Forum Regarding Politics, the Chat, etc.

[Ayzek]

This is probably all going to just be a recap of what I said to Flo over chat, but I'll pitch my feelings anyway. Since I wrote the thing, this'll probably just be my feelings on how things have panned out so far.

First, regarding the rules themselves, all I can really say is that they're working as intended: with some and certain exceptions, what I see of the chat upon logging in is a drastic reduction in pointless bullshit arguments clouding more substantive discussion, and a corresponding increase in healthy and welcome talks on personal and forum matters. A return to Law and Order was the intent, and a return to Law and Order was the outcome. Obviously those who have rules enforced against them will not be happy about it, and so that is why I established clear guidelines for people to follow in the rules. Section 6 even has an entire process on how to have complaints addressed, as well as recommendations on what to do if your complaint is with a member of the administration. Good job me; I really am amazing.

Of course that brings me to enforcement matters, where I think things are the weakest. I don't believe the answer is either more strict or more lax enforcement, but consistent enforcement. For example, I have noticed a pattern where action is only taken or something is only said when the topic is about US or British politics, and often when it's something the person "reporting" the infringement quite clearly does not like either the tone or substance of what was said...which is understandable, since people will be people and people tend to more reliably be alerted to something being "wrong" when they don't agree/like it. It happens.

But, how do we make it not happen? Consistency of enforcement is pretty difficult across 3 admins, 2 mods, and 2 discord staff, as everyone has an idea of what good enforcement looks like: as an example, some like myself might be more hands-off until an actual problem/conflict arises, while others are more proactive and seek to head-off potential problems before the drama even begins. Both have their downsides - stepping in too late causes strife between members, while stepping in too early causes friction between members and admins - but I think the clear answer to the conundrum is that, regardless of the policy, community administration needs to have a uniform yard stick for when and how enforcement is brought. I don't believe enforcement necessarily belongs in the rules themselves, but it does at the least need to be a consensus between the admins, and that members need to know about it.

I don't doubt we'll still have problems of enforcement because I know we'll either not see something go down or not see it as something when someone else does, but as long as we have that public consensus on when the rules get applied (and people know about it), then we'll at least be able to have that kind of discussion without with less crying.

We should coordinate sometime. I mean, if we haven't already, which is an assertion that I will neither confirm or deny.