Crazo3077 wrote:My argument would be "If image reactions are a problem, then we should figure out how to address them." That's the primary argument.
The primary argument has not moved beyond "Is this a problem?". It is hasty to discuss policy when this line of thought has not yet been solved. Having a small (unless headcount in the thread proves otherwise) and mostly hidden sample as evidence that some dislike the reaction images is insufficient to constitute a fair answer to the question at hand. Rulings should be catered towards a great majority or urgent forum health needs -- whichever makes the most sense. Thus far, we have neither a great majority in either position nor, as far as I can tell by the few and slow responses in this thread, an urgent need for a change or ruling. As such, we should be waiting for a lot more input before we seriously discuss your "primary" argument.
If we're
really going to start spawning solutions before we've verified the existence of a problem by my criteria above, then my definition for a clear rule would be that a post would have to contain both of the below to qualify as low quality:
1. Be rude, dismissive, blunt, or harsh;
2. States no facts, makes no reasonable presumptions, nor presents workable assumptions.
My reasoning is that simply being politically incorrect or in any other way harsh is not enough to override valid reasoning, and that being bad with logic and reasoning isn't enough to chastise someone if no offense is dealt to people. SPAM (sentence fragments, senseless repetition, disallowed or misplaced content) would take priority over both of the above, instantly qualifying a post as low quality. The moderator action to be taken should be editing in every case unless editing would leave a post without content, at which point it should be deleted and the user should be notified as to the reasons in private. If bad behaviour would persist for a long time, it would constitute tangible evidence to move onto moderating a user (strikes, suspensions, bans).
Crazo3077 wrote:(...) a moderator's job is not to sweep the forums for the quality of posts. A moderator's job is to act when a change is needed. This is why we have the report feature on all posts. (...) That is why a clear rule, or would help on knowing what to report and what not to report.
I'm going to have to disagree on the count of sweeping not being part of the job: the only thing stopping that from ever being the case is the size of a community; not the job's definition. This forum is small enough to make putting the overseeing burden on users alone unjustifiable, and I argue this for the following reasons:
- you may not even get an offending post reported due to the lack of registered user traffic;
- there will be few enough posts that a skim through unread posts should be swift and far more useful than merely waiting.
A report function is there to support moderator oversight and not to replace it. If a moderator's presence is not spread too thin, they will naturally run into most of the content in the forum(s) just by being an active member, and they have to be active (at least relative to the users in the forum or sub-forum they oversee) to adequately perform their job.
Crazo3077 wrote:The second quote is my clarifying on my line that offers context. I chose this phrasing because I'm not going to name off people who do not want to be included in the discussion.
I am not asking you to name people nor do I think it would be reasonable to force people to make their opinions public. Regardless, that is irrelevant to what I said.
What I did say, and where the contradiction lies, is that the only evidence brought up from your part is the private testimonies in the opening post. Being evidence, they are not just inspiration -- they are meant to convince the audience. It would be needless to include privately-held opinions if the complaints solely served to inspire the thread's creation. Ergo, it is persuasion.
Don't get me wrong: persuasion is not bad in itself, but having the persuasive argument in the opening post be backed solely by invisible and near-insubstantial evidence
is, and then claiming it is not evidence in a later post is even more detrimental to an adequate resolution. It's a backpedalling move that not only removes the little substance the opening post had but also makes you seem insecure as to how to approach the matter. Or, if seen more cynically, it makes it seem as if you are already presuming the answer to the question of "Is this a problem?" is "yes" and are forcefully making the next question in line the topic of discussion.