Mary Hatch Bailey wrote:I just posted essentially the same thing in the Dissappointed thread to SMS. I think the Mods should get thogether and come up with a code of conduct. It's hard to toe the line when they keep moving it.
Ahhh... such a simple idea... why didn't we think of it? There is a code of conduct but it is necessarily general, and thus open to interpretation.
One could make an extensive list of do's and don't's and I guarantee that the next day there would be another situation not thought of that would pop up. Moreover, no matter how extensive the code of conduct might be, it must still be interpreted.
Of course, one solution would be to act like the "angry board". Black and white... zero tolerance for the most minor of offenses.
I find this to be very unsatisfactory. Instead, the board admins occasionally offer posters the opportunity to become moderators. There are no hard and fast rules... except that the moderator must show some maturity, even handedness, and common sense.
It is then up to the mods to decide, within the context of the code of conduct as posted, what is in bounds and what is out of bounds. As moderators are fallible humans, there must be a recourse, and there is. It is to post objections to the manner in which posts are deleted/edited.
Now perhaps this is not the "justice" meted out by a judge and jury but there are built in checks and balances. Moderators can and have been upbraided because, in part, the success of this board is dependent upon a lively and open debate, free of excess control.
For my part, I think a code of conduct can be easily defined for each and every user. It is this: Would you make the statement that you are about to submit to the poster if you were sitting in front of him/her drinking a beer? If the answer is yes, then the post is probably OK. If not, then the question becomes, "Why would you post something that you would not say face to face?"
