Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Azurius]

If you look at ara's last checklist update, we already have a near-unanimous consensus that the council be appointed. Making such a big concession on elections for one dissenter who isn't even active here anymore is not wise negotiating.

I agree with the number of Representatives being seven but i would like too suggest making the number variable according the the number of WA nations.

Even if I don´t know what is really going on, I can add one thing to this:

Choosing a set number is a very bad idea from the start. The number should decided by what delivers the best results currently. Also keep in mind as communities grow, shrink or change, that in the future one might needs to update and change that size and/or the members.

[Ryanimus]

I personally (as a GA irregular, who campaigns for the odd GA proposal) think the council should be made of one chairperson (the elected WA lead who is currently Misley), a mod or two, then the other 2 or 3 seats filled with mod appointed seasoned GA vets. A mod to give a moderation perspective obviously, the SG so that normal WA nations can get a say on the council itself, and to give the whole WA a voice in appointing the council. The other GA vets would give a more knowledgeable opinion obviously, but having an outsider (hopefully) elected to the position would prevent the council from becoming an echo chamber.

Also having an event like that (where delegates can't stack the vote, and individual votes reign supreme) would be a great event. The mod representative and the GA regulars would be appointed and removed by the moderation team when they went inactive, while the Secretary General would be elected by the body of the WA.

I support this too, since it falls along my originally proposed idea in terms of thinking.

[Reploid Productions]

I personally (as a GA irregular, who campaigns for the odd GA proposal) think the council should be made of one chairperson (the elected WA lead who is currently Misley)

I am vehemently, flatly opposed to making a GA outsider who was elected in a joke election by a franchise that included non-member nations and puppets to run a part of the game they are unfamiliar with and whose responsibilities would not have been clear at the time of their election. And as Banana said, a single elected outsider would be nothing more than a token position.

Since it was apparently missed in my Wall 'o Text, one more time:

Just a quick note re: Secretary-General:

If we did decide to incorporate it as an elected council position, we would first establish qualifications for running, and run a WA-only vote for the position, rather than just throw our April Fools' winner to the wolves all unexpected. So Misley's qualifications are a non-issue on that score.

[Wallenburg]

That would be cronyism though! (wouldn't it be hypocritical too since some people in this thread have said they don't want an elected council for fears of cronyism?)

It really wouldn't be cronyism. GA regulars are far more qualified to make decisions with regard to the GA.

If GA regulars wish to be on the Secretariat's council they should earn the position with popular support through elections, not being hand-picked by somebody that is a part of a group accused of bias in the first place!It is elitist, so why can't we break the mold and make a change to the way something would function!?

That Moderation is accused of bias does not reduce its capacity to competently appoint users to leadership roles. There's nothing elitist in appointing the best people for the job.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I am still very concerned that legality rulings would get bogged down in politicking. And, unlike Scion, I am very concerned about the ability of member selection that is not to the detriment of certain parts of the GA community.

I think some sort of "hold" function would work best; putting a proposal on hold would eliminate the time crunch element of legality rulings by being able to put it on pause until the legality challenge is resolved.

Given how long that legality rulings take when something isn't submitted (months), I wouldn't be very surprised that the addition of a hold function would simply mean that legality rulings on submitted proposals take forever. I think that having a solid deadline is much better than having a hold function that allows people to delay and delay.

[Sciongrad]

I am vehemently, flatly opposed to making a GA outsider who was elected in a joke election by a franchise that included non-member nations and puppets to run a part of the game they are unfamiliar with and whose responsibilities would not have been clear at the time of their election. And as Banana said, a single elected outsider would be nothing more than a token position.

Since it was apparently missed in my Wall 'o Text, one more time:

Just a quick note re: Secretary-General:

If we did decide to incorporate it as an elected council position, we would first establish qualifications for running, and run a WA-only vote for the position, rather than just throw our April Fools' winner to the wolves all unexpected. So Misley's qualifications are a non-issue on that score.

Oh, sorry! I started writing that before you posted it, but I guess it didn't warn me that others had posted when I submitted my post. I'm glad we're in agreement here! And for what it's worth, I generally agree with the rest of your post. I'm still skeptical of elections because I'm not sure how that would do anything but permit a couple random GA regulars onto the council. I'm also outright opposed if telegram campaigns are allowed.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm also outright opposed if telegram campaigns are allowed.

