I'd also say it should extend to everything it can. Including thread, thread post, blog, and blog comment deletions where ever possible. Afraid I don't know if it is with blogs and blog comments. If it's not, at least an apology for doing it instead of sweeping it under the rug. Also reversal of infractions and bans that shouldn't have happened. Besides a few rare cases, I haven't seen much more than reducing ban times even if the ban was never warranted.An issue that was briefly touched on previously, but hasn't really been given much attention is that of unlocking previously locked threads. This has long been an issue, but more recently has become more apparent again. Essentially, the issue is that of a thread being locked for some reason, and subsequently it is shown that the reason for the thread lock is either invalid, or the thread could - after some time interval - be unlocked (e.g., in the case of, say, an MD thread getting heated, a thread could be unlocked after a one week cool off period). If it can be demonstrated that a locked thread need no longer be locked, it should be unlocked.
This of course would not apply to all locked threads, thus the stipulation of only unlocking threads that can be shown to be invalidly locked, or that no longer need to be locked because there has been a period of time passed and the issue that caused the lock is died down. Thus, I suggest a policy of unlocking threads that were locked preemptively, or for a similar reason that has been shown to not be valid, and threads that have been locked for a period of time and in which there has been a time for the heated discussion to subside. Implementation of this policy would allow more chance for continued discussion in threads that may become heated, and also provide a means to restore a thread that has been preemptively or otherwise invalidly locked.
While we're on the topic of excessiveness, I think we should look at infractions. First of all, there's some that are not really necessary or should be changed:
- Failure to Use Spoiler Tag to Hide Spoiler Content (0 points)
You DO NOT need an infraction to exist as a warning for something that is not a big deal. Just talk to them one-on-one when they do it. Don't use this waste of an infraction.
- Poor Posting Quality (2 points)
Really? It shouldn't be punishable to be a bad poster. If something is really bad, you can talk to them. But being bad at it shouldn't be punished like that.
- Posting Off-Topic (3 points)
While yes this can be a problem with threads, what is "off topic" is very subjective and usually is up to the discretion of the mod. It's badly abusable.
- Mini-Modding (3 points)
This one just screams of egomania. What's the big deal about pointing out things? It takes workload off the mods. The only reason for this to exist is ego, or a sadistic need to punish people for bypassing authority. It shouldn't be there.
- Signature Rule Violation (3 points)
This is not really a big deal. Signatures get huge now anyway and mods don't seem to mind too much. And if a signature is a problem, so what? If it's really bothersome, talk to them about it. Anything legitimately very bad with a signature, like content or something, would more appropriately fall under another infraction.
- Inappropriate Use of Blogs (3 points)
Anything of worth in this infraction is redundant because it overlaps other infractions. And some things, like repeated blog postings, no one seems to care about anyway.
- Inappropriate Language 1st Degree (6 points), and 2nd Degree (3 points)
Okay, you know how much I am against censorship. And I know I'm never going to convince you to drop it completely. So... compromise? I think it's a bit excessive to have two variations. I think they should be merged into one with just three points and call it good.
- Inappropriate User Profile (3 points):
Same with blogs. Anything worth keeping in this category is redundant because other infractions cover it. And the rest is not a big deal.
- Insulting/Flaming Other Members 1st Degree (15 points), 2nd Degree (10 points), 3rd Degree (5 points)
This one I think... needs to be renamed. Attacking other users maybe? Something less ambiguous. Because currently this one is being applied to anyone that just disagrees with someone else and is going way too far. But other than that that's my only issue with this one. Maybe something pointing out personal attacks that continue after being warned.
- Trolling 1st Degree (15 points), 2nd Degree (8 points)
Similar issue as with the last one, I think this gets abused badly. And it also should be specified that is a last resort. And I think it should be made mandatory that the mods discuss issuing it and coming to a consensus before applying it.
Also... I think the name change limit should be removed. Come on, we all know that it is not enforced or even remembered. If someone asks for one too much, is it that hard to say no? It should be left up to best judgement instead of a hard limit (which is completely ignored anyway).
Hmm... what else. The stuff about necromancy should be completely removed. It is not, and never has been a legitimate problem and it shouldn't even be mentioned. No one cares if a thread is old and is revived. It's notm and never has been an issue in any reality.
Also a clarification on how long infractions last? I think the announcement said it was extended, but that announcement is expired and gone and the rule page just says a month. I think it should only be a month. Two if you think it really has to be longer. I recall.... six months? I might be mistake. Or was it a year? Either of those numbers are way too long though. A lot can change in six months.
One last thing, the part about tolerating beliefs should be removed. I get that there is good intentions, but... it is just WAY too problematic to work in practice. When you go out and use mod authority to protect one side's beliefs from being insulted, untolerated, etc. You are in fact being insulting and intolerant of the other side's beliefs. You can't just not offend everyone. It should be changed to being respectful to the person. But understanding that not everyone is going to agree and have the same beliefs so you should not assume people are being hostile if they are being critical of your beliefs. Because you're doing the exact thing you accused them of when you try to get them in trouble for it. You're telling them that your beliefs are more important than theirs. When someone says they don't agree with your beliefs, and you feel offended by that, keep in mind that they are probably just as offended by what your beliefs contain. So don't just think about yourself. It is okay to feel offended if someone does not agree with you. But do not assume that automatically means they're trying to attack you. Be mindful of their own feelings and not just your own.
Well you get the idea. A lot of the problems we have had relate to mods trying futilely to punish people for offending other people. You can't stop people from being offended. It just can't ever work. Everything offends someone, somewhere. You need some common sense and mutual respect instead of telling people to shut up if they don't agree with you.
And.... okay, I'll stop. I might have more later. But I'm going on too long as it is.