Comment by karmakaze
3 years ago
I don't know that this had the intended effect for me. I answered the questions as I would like the 'rule' enforced. The important thing isn't about believing the rule to be entirely valid and merely enforcing it, it's about which way you want it applied and why. Then you have to try to make everything else also fit into the oddly shaped boundaries that are forming. It's also way better if you can be transparent about it, and in some cases redraw the lines and reformulate how to decide which side new cases land.
> which way you want it applied and why
In the case the article has in mind, you can't silently decide what is ok and what isn't, as they'll be public decisions that create precedents (what formulate as "being transparent")
If you say wheelchairs are OK because disabled people need them, someone will ride a golf cart arguing they're disabled and need a cart. And you'll have to publicly explain if you think it's not ok and update the rules accordingly, and that will continue for every i stance of you not agreeing with someone's interpretation.
Put another eay, that constant and endless redrawing of the rules to explain what you had in mind is the point of the exercice, except you can't throw away the old rules nilky willy, you're only allowed to add more weird stuff on it
The opening statement spectically addresses this:
> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
It's small-minded actions like this that would ruin any attempts to moderate meaningfully. It can be effective by its own definition, but not serve the community's best interests. This 'rule' and blind applications is what makes moderation easier and worse. The exercise should instead be demonstrating how moderation is hard to do well because it's not always cut-and-dried.