What would this entail, exactly.

Say you and SP are running for an elected council seat and I campaign for SP... should SP be disqualified? Should I be disqualified? Both?

[Flanderlion]

Just a quick note re: Secretary-General:

If we did decide to incorporate it as an elected council position, we would first establish qualifications for running, and run a WA-only vote for the position, rather than just throw our April Fools' winner to the wolves all unexpected. So Misley's qualifications are a non-issue on that score.

I personally (as a GA irregular, who campaigns for the odd GA proposal) think the council should be made of one chairperson (the elected WA lead who is currently Misley)

I am vehemently, flatly opposed to making a GA outsider who was elected in a joke election by a franchise that included non-member nations and puppets to run a part of the game they are unfamiliar with and whose responsibilities would not have been clear at the time of their election. And as Banana said, a single elected outsider would be nothing more than a token position.

The elected outsider (I like how no one believes it will be a regular on the GA forums) would have only one vote, like other council member. The role of chair would hopefully be fully ceremonial rather than functional, and treated as just another council-member.. They are more to give an outsiders view, and prevent the council from becoming an echo chamber of Bitely's 'WA Elites'. This is to involve the actual WA voter on electing a single position in the council, rather than having it completely chosen by the moderation team.

Misley deserves the same privileges/badges/titles of being the first WA SG, but I'm expecting another election announced at the same time as the council is. I mean, there is a good chance of him winning a second term, but there is just as large chance of him not, then you won't have to worry about him on council. It is a token position, but it is better a token position than nothing, and I'm guessing you would prefer to take one token position from the general body of the WA rather than having them elect the entire thing, as others have suggested (I'm against that, I do think GA regulars are the best qualified for the role). The 'token position' could be the deciding vote in controversial decisions.

Edit: Wrote this, not reading the 6 or so posts that came up while I typed this and did other stuff until after.

[Sandaoguo]

And again, there simply aren't enough active players in AO to stack the council so this whole line of reasoning is moot. And the moderators that you claim perpetrated the conspiracy are no longer active either!

It's not about AO specifically, or about the mods who perpetuated cronyism in mod selection. It's all about the simple fact that it existed and there was nothing anybody could do to stop it. If the sustained protests were effective, then why are the mods protested against still on there? Because it's easy to paint that as sour grapes and not legitimate concern. Left to their own devices, the mod team is going to do what comes natural to any insulated body of power: it's going to choose those who agree with it, who will uphold the status quo, and who they don't view as gadflies. It's very unlikely that this council would end up having a parity of ideological differences or to which rules paradigm the councilors subscribe. It's very likely to be a homogeneous group that reinforces whatever the status quo happens to be, won't advocate for players (because they're not accountable to them), and will sit atop a slightly shorter ivory tower once the novelty of the council wears off in a couple years.

Going half and half is better than mods picking their mini-mods, by all accounts. It would probably prove wrong the doomsaying over elections being chaotic popularity contests, and eventually lead to a fully elected council, should the whole project survive that long.

As for Hannsea's questions...

The Council needs to have power to write its own precedent, and to overturn mod precedent. In other words, power should be devolved, not shared, and mods should eventually (with all deliberate speed) become a body much like Rep has described-- a last resort, but mostly there to take care of OSRS rule breaking. Without this, then it's by definition an advisory body, and few of us want that. To be clear, this would mean the Council -- not the mods -- would be the power that can declare a proposal violates non-OSRS rules.

[Sciongrad]

I'm also outright opposed if telegram campaigns are allowed.

What would this entail, exactly.

Say you and SP are running for an elected council seat and I campaign for SP... should SP be disqualified? Should I be disqualified? Both?

First of all - I see where you're loyalties lie! :(

But secondarily, I think if there is any campaigning, the player responsible for the campaigning should be punished. I also recall the moderators being able to delete mass telegrams (I think that happened with a telegram sent by Frak a year or so ago, but I could be misremembering). Either way, I would really prefer that the rules do not become a pay-to-play part of the game.

[Excidium Planetis]

What would this entail, exactly.

Say you and SP are running for an elected council seat and I campaign for SP... should SP be disqualified? Should I be disqualified? Both?

First of all - I see where you're loyalties lie!

