13

The user page listing moderators (example) links to the blog post "A Theory of Moderation" from 2009. This post has now been augmented with Our Theory of Moderation, Re-visited. In the interests of clarity, can we update that page to link to the new blog post? If there are other places the old blog post is linked (election pages? email to new moderators? help center? mod-message templates?), those places should be updated too.

This could mean linking to both posts, or maybe the new post should link to the old one, or maybe there is some other way to bring the still-applicable older content together with the newer content. I'm not trying to dictate a particular implementation; I just want the new information to be readily available too.

  • A better solution would be to update the old blog post with a link to the new one. – Sonic the Bracketed Hedgehog Nov 22 '18 at 1:17
  • 4
    Not really. It's a blog post, not a help center entry. Blog posts are inherently fixed in time. It would be very weird to have a blog post from 2009 serve content from 2018. We could leave the post in place and add a "go here for updates" link, but that makes people click again and many won't. If we want people to see the current content we should link directly to it. – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 1:19
  • I think there should still be a link to the old post. This one doesn't completely replace it. – Sonic the Bracketed Hedgehog Nov 22 '18 at 1:21
  • They can link both. I didn't say "replace". I leave specific implementation to them; they might choose to link to the new one and have that post link to the old one, or they might choose to link both, or they might fold content from the old one into the new one... whatever they do, though, the new information should be linked. – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 1:23
  • Ah, I get it. Feel free to rollback; the edit was just so I could remove my downvote. – Sonic the Bracketed Hedgehog Nov 22 '18 at 1:25
  • I was editing at the same time, so yours got clobbered in the process (but I think is covered anyway). – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 1:27
  • 7
    AFAICT, the new blog post says nothing about what mods should do or shouldn't do; it's just some fluff about SO supporting mods more. So, title aside, what does it have to do with a theory of moderation? – muru Nov 22 '18 at 1:42
  • @muru Hmm. that is: Our Theory of Moderation, Re-visited, not Revised. I think old post is the one which contains the actual theory – Pandya Nov 22 '18 at 2:39
6

Not really. I have always felt that the theory of moderation was about our social contract with our communities. For many of us, that's as strong as ever and even through the most testing times, well we're still here.

I feel that Tim's post is about SO/SE's social contract with the mods - it's about their obligation to us and the communities.

I don't think it in any way obsoletes the old post. It's still a useful reference for what we do for our communities, in the same way the new blog post might be a reference to how community facing employees need to keep in mind the new post dealing with controversial issues involving our sites.

So no, I don't think the new post replaces the old one - merely complements it. I do think it needs to be somewhere but hopefully most new mods won't be in situations where they need to look it up. Maybe a mod help page for emergencies might work.

  • I don't think it replaces it either; I think it augments it. It seems useful for communities to know what SE's "contract" with mods includes, particularly the part where SE empowers mods to make decisions, but there might be better places to link it than what I suggested. I do think it needs to be discoverable somewhere on-site. Regular users can see the moderator agreement and this is at least as important, isn't it? – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .