Rules discussion and the announcements forum

Good question, and I've never sat down and thought about it but let me try to do so now (uh-oh... thinking it out whilst typing is never a good idea)...

I'm attempting to do as little to no moderation as possible, and to effectively let the mass of people define the lines of acceptability and where the edges of debate occur. This should protect me from making shitty decisions as by and large I don't have to do anything and I won't be caught out when the mood changes and the consensus falls in a way that I wouldn't be used to.

What this actually means is that it's obvious when an individual crosses the line, but it's not so obvious when the entire mass crosses the line. The latter being a re-definition of the boundaries of acceptability, the former being a step beyond those boundaries.

So the difference is in the way that the mass operates. It's pretty much up to the members of the community to define the standards, but if you're all silent on lynch mobs then you are helping to set the standard.

What action would I and do I take when lines are crossed? Mostly none at all. Really, I don't want to moderate at all, I think it can only end badly for me over long periods of time... you'll all get chips on your shoulders at me, about the times that you lot were twats... hardly seems fair on me. So mostly I do nothing. But occasionally I might speak to someone who crossed the line. And only when an individual seems truly intent on crossing the line spectacularly do I end up banning anyone or doing something (ononelangster).

So yeah, it seems the difference is the number of people who cross the line. If an individual does it we might burn them, and if all of you do it then nothing at all happens.