Not true.
And they were also free to not ask us to help them create new rules. You may not have noticed, but things change over time.
Which has nothing to do with what I said, nor the fact your statement was wrong. Contrary to your assertion, you do have recourse, regardless of whether a rule is rigidly defined or not.
So you are saying the term Troll has a random meaning based on the person saying it. This is a bad thing to base a rule upon.
Not surprisingly, that's not what I'm saying. That's one of your typical straw man arguments, willfully misrepresenting someone's actual words or positions so it's easier for you to attack or deflect. I'm saying "trolling" is broadly used to cover a multitude of bad behaviors. Some fall within the formal definition of "trolling", some do not, but all call out behaviors that negatively impact the community. There's nothing "random" about it.
So you want the word Troll to have a variable meaning based on the whims of each individual moderator. There is no need to have a no trolling rule then, since trolling can mean whatever the mods want it to mean.
More nonsense. I'm comfortable that the moderators understand what "trolling" means and are perfectly capable of exercising their own good judgment on whether someone is trolling or not.
A community doesn't need rules when everyone is acting together in good faith. When people act together to do the right things, rigid rules become an impediment (as any right-winger will happily point out in any anti-regulation thread). Rules become necessary when a community has troublemakers, people acting in bad faith, people who do not respect others. Which brings me back to my original point:
Correct, but you are naive if you think a Political forum will work together when the parties the people support do not.
That also has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, we would not need rules if people here were making a good faith effort to behave themselves. Unfortunately, we have a certain number of dedicated troublemakers. Thus we also have rules, and we have people being sanctioned for violating those rules.
My point was that it is the troublemakers -- the trolls, the shills, the people who regularly and intentionally use logical fallacies -- who have the most to fear from moderators. Those who behave themselves, who make a good faith effort to make a positive contribution to P&N, have little reason to be concerned about moderators making subjective decisions. You have a choice in the path you follow ... and the consequences that follow.
Let me make sure I understand. I am going to honestly summarize what I think you are saying:
You do not want the term Trolling or Troll to be defined so that the mods can use whatever meaning they want in order to moderate as they see fit. You believe a political form will work together unlike the parties they support.
Is that correct? If not, what did I get wrong?
I don't think the forum "working together" has anything to do with it. Some people will not behave. That is a fact of life in a forum like P&N. I think the moderators shouldn't have their hands tied with a bunch of red tape when they need to deal with those who misbehave. I am in favor of letting them exercise good judgment.
My view is that, in order for fair moderation to happen, everyone must know the rules.
You know the rules. Don't troll. Don't derail threads. Don't post misinformation. Don't lie. In short, behave yourself. It's really simple.
This includes the mods. To know the rules, one must define the rules clearly. Without a clear definition of the rules, the rules cannot be applied equally to all.
So? Welcome to life. If you believe rules are being applied against you unfairly, perhaps it's time for a little introspection. Everything the mods know about you comes from your comments on this forum. If those comments have caused them to perceive you as a troublemaker who deserves punishment, you should take a good, hard look at your behavior and figure out why that may be. I'll be happy to help if you're at a loss.
Like I said, the same reason we define the rules when laws are written.
I believe America's laws prove exactly what I'm talking about. How many times have we heard of miscreants avoiding prosecution because they did something that was clearly wrong yet wasn't technically illegal? Or maybe they did something that is illegal, but there is not quite enough evidence to convict (e.g., cannot prove intent). Rules fail because they are too rigid, because they cannot encompass every possible scenario. That's why people intent on poor behavior love sharply-defined rules. It means they can run rampant, they can exploit the loopholes, while moderators stand back with their hands tied.
As someone who's been in management for over 25 years, I know first hand how frustrating it is to deal with a troublemaker who loves to exploit the rulebook. I shouldn't have to, our employees are at-will and I don't have any unions to deal with. I do, however, have HR departments, which in large companies tend to love rules, hate risk, and dismiss concerns about productivity. It becomes a real pain in the butt. Fortunately, I get paid well to endure such frustration. Our moderators don't, which is why I don't want to throw more hurdles in front of them.
The other difference between laws and forum rules is laws have severe consequences. Consequently, we have extensive laws and legal processes to ensure innocent people aren't punished. The rights of the defendant are paramount because the consequences are severe.
There's no need for that in a social forum. If a moderator makes a mistake, you aren't imprisoned. You don't lose your livelihood or your property. You get a sanction, and unless you're waaaay over the line, that's it. If it was a mistake, and you are generally well-behaved, nothing else comes of it. You got chided, there's a note in your file, life goes on.
But even if you are a troublemaker, justly earning sanction after sanction, the consequences are minimal. You eventually lose posting privileges on this forum for a short time. That's it. It's frustrating if you want to be heard, maybe a bit embarrassing, but there's no material harm to you. That's why society needs extensive, well-defined laws, while P&N gets along just fine with a few general rules. You are at no risk of harm if a moderator makes a mistake.
