Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
I think any discussion of moderation on the internet should come with an acknowledgement that its a very difficult thing to take on. People are going to be mad at you no matter what decisions you make. Someone will say you are weak and ineffective while someone else is saying you are a pathological control freak. People will always find ways to circumvent any barriers to behaviors you want to discourage.
I think your best bet is to decide where the line is that doesn't get crossed on your watch and be as consistent as you can about it. Be as relaxed or as strict as you want, but the main thing is to be consistent. Of course people will constantly find fault with your decisions and actions, but don't let that sway you. They are perfectly free to make their own communities and their own rules. Good luck.
I disagree. From my experience moderating on reddit, it's only difficult if you either a) simply have too large a community for the number of mods, or b) don't have a single molecule of principle in your body and thus have no goal for moderation. The first is fairly easily remedied by finding people you trust to help. The latter is just a matter of growing a fucking spine. If you moderate on principle, you aren't going to give a fuck if people disapprove.
I should have said any discussion of good moderation. Good moderation is difficult.
For the sake of brevity I didn't expand on all the things that make good moderation difficult, but here is a misconception to address: difficulty arises if one has no principles, and the simple solution is to grow a fucking spine.
OP certainly has principles, so much so that he seems willing to make blanket moral judgements about people regardless of circumstances. Simply having principles is not enough, otherwise OP would not be asking for help.
Unless one is blessed with the wisdom of King Solomon, the only way it's easy to "moderate on principle" is to rely on black and white either/or thinking, with no room for nuance or exception. If you say "The rule is the rule, there can be no interpretation other than the most literal meaning. No ifs ands or buts." It does make things less difficult. But this is dumb. The reason we can't rely on bots to moderate is because this system doesn't work.
OP says "I'm not a good moderator," and "I don't know what I'm doing," and I am saying cut yourself some slack. To be a good moderator you need to be thoughtful, not a bot. You need to be human. That's not easy. Don't trust anybody that says otherwise.
I disagree. Moderating based on principle require the exact opposite. A firm understanding of both what and why the rules are, such that you can enforce them based not just on some moronic "technically broke the rules based on their phrasing", but rather based on the values contained in the rules.
Well, if you have never been troubled by any ambiguity in your life, bless you.