’s more about being consistent, transparent and respectful. > Effective moderation should be all but invisible. > > That is in effect a "soft touch", encourage not enforce. > Transparent also means always inform the person of an action and Ideally ask > them to do it (which they learn from) > > The exception to invisible is you can leave the request to do differently in > the treads so others learn from them. > > > > As I said before if you take away responsibility people tend to be less > > responsible. > > I have a sense you’re getting at something here. If you’re talking about the > recent change to moderation permissions, I think it’s clear that that was a > mistake, but the main observation is that it caused confusion for users, and > that’s why I changed it as soon as I discovered the problem. > > No specific reference here, more a philosophical approach. I have seen forums > moderation grow until no one is happy and it's an admin nightmare. Leave it > open and promote behaviour change, not settings, where ever possible. > > > > If we have a team of moderators I suggest an independent private group so > > in rare occasions of issues and contention it can be discussed offline a > > little more frankly without accidentally offending people. > > I’d much, much prefer not to have a private group. Transparency and openness > are critical, we can’t sacrifice them to avoid accidentally offending people; > we do that by being respectful and putting ourselves in the other persons > shoes. > > You choose, but my experience suggests this would allow "moderators" to ask > questions or resolve differences between themselves without airing it > unnecessarily. Perhaps an open Discus group or something. As soon as you have > more than one moderator, better than expecting one to do it all, a unified > approach needs to be negotiated. Debating this in the primary forum just > confuses people if they search the forum to find out what "behaviour" is > expected. > > > > Such a team should ultimately publish guidelines rather than laws. The more > > black and white the rules, the more complex rules need to be to avoid > > unforscean consequences or freeze out creative collaboration. > > What would be the distinction between a guideline and a law? > > A guide line says "please do not pin posts unless they are of a broad > community interest and ensure you remove pins in a timely manner, if not an > administrator may unpin it. > > A Law says - you shall not pin posts and we won't allow you. > > Regards > Tony > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TiddlyWiki" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b316aaac-332c-43a3-9988-544c29707064%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b316aaac-332c-43a3-9988-544c29707064%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/DA3B9437-FFCF-41C4-9352-57EB4E59203C%40gmail.com.
