ChrisC wrote:
What about a locked, publically-viewable forum that only mods can post in, with one thread per action or acted-upon user/event?
Well, aside from the spam cleanup, all the moderator activity is already rather visible. If I warn someone, I typically do it in the thread rather than via PM. If a thread gets locked, the icon changes and nobody can post there, so that's pretty clear.
Deleting a thread is problematic because the thread gets purged from the database. It's gone and no one can see it, not even admins. I felt it was justified in this instance - the user posted elsewhere that he knew he was wrong but was going to keep posting the same accusation here for a few days. I regard that as morally equivalent to spamming, if not worse - spam at least has a reasonably pure profit motive - and I delete spam threads.
However, it's also a more drastic action than is typical, so I thought it was important to discuss it.
gravel wrote:
Full disclosure: in the distant-ish past, there have been a few posts I've reported for being Not On. I never got a reply or any indication that they had been looked at, much less addressed. If the community standard is "don't touch anything except death threats and cursing", fine, but I think that needs to be clear up front.
I do read those reports, from you and others. I'm not sure what to say except that I don't always feel a strong call to act on each report. If I don't, I leave the report open for either David or Merk to read, under the theory that they may respond differently. So you won't necessarily get feedback because it's hard to say when we've all made the decision not to respond.
If a general consensus emerges that it's OK, I would be comfortable locking and rant-tagging individual posts, as a more fine-grained approach to locking an entire thread. The standard here could be somewhat lower; two or three reports might be sufficient, if no one else quotes that post in the meantime and it makes sense for the conversation to continue.