I'm not even going to deny it, if it did come down to you two I'd probably vote SP.

This being chosen solely because I think SP has taken views of the rules more in line with my own than you have, although I must say both of you have taken questionable (in my opinion) views. Let's be honest here: I'd rather take someone more likely to find my proposals legal than someone less likely to do so.

But secondarily, I think if there is any campaigning, the player responsible for the campaigning should be punished. I also recall the moderators being able to delete mass telegrams (I think that happened with a telegram sent by Frak a year or so ago, but I could be misremembering). Either way, I would really prefer that the rules do not become a pay-to-play part of the game.

Okay. So what if I have no interest in running for this council ever, and choose to run campaigns for candidates I prefer?

[Sciongrad]

Okay. So what if I have no interest in running for this council ever, and choose to run campaigns for candidates I prefer?

The punishment would obviously not be disqualification from running (unless, of course, the perpetrator was campaigning for themselves), but the same punishment that other players who campaign illegally would be slapped with - a WA ban, a forum ban, whatever.

[Excidium Planetis]

Okay. So what if I have no interest in running for this council ever, and choose to run campaigns for candidates I prefer?

The punishment would obviously not be disqualification from running (unless, of course, the perpetrator was campaigning for themselves), but the same punishment that other players who campaign illegally would be slapped with - a WA ban, a forum ban, whatever.

Well, the problem is that Telegram campaigning for someone to be elected isn't against site rules. Clearly, it happened in April. And it seems a rather odd change in site rules to make such campaigns illegal. After all, campaigns to elect a Delegate are legal (I think?), and that is fairly similar.

What would be the change in site rules, and how would you justify it?

[Sciongrad]

The punishment would obviously not be disqualification from running (unless, of course, the perpetrator was campaigning for themselves), but the same punishment that other players who campaign illegally would be slapped with - a WA ban, a forum ban, whatever.

Well, the problem is that Telegram campaigning for someone to be elected isn't against site rules. Clearly, it happened in April. And it seems a rather odd change in site rules to make such campaigns illegal. After all, campaigns to elect a Delegate are legal (I think?), and that is fairly similar.

What would be the change in site rules, and how would you justify it?

Neither an April Fool's Joke nor delegates have any influence over how the rules are interpreted. Electing council members would obviously be fundamentally different as a campaign would be tantamount to pay-for-play, as only candidates that buy stamps could have any shot of winning.

Also, I don't see why some change to the site rules is necessary, nor do I see why you seem to think that would be such a prohibitive barrier anyway. An ad hoc rule that applies only to council elections will suffice.

[Excidium Planetis]

Neither an April Fool's Joke nor delegates have any influence over how the rules are interpreted. Electing council members would obviously be fundamentally different as a campaign would be tantamount to pay-for-play, as only candidates that buy stamps could have any shot of winning.

That's not true. APIs are just as effective, and completely free.

[Sciongrad]

Neither an April Fool's Joke nor delegates have any influence over how the rules are interpreted. Electing council members would obviously be fundamentally different as a campaign would be tantamount to pay-for-play, as only candidates that buy stamps could have any shot of winning.

That's not true. APIs are just as effective, and completely free.

Yeah, it would only take 200 hours of continuous campaigning to reach every player. Totally just as effective as stamps.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's not true. APIs are just as effective, and completely free.

Yeah, it would only take 200 hours of continuous campaigning to reach every player. Totally just as effective as stamps.

Slightly more than that, actually. According to IA:

As a campaign telegram (which I am unsure of, actually, since it might be a recruitment affair), it would take 8d:17h:13m:23s

But that’s not unfeasible. Last election was for April Fool's so it didn't last long. But next time it may be at least as long as a WA vote, which means if you started early (say during some kind of nomination period?), you could actually hit nearly everyone in the time it takes for the election to finish.

Now look at it from the perspective of these players you fear will pay to win. They'll be shelling out 24 dollars to send out a campaign that may not even work. That's pretty insane. Now, I understand that 24 dollars is nothing for Bitely some people, but there really isn't too many of those people, and the API does almost same thing for free.

[Sedgistan]

Someone earlier complained that the WA gets too hung up discussing minor legalities instead of debating the broader issue. And just look at this discussion: there's all this haggling over minor details - five or seven members? elected or appointed? public forum or private forum? - without any sign of what the council will actually be empowered to do.

