Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-25101892-20150426202408/@comment-5238714-20150427212253

Bourgeoisie wrote: I think there should not be a "one size fits all" policy set up that predetermines what a moderator should do. That's what a moderator is there for: Use their judgement to make the best-suited actions for the given situation. You can't apply a predefined set of actions to take for every situation. It just doesn't work. Not every form of abuse/disruption in chat is the same, so you can't expect that the "solution" to that abuse/disruption will always be the same. I definitely have to agree with Goggles99: If a moderator is unable to apply common sense and good judgement to solve a problem without having to follow a predefined set of rules on how to handle a situation, they shouldn't be a moderator.

Additionally, there shouldn't be a count to the number of warnings. Warnings generally don't do much. Communication, however, solves problems more than warning, kicking, banning, blocking, etc. I often see moderators oppressing their opinions above other people as warnings like "Stop" without really explaining what or why. A good skill to apply when moderating chat (or moderating anything) is "trying on someone else's shoes", in other words, view the situation from their point of view. Maybe they aren't trying to be disruptive? Maybe you're interpreting their comment differently than they meant to say it? That's why bluntly warning someone doesn't solve problems. However, if you communicate with them, like asking them what they meant by their comment, and then sharing your interpretation of it, gets things across better. It resolves conflict, solves problems, and overall makes chat much smoother and peaceful for everyone.

This has been your daily dose of advice from me. agreed 100%