While it's fine if a newcomer mentions that he or she wants to moderate or is trying to do so, a detailed share is triggering and unhelpful to anyone. The leader should interrupt a detailed share about moderation and clarify that CGAA's purpose is abstinence.
etiquette against moderation shares
Forum rules
* All who attend OOMG meetings on Zoom or Mumble are welcome to participate and vote in OOMG business.
* The business of the Original Online Meeting Group of CGAA is discussed. At our monthly business meeting, we make decisions by group conscience, guided by higher power. Everyone has a vote on group matters.
* Back and forth discussion of different perspectives is appropriate. We strive to be respectful of all.
* Anonymity reminds us to place principles before personalities.
* All who attend OOMG meetings on Zoom or Mumble are welcome to participate and vote in OOMG business.
* The business of the Original Online Meeting Group of CGAA is discussed. At our monthly business meeting, we make decisions by group conscience, guided by higher power. Everyone has a vote on group matters.
* Back and forth discussion of different perspectives is appropriate. We strive to be respectful of all.
* Anonymity reminds us to place principles before personalities.
etiquette against moderation shares
Proposal to add our etiquette against moderation shares to "When to address a disruption during the meeting" in the Meeting Leader Guide:
Re: etiquette against moderation shares
Makes sense to me. We read the mission statement at the beginning, so people sharing about moderation know our single purpose is to abstain from gaming, so I don’t think it’s wrong to interrupt them for detailed moderation shares.