Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-24841494-20140413162532/@comment-5239282-20140414005438

Fatal Disease wrote: Necrosanity wrote: Fatal Disease wrote: Option A: We leave the chat on, and let the moderators do their job - since moderators are supposed to moderate, right? We re-write the entire chat rules, providing how long the user should be banned for what they have done and if they repeat an offence (that way, we don't have user's complaining about how their ban is unjust). We also add in the rules that if anyone brings any sort of drama onto the main site they will get banned from the chat for (depending on how much drama that it has caused): This means threads about a rule that they think is unjust (like the banning of the word cunt and how it was unjust). Also, since the mods do not know on what they're doing with their jobs, we add a section in the rules that mods should not be afraid of losing their job because they're doing their job that there should be no consequences to doing their jobs. And we also omit arguments that moderators have cause, because mods who join in on the users arguing/the ones who cause the drama is highly unacceptable. And we omit mods being biased towards users. "I can't ban him for saying fa****, because he's my best friend!", "I can't ban her for linking porn, because she's my girlfriend!" "I don't want to ban her for sockpuppeting, because her ban was unjust!" And we have mods follow the site rules, like this Haven't we done this before? It doesn't seem to work. Well. Some of those we have done, as in revamping the rules and changing them for a new set of rules. But. Here is an add-on to my proposal. I know it may not work, as it may be a cause of drama and such, but if a mod that refuses to do work/cause drama, I believe that this system would be good:
 * A warning: The moderator gets a warning from an administrator for breaking small, less restricted, rules. No worries. Just don't do your action again. Example of this: A moderator has linked their story more than once in under a span of thirty minutes, abusing emoticons at a slow pace, moderator posting small ASCII, (like the Lenny Face), ect.
 * A temporal removal of their powers: If their actions are slightly rule breaking that it causes users harm, then a temporal revoke of their rights are in order. Examples: posting Zalgo text/ASCII that is too big, not obeying an administrator when the administrator has told you to stop, partaking/starting drama about a certain rule that is unjust/a certain user that is being an asshole, using slurs that are not directed towards a certain user, ect.
 * A removal of their powers: If their actions have broken many rules/a term of use violation then their rights are in order to be revoked IMMEDIATELY! Examples: Trolling numerous of times, invading a wiki chat, bullying a user, sexually harassing a user, using slurs in a derogatory manner towards a user (same as bullying, slightly), ect.

Which, of course, a list of those would be within the chat rules underneath the moderator's section, which is telling them to do their job and to not be afraid to do their job. A moderator's discretion saying that, because they have a star, it does not mean that they are above these laws. And each, and every, moderator are subjected to read these rules and know them by heart. And they are not supposed to be biased, nor ignore sockpuppets because they have been banned from the chat indefinitely because they were banned unjustly. That's great and all, but will this be enforced? We obviously don't know, but. ;p