Thread:Bourgeoisie/@comment-4552817-20150216091843/@comment-4845243-20150218164233

Goggles99 wrote: Here is an example of the older school of chatmod thought (the one we used to all go by), versus the newer one. The older thought style believes a user should be punished with bans/kicks for breaking a policy (even after the fact). The newer thought believes bans/kicks should only be used to stop any current and revelent chat disruptions. I think there is a time and a place for both these schools of thought.

If Bourg did in fact cause a disruption, then why should he remain unopposed, just because chatmods were afk at the exact time he caused it?

As for whether Bcgirl gave enough warnings. Wasn't there. So no comment. But I know Bcgirl is a trusted Chat Mod with a long and shining history. She was among the founders of this entire wiki. And Bourg/Meiko has a long history of being a troll on LMBW. None of this effects the outcome here, but it is worth mentioning. I don't know that I would contrast them chronologically. As far back as 2012, at least, there were mods who used warns/kicks/bans to prevent abuse and disruption, not to punish users.

However, that is not germane. The point is that these two "schools of thought" do exist. However, I don't think they are both equally good. The punishment school of thought has several problems.

First, it is predicated on the idea that the rules are an absolute code, and that their violation somehow demands retaliation. This entirely ignores the purpose of the rules. The rules are meant to keep the wiki clean, safe, peaceful, and orderly. The first "school of thought" ignores this purpose ("the spirit of the law" so to speak) and only enforces the letter of the law. "Should a person be banned?" is answered solely based on whether they broke the rules or obeyed the chatmods. This mentality is flawed because blindly enforcing the letter of the law often violates the purpose. Sometimes, kicking or banning someone creates more disruption and conflict, not less. A good chat moderator knows when to kick/ban, and when to give warnings, and when to guide the conversation away. The goal is always to comply with the purpose of the rules.

Furthermore, the people that have the absolutist mentality regarding the rules also seem to have an absolutist mentality regarding chat mods themselves. Namely, they think that CMs should be obeyed without question or clarification. Any moderators that would issue a warning and fail to clarify it are not moderating well. The fact that there are chat mods who we need to obey purely from fear of being banned is absurd. CMs have an obligation to uphold the purpose of the rules by preventing abuse and disruption, and nothing more.

TL;DR: The paradigm behind the punishment school of thought leads to the purpose of the rules being violated, making the other school of thought superior.