1. Will the Council be able to overturn rulings previously made by moderators? Could it retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals?
2. Is the Council's role to interpret the rules as they are now, including the myriad precedents informing them - excluding the fairly substantial number dating from the NSUN era, even ones like Olympic Games that are integral to understanding the MetaGaming rules, yet which are now off-limits - or to propose changes to the rules?
3. It's been said moderators will retain responsibility for clearing out the queue of "noob" proposals. What if the Council believes one of these was removed incorrectly?
4. The Council will not have power to enforce its decisions by deleting proposals. What mechanism will be in place to ensure time-sensitive matters - such as deleting a proposal heading for quorum, or Discarding a proposal at vote - are acted on, on their behalf?
5. If the rules discussions become a player responsibility, won't moderators take even less notice of the WA forum and hence the gulf between the players' and mods' understanding of the game widen?

I'd like to see some core rules (e.g. OSRS violations, Game Mechanics) reserved for the Moderation team to enforce; Moderators would only remove proposals that violated those rules.

All other rules (the "community standards" ones) get handed over to the Council, which after a brief period of settling in*, has full responsibility for those. That means they can add/remove/modify those rules, they enforce them - including via removal of proposals. With that, they'd get to overturn previous rulings (so if the Council disagreed with our recent ruling on Compliance, they could reverse it) and declare that previous passed resolutions would violate the current rules, and that previous illegal proposals would now be legal.

(*The "brief period of settling in" would likely involve enforcement of current rulings, with mods carrying out deletions - but that phase should be as short as possible and only while the Council is finding its feet.)

5 - We would still need a mod presence in the GA, both to enforce the proposal rules we continue to have responsibility for, and for enforcing the usual OSRS on the forums. Some mods may find it a more pleasant experience posting on the forums subsequent to a Council being introduced. I think it's impossible to predict.

[Bananaistan]

I personally (as a GA irregular, who campaigns for the odd GA proposal) think the council should be made of one chairperson (the elected WA lead who is currently Misley)

I am vehemently, flatly opposed to making a GA outsider who was elected in a joke election by a franchise that included non-member nations and puppets to run a part of the game they are unfamiliar with and whose responsibilities would not have been clear at the time of their election. And as Banana said, a single elected outsider would be nothing more than a token position.

My point was more that a single elected insider would be nothing more than tokenism.

There seems to be a few different suggestions flying around now regarding elected members. I think the qualification requirements should be the same for all councilors regardless of how they're selected.

Will the Council be able to overturn rulings previously made by moderators? Could it retroactively declare "legal" proposals illegal, or permit submission of previously "illegal" proposals?

I would agree with the council being able to overturn previous rulings in respect of current proposals and submissions. While I’d prefer binding precedent of past rulings, the lack of a database of such rulings makes it unfair on everyone to have such binding precedent. In many cases, the rulings themselves lack detail, or were based on draft versions of proposals which were not submitted, and therefore the intricate details are not available.

Therefore, I would suggest that all rulings prior to the institution of the council should be treated as “persuasive precedent” rather than “binding precedent”, while a database of all rulings after the institution of the council should be maintained and these should form “binding precedent”. The keeping of this new rulings repository should be a function of the council.

Is the Council's role to interpret the rules as they are now, including the myriad precedents informing them - excluding the fairly substantial number dating from the NSUN era, even ones like Olympic Games that are integral to understanding the MetaGaming rules, yet which are now off-limits - or to propose changes to the rules?

Yes.

It's been said moderators will retain responsibility for clearing out the queue of "noob" proposals. What if the Council believes one of these was removed incorrectly?

If it’s outside the area of the council’s area of responsibility then it’s irrelevant if they think it was removed incorrectly. And even so, surely the council couldn’t discuss any proposal or resolution in the absence of a GHR or ruling request?

The Council will not have power to enforce its decisions by deleting proposals. What mechanism will be in place to ensure time-sensitive matters - such as deleting a proposal heading for quorum, or Discarding a proposal at vote - are acted on, on their behalf?

This is where I feel that any moderator should act as chairperson of the council rather than a specific moderator being appointed to chair the council all the time. Moderator A might chair the initial proceedings but if A is AFK by the time council completes its deliberations, then there should be no reason why Moderator B couldn’t enact the ruling.

