Leave moderating to the moderators rule is ridiculous and lame and stupid

[Kardan]

:S I wasn't a mod 1-2 years ago lmao. It is additional because people try to impersonate

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

[MKR&*42]

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

[Kardan]

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

And there's the rule for that. But to suggest that the first bit 'Don't tell people they've broke the rules' is so people can impersonate moderators seems crazy

[MKR&*42]

And there's the rule for that. But to suggest that the first bit 'Don't tell people they've broke the rules' is so people can impersonate moderators seems crazy

Edited by Kardan (General Manager): Don't impersonate moderators using the old style of mod editing that is no longer used.

You actually tricked me with that red font I legit thought you'd been warned till i read thrice LOL.
--
And yeah it is crazy

[nvrspk4]

From what I remember the rule was implemented because many people would post and tell off others for their rulebreaks rather than contributing to the thread. Additionally, threads might be derailed by debates on the rule itself (ie: is the thread in the wrong forum, why there was a double post, etc.) Furthermore, users might misinterpret or misapply a rule, meaning a moderator might be better suited to handle it. Those to me seem like valid benefits to the rule, and reasons why the rule encourages a more productive dialogue on the forum, which is what the Forum Rules should seek to do.

So those are the benefits (and perhaps there are more). Are there negatives that outweigh it? In what way does this rule impede constructive dialogue, or take away from a discussion going on in a thread? If the positives outweigh the benefits it'd be fair to say the rule isn't so stupid

[Kardan]

From what I remember the rule was implemented because many people would post and tell off others for their rulebreaks rather than contributing to the thread. Additionally, threads might be derailed by debates on the rule itself (ie: is the thread in the wrong forum, why there was a double post, etc.) Furthermore, users might misinterpret or misapply a rule, meaning a moderator might be better suited to handle it. Those to me seem like valid benefits to the rule, and reasons why the rule encourages a more productive dialogue on the forum, which is what the Forum Rules should seek to do.

So those are the benefits (and perhaps there are more). Are there negatives that outweigh it? In what way does this rule impede constructive dialogue, or take away from a discussion going on in a thread? If the positives outweigh the benefits it'd be fair to say the rule isn't so stupid

As you said the positives are certainly there, but all the situations it solves are covered by the 'pointless posting' rule. If people aren't contributing to the thread, that's pointless posting. Now, because the rule is in place, it means people are getting warned in spam for what is essentially pointless posting. The first part of the rule (Don't tell people they've broke a rule) doesn't add anything that the pointless posting rule doesn't already cover.

[nvrspk4]

As you said the positives are certainly there, but all the situations it solves are covered by the 'pointless posting' rule. If people aren't contributing to the thread, that's pointless posting. Now, because the rule is in place, it means people are getting warned in spam for what is essentially pointless posting. The first part of the rule (Don't tell people they've broke a rule) doesn't add anything that the pointless posting rule doesn't already cover.

But if someone has posted that the thread is in the wrong forum, and someone else replies that yes it is in the right forum, can you truly say that it's a pointless post? I feel like that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the rules. Plus, technically saying that someone has posted in the wrong forum is contributing something to the thread as you're pointing out an issue with the subject matter. I understand where you're coming from re: it being a pointless post, I was considering it as well, but it seems like it's a bit convoluted defining it as a pointless post. Which makes me feel like for the sake of clarity and straightforward rules, it's better to just have the rule separately, since I don't see a huge downside to it being enforced.

Also another thing, though I'm not really sure where I fall on this since self-policing can be a good thing, but a thought to throw out there. Inter-user discipline can lead to bad feelings and unnecessary criticism. For example, a moderator can see a user's rule-break history and react appropriately, and can also be trained to be gentler with newer members, and thus might be a better figure to handle a post in the wrong forum, rather than the new user being jumped on by other members of the community.

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it

[lemons]

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

once i used as a joke and i got infraction straight away i was crying i didnt know the consequences

[Kardan]

But if someone has posted that the thread is in the wrong forum, and someone else replies that yes it is in the right forum, can you truly say that it's a pointless post? I feel like that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the rules. Plus, technically saying that someone has posted in the wrong forum is contributing something to the thread as you're pointing out an issue with the subject matter. I understand where you're coming from re: it being a pointless post, I was considering it as well, but it seems like it's a bit convoluted defining it as a pointless post. Which makes me feel like for the sake of clarity and straightforward rules, it's better to just have the rule separately, since I don't see a huge downside to it being enforced.

Also another thing, though I'm not really sure where I fall on this since self-policing can be a good thing, but a thought to throw out there. Inter-user discipline can lead to bad feelings and unnecessary criticism. For example, a moderator can see a user's rule-break history and react appropriately, and can also be trained to be gentler with newer members, and thus might be a better figure to handle a post in the wrong forum, rather than the new user being jumped on by other members of the community.

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it

Well, the super moderators in this thread have been saying that 'This post is in the wrong forum' or 'You've avoided the filter' is a pointless post as it's not contributing to the thread topic.

I understand where you're coming from and I can see that people wouldn't want to be hounded by forum members if they did break a rule (although I'm not sure if people would hound someone if the rule was absolished) - I just find it crazy that you can be warned in spam for what moderators themselves have defined as pointless posting We still want to keep the 2nd part of the rule which is not impersonating a moderator, just the 1st part is crazy.

And with the current rules, this is allowed: "You posted in the wrong forum, but I agree I love apples!"

But this gets you a warning: "You avoided the filter, but I agree I love apples!"

Just seems illogical to me

[GommeInc]

Technically all the rules can inter-link anyway and pointless posting is the glue that sticks them together. Posting inappropriately could be stretched to be considered pointless, avoiding the filter if it is for no real reason, accusing a member of scamming, illegal activities and so forth. The rule about leaving moderation to the moderators gives a specific definition so members know not to do it, as the connection to it being pointless may not even be in their contemplation when telling a member off.