moderation — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right
Thinking out loud about this: moderation — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right. Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here. Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point. Complained about a rule without proposing…
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
What breaks if we make that change?
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
I would not archive earlier.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.