If the rules discussions become a player responsibility, won't moderators take even less notice of the WA forum and hence the gulf between the players' and mods' understanding of the game widen?

Yes, but the gulf is widening anyway and will continue to do so in the absence of any action.

[Araraukar]

I'm still for an elected Council, and I'll settle for a "half & half" situation where some members are appointed as necessary. I agree with the number of Representatives being seven but i would like too suggest making the number variable according the the number of WA nations.

Want to fill out the rest of the checklist? I'll add your opinions to the total tally. Note: this is nothing official, you can refuse freely, I'm just sort of keeping tabs on how many peeps are of what opinion.

*snip*

Eep, we've attracted the wrath of the forum goddess. (Though now I'm not sure if we're not allowed to criticize moderation of the GA side of the WA at all, or just not talk about the crazy conspiracy theories and what mod may be under what branch of Illuminaty.)

*snip*

So that'd be for council, against advisory only and against fully mod-chosen, then?

This is horrifying! We cannot have an all mod-appointed council! It'll be largely made up of GA regulars.

Oi, we're not that horrible.

They nitpick and tear apart every proposal down to the letter!

Just so they can rebuilt to be better and stronger.

It'll be nigh impossible for any newcomer or average player to submit a proposal that's not catering to the views of a select few people.

Anyone can submit. You're thinking of passing and WA Delegates, not GA regulars. There's exactly one GA regular who's a delegate with more than 200 endorsements, which puts him in the superdelegates category.

The world assembly would be ruled by an oligarchy!

As if it isn't already? 10 superdelegates voting on the same side on a proposal pretty much means it'll pass regardless. Also, GA is just one side of the WA, and legality challenges are just one part of the GA.

If GA regulars wish to be on the Secretariat's council they should earn the position with popular support through elections

Let's also hold a beauty contest with a bikini round (male and female both in bikinis) and questionnaire with questions like "What is your favourite colour?" and "If you were a flower, what would you say to the bees?", as that would be about as relevant to knowledge about GA legality issues as any sort of popularity contest (which, let's be honest, is what elections are).

Remember, the point isn't to choose any sort of WA leadership council. The idea is to get a bunch of people together to talk about whether Proposal X is legal or illegal due to Reason Y.

That Moderation is accused of bias does not reduce its capacity to competently appoint users to leadership roles. There's nothing elitist in appointing the best people for the job.

The same reply goes for you. The council wouldn't be a leadership-anything. It'd be, as far as anything has been outlined so far, a way to reduce the legality-only bickering on the drafting threads and GHR legality challenges being used as weapons.

The elected outsider (I like how no one believes it will be a regular on the GA forums)

Can't speak for others, of course, but I at least don't hold much hope for any WA-wide election not being overwhelmed by Gameplayers voting someone in just for shit and giggles.

They are more to give an outsiders view, and prevent the council from becoming an echo chamber of Bitely's 'WA Elites'.

To be fair, Biteley called anyone not agreeing with him a "WA Elite". Also, echo chamber? C'mon, haven't you seen how many disagreements we, the GA regulars, have on legality issues?

Say you and SP are running for an elected council seat and I campaign for SP... should SP be disqualified? Should I be disqualified? Both?

Just you. Well, unless SP asked you to campaign for him and you could prove it with a gameside TG. (There's a reason why I think campaigning in general shouldn't be allowed if elections were for some reason allowed.)

Some mods may find it a more pleasant experience posting on the forums subsequent to a Council being introduced.

I know Kryo's appeared (not in the role of rulings deliverer) on at least one drafting thread here, after this discussion started, so obviously just having the council issue on the table is a positive influence on the number of "non-rulings mod visits to GA forum".

[Hannasea]

Much of the reason moderators first got involved in proposal quality assurance back in the Enodian protocol days was because otherwise the queue was flooded with inane and utter garbage proposals to the point it was impossible for players to navigate the thing to find the proposals they wanted to endorse. Unfortunately this still holds true

No, it absolutely doesn't.

There are much fewer proposals submitted than there were back then, usually only a single page per day - there used to be 20+ pages! - and the ability to directly link to a proposal plus the change to the telegram system has made campaigning for proposals extremely simple.

ideally anything that falls under community standards

Can I ask what the provenance of this term "community standards" you and Sedge have used is? Because most of these rules did not come from the players - the "community" - but were handed down by the mods, such as the House of Cards and most of the MetaGaming rules.

