iansjack wrote:
But the problem is that a person's technical contribution is the root of the disagreement here.
No, I don't think that's true. Technical statements might be controversial but they should not be moderated. If I claim that 1+2=5, that's within my right. I am wrong but I should not punished for my ignorance. However, if I state "1+2=5 and the reason why you cannot believe this is that you are all pathetic apes", the latter part of that sentence certainly should be moderated.
iansjack wrote:
Korona wrote:
Moderation actions should be publicly logged. Moderators should never moderate people in discussions that they participate in.
That's a great theory. But history shows that a rogue moderator can easily circumvent such restrictions.
That is because the system was implemented poorly. There are technical and social ways to prevent that from happening. Many modern forums offer the possibility to have a public audit log. Socially, this issue can be prevented by having multiple active moderators who can veto and/or override decisions by consensus.
iansjack wrote:
This is all an unnecessary discussion, IMO. If I have a problem with someone in real life I don't need a third party to deal with it for me. Contrary to what you say, I am an adult and I am quite capable of looking after myself when it comes to disagreements.
I do not doubt that anyone on this forum is an adult or that they can handle themselves in real life. In fact, that's quite a strange argument. In real life, you do not have an ignore button (which is what you advocate for online?). In real life, I defend my projects just like I do on this forum. If you walk away and ignore your opponent in a public discussion round, that will rarely be considered as a strength.
About the authority: moderators should not act as virtual gods and decide for themselves what acceptable content is.
The community itself should define acceptable content and moderators should merely execute the community's will. I am all for holding moderators accountable. Make moderation decisions public. When posts are censored or removed, make a public log entry that still contains the offending content. Define a process to appeal in case of moderation issues. Define a process for the community to define what content is acceptable and to override moderator decisions.
This is what is done in real life all the time! Discussions
are moderated in real life, whether its through peer pressure, through an explicit moderator for public talks and discussion rounds, or through some authority (like a judge in a court room, a supervisor in a meeting, a president of a parliament, etc).
I strongly disagree with the assertion "we have no moderation at all XOR moderators are virtual gods and censorship cannot be controlled". Back in the days (before Brendan became the effective authority of this forum), we
did have a working moderation team. When I joined in 2007, this forum was a welcoming place. We had well-moderated discussion without censorship, mostly because we
did have multiple active moderators (while these days, only klange seems to visit the forum at all). Heck, that was even the case when Combuster was still active. Why cannot we go back to that state? Why does Brendan's failure still have to impact this forum negatively years after he was banned? We certainly have to learn lessons about accountability from Brendan's case but extracting that moderation is inherently bad is misguided.
I don't have a strong opinion about the validity of this poll but I do believe that meta discussions about the state of the community are absolutely necessary and reasonable.