Rules vs. Self-Governance on Forums

[Shawn Gossman]

Should forum admins enforce strict rules, or let communities self-moderate?

Which strategy works better for long-term growth?

 

[~ True Legend ~]

I want to be somewhere where I am free to express my views without personal attacks.

Let’s have a no hate speech and “attack the view, not the poster” rule in order to promote an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere where debates are held respectfully

 

[Shawn Gossman]

I want to be somewhere where I am free to express my views without personal attacks.

Let’s have a no hate speech and “attack the view, not the poster” rule in order to promote an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere where debates are held respectfully

I think some rules are needed.

I'll let a lot of things go without action, but some rules are needed to ensure everyone can enjoy the community.

 

[~ True Legend ~]

I think some rules are needed.

I'll let a lot of things go without action, but some rules are needed to ensure everyone can enjoy the community.

Illegal content must be removed to protect the forum, for example.

What kinda stuff would you let slide without action?

 

[AWS]

I have always leaned on self moderation overseen by good moderators. Everyone once in awhile a troublemaker will come by. That's when staff can step in.

 

[Shawn Gossman]

Illegal content must be removed to protect the forum, for example.

What kinda stuff would you let slide without action?

Spam and anything illegal does have to go, for sure!

But people going off topic or something small like that is stuff I let go.

 

[~ True Legend ~]

Spam and anything illegal does have to go, for sure!

But people going off topic or something small like that is stuff I let go.

What about personal attacks?
Like, if a member called you a jerk for example?
I came across a post where you banned someone who publicly wished ill on you - possibly a troll or a psychopath but unpleasant regardless of the readon

 

[Shawn Gossman]

What about personal attacks?
Like, if a member called you a jerk for example?
I came across a post where you banned someone who publicly wished ill on you - possibly a troll or a psychopath but unpleasant regardless of the readon

People who are constantly negative get banned. I can't stand those people and if I can release them from my space, I will. If on another forum, I'll use the ignore feature.

But if Person-A was a jerk to Person-B and Person-B called them a jerk for it, I don't think that's a personal attack. If Person-B said "Shut up jerk or I'll track you down and kill you" then we have an issue, LOL.

 

[~ True Legend ~]

No one wants to be around negative ppl tbf but ppl do change. I was negative and toxic to those around me at one point in my life.

 

[JoelR]

I've yet to see a forum be truly self moderating. Would love to see a real example

At the end of the day, the forum is hosted and paid by someone. And that someone is the one who gets to make and enforce the rules.

 

[Shawn Gossman]

No one wants to be around negative ppl tbf but ppl do change. I was negative and toxic to those around me at one point in my life.

I think we all have been that way at some point.

 

[~ True Legend ~]

I think we all have been that way at some point.

Yeah so my question is - do you have the patience to offer one a second chance, especially if it’s been a ling time and the person has offered a sincere apology and made many positive contributions elsewhere?

That’s not to say your original decision wasn’t justified - this is about extending an olive branch. Is this something you’d consider?

 

[Wayne]

In the beginning I had a very hands off approach. Then on a political forum I had in he early 2010’s, a couple users went from constant, silly negativity to posting literal neo-nazi propaganda. They were banned immediately.

Ever since then, people get one warning. On the second strike…banned. No one needs that nonsense.