Rather than deleting proposals from the queue entirely the way mods can, I think some sort of "hold" function would work best

Well yes, this has been mentioned before as a great idea, but it wasn't mentioned in the OP as being back on the table. It is a good idea, so much so that if implemented the entire council might be unnecessary because the time pressure on mods to reach a ruling would be reduced.

[Sedgistan]

(Though now I'm not sure if we're not allowed to criticize moderation of the GA side of the WA at all, or just not talk about the crazy conspiracy theories and what mod may be under what branch of Illuminaty.)

You are allowed to criticise us. We don't get everything right, and we accept that. Criticism should be constructive, though (i.e. with solutions for the future), not just throwing mud for the sake of it.

[Araraukar]

You are allowed to criticise us. We don't get everything right, and we accept that. Criticism should be constructive, though (i.e. with solutions for the future), not just throwing mud for the sake of it.

I'm happy to leave all theories of Modluminati out of this discussion.

...mud made me think of mudcakes and now I'm hungry... *wanders off to find food*

[Separatist Peoples]

There is a simple solution to the telegram issue: Make campaigning for the council Telegram Spamming. People who do it get warned. People who do it for themselves, or who can be proven to have arranged it get DQ'd, at least for a period of time. Problem solved.

The elected outsider (I like how no one believes it will be a regular on the GA forums) would have only one vote, like other council member. The role of chair would hopefully be fully ceremonial rather than functional, and treated as just another council-member.. They are more to give an outsiders view, and prevent the council from becoming an echo chamber of Bitely's 'WA Elites'. This is to involve the actual WA voter on electing a single position in the council, rather than having it completely chosen by the moderation team. . . . It is a token position, but it is better a token position than nothing, and I'm guessing you would prefer to take one token position from the general body of the WA rather than having them elect the entire thing, as others have suggested (I'm against that, I do think GA regulars are the best qualified for the role). The 'token position' could be the deciding vote in controversial decisions.

But what good is an outsider's view if they lack the in-depth knowledge that legality challenges require? Somebody said it before and was spot on: the outsider would be a token member, and would do nothing beyond assuage a concern that, frankly, I don't believe to have a lot of basis in reality. Are the GA forums elitist? Sure, but only because the material is so complex. As such, only people experienced should have a hand in untangling it. You don't see P2TM Mentorships being handed to people who rarely, if ever, post in P2TM, nor II Mentorships to those who spend all their time in General. There is a reason: the expertise from that forum is necessary for that forum's specific culture. The same applies here.

At best, the outsider's vote will be routinely stomped by the regulars, making them useless. At worst, they will cast the deciding vote in a close election with an under-educated opinion, when the deciding vote could have come from an informed voter. And that is assuming the outsider has no GA background.

If the elected individual was required to have a resolution under their belt, then we're drawing from the same pool, and using a new system for...what, exactly? If we know we'll get roughly the same people in that net, then the election exists to create the illusion of WA-wide participation, when control still hasn't left the hands of the GA regulars. I believe that trying to shore up that poor illusion would be more damaging to the reputation of the GA as Elitists than the Moderators choosing all the positions, because at least then, the Moderation Team's judgment could be the focus of any ire, and their reputation benefits from a much stronger sense of impartiality and discretion.

An elected member serves to benefit only if we assume that the critics of the system are too poorly informed or lack the political acumen to recognize a sham when they see one. I, for one, give them far more credit on that front. It is not better than nothing, it is actively harmful to the perception of the Council.

[Sedgistan]

ideally anything that falls under community standards

Can I ask what the provenance of this term "community standards" you and Sedge have used is? Because most of these rules did not come from the players - the "community" - but were handed down by the mods, such as the House of Cards and most of the MetaGaming rules.

It's to distinguish what are "site standards" - maintaining a certain level of conduct (no spam, flaming, trolling etc.) and that the WA remains "IC" within the NS world, which are essential for the GA to function, from what are community preferences on how the GA should run - things like format, being more than just a committee, avoiding duplication. We're not saying the community standards are any less important, but it's not really a Moderation function to be enforcing them when they can be much better handled by the community itself.