I don’t really have any rules yet. As of now, I’ll just be using my intuition for the most part, trying not to use my moderation powers at all really, except when it’s really obviously deserved.
But, I’d like some poster feedback. What sorts of rules would you like to see in this forum?
I’m thinking of adding a rule about the quality of OPs about science or math:
Something along the lines of,
If the main thesis of your OP is a statement of fact about some science or math-related topic, there must be some attempt at justification.
eg the post “Evolution is bullshit” would be deleted as an OP.
But the post, “Evolution is bullshit, and here’s why I think that” followed by some attempt at a justification, that wouldn’t be deleted.
Is that a reasonable rule?
Suggestions;
First and foremost, keep argumentation logic based and ON TOPIC, not about the members.
Moderator must be attentive and responsive.
Moderator should not fear criticism such as to either respond too much or too little (neither over-sensitive nor blind).
Keep threads within the realm of the specific forum, including philosophies regarding Science, math, and technology, not merely mainstream versions (which would inherently include alternatives to the mainstream).
Avoid judgments and favor private consultation and immediate post editing.
Discuss any issues with those involved BEFORE judgment if judgment is required.
If you do not know the whole story for whatever reason, don’t try to judge it.
8 ) Allow members to see that moderating is actually occurring, else argumentation will be justly inspired.
Expect to be wrong now and then but try to avoid it and openly correct it. Display your integrity.
Do NOT make any rules that require balanced emotion or assessment from the moderator, else personal bias and prejudice WILL ensue.
I agree that OP’s should include applicable reasoning, not merely assertions of opinion (not that opinion would be disallowed).