I don’t mind it whatsoever. If I don’t have the support of the community, I’d rather be ousted as a mod now than to continue down this road. If I do have the support of the community, that’d be great to know. Right now I think I have it, and that it’s a very vocal minority shouting me down, but I don’t know for sure.
I’m always up for having more information and for the community being heard from in full, but my guess is that the people who oppose me think they’d lose the vote handily and would rather keep stirring shit up hoping that I either step down on my own or do something that the majority of the community thinks is uncalled for to the point of removing me.
Imagine a spectrum of posts that mention violence. Maybe it goes from the mere mention of violence, … , condoning violence, … , encouraging violence, … , advocating violence. This is far from perfect but you get the idea.
Forum rules need to draw the line somewhere on this spectrum dividing the allowed vs. disallowed posts. For simplicity let’s call this “loose” (the line is drawn towards the advocate end of the spectrum), “medium”, and “strict” (the line is drawn towards the condoning end of the spectrum).
Okay, every forum post can have multiple interpretations. Let’s say that posts that mention violence can be interpreted in the least favorable light (most violent) to medium to the most favorable light (less violent).
My view is that it is untenable for a forum mod to apply a “least favorable” reading with a “strict” standard. That would inevitably break down and lead to too many infractions, temp-bans, etc., and too much work for the mod.
On the other hand it is also untenable for a forum mod to apply a “most favorable” reading with a “loose” standard. That would also inevitably break down since far too few infractions, temp-bans, etc. would be meted out.
Maybe the above doesn’t make any sense to anybody else, but it kinda crystalizes my view of the current situation.
Option four is so weak. Complain about a problem but do nothing about it other than cry about the people working to address you concern. If you want a community-run site, then, I dunno, you need to either get involved or be quiet.
Because of your choices over the last week or so one respected poster has nuked his own account and another has stopped being a donor/patron. And now you’re trying to present like you care what the community thinks after banning someone who the community said should be left alone.
Pick mods who have good judgment and let them call balls and strikes. The batters don’t get to open a new thread every time a close call doesn’t go their way and say it’s a dictatorship or mob rule. They can hold a vote to remove the umpire and replace with someone who they deem to have better judgment or do the thankless unpaid work themselves. “I want you to umpire–but only my way–and I’ll scrutinize every 50/50 ball I don’t agree with” isn’t going to fly.
Right, what they want is to not have the full responsibility of being a mod but to tell the mods how to mod. I get it. Can’t eat your cake and