How would you like to see forum/IRC moderation change?

[Undead]

I never said, nor implied that laws as a whole were irrelevant.

there was in fact this implication, yes. perhaps you weren't being clear enough.

Please name me one case, maybe apart from sophisticated technology, in that excessive sets of rules have successfully made things clearer or more transparent to everyone involved.

My sole point is that it is never going to make things easier, or more transparent for the average bob when things become more complex like some in here have suggested regarding a changed style of forum moderation. I thought we have already agreed on that actually.

what i am trying to do is remove subjective moderation. if we have a set of rules that are completely unbiased towards anyone and are commonly agreed to by everyone in the community, we can thus achieve a situation where anyone who breaks those rules can be, without debate, seen to be breaking the rules. if we allow for subjective forms of moderation to continue (such as framing moderation around a central directive of protecting the quality of discussion), then dissent and argument is inevitable. it is pretty obvious to me that this ambiguity regarding moderation is one of the main reasons why this tension is occuring and has occured over a long period of time. remove the ambiguity, remove the tension.

Not to mention it constantly feels like you were only challenging people for the sake of discussion rather than trying to come to a conclusion. I'm not saying it was your actual intention, but that is how you are being received by a lot of people. Just to let you know.

that perception is because of my willingness to push an argument, which many people are not used to. i'm glad you're just as keen on a good argument.

However, there are plenty of other examples of laws that keep hordes of lawyers and consultants busy.

hence why we need rules that are simplified at a base level. i feel like i would actually need to write some rules to demonstrate how this might be done.

And to clarify something, I actually formulated the discussion in this forum should 'revolve around the game' like that, in order to not exclude the various aspects that come with the game, just like mapping, contests, clan matters and so on. I do know that there's more going on, but the actual development on the coding front.

the implicit contention in your original argument is that the reason the forum is in its current state is because of these 'trouble makers', rather than on the part of the method of moderation, which i take particular issue with.

I don't see what there was to discuss about this any further and think I have made myself pretty clear. In short, we need no excessive moderating rules and processes but have to get rid of those that can't have an argue without constantly offending their opponents.

so, shall we get rid of stef? shall we get rid of harps? shall we get rid of half the forum? you shouldn't be basing moderating processes around a notion of offensiveness due to the inherent difficult in coming to a commonly agreed to standard of what constitutes "offensiveness", especially with regard to arguments where even the slightest thing can be regarded as offensive; according to your dictum, i would at least be up for warning points for making the implicit insult towards your character that your entire view is derived from a frustration with VAT laws. likewise, with your "Undead, please listen for once", there is the implicit assumption that i am unreasonable, don't listen to people properly, and can thus be seen as an offensive attack on my character. seems a bit ridiculous to base rules upon a notion of what is offensive, hey?

I'm sort of tired that I always have to make at least three posts until certain people will understand, or more probable will stop to mime they wouldn't understand and derail a simple point of view by dissecting every single sentence, while at the same time completely miss the very point that was made. That is indeed frustrating.

i completely understand what you're trying to say, you're just wrong, that's all. what you're regarding as "naturally simple" is not exactly simple; be very careful when you tread outside your discipline into other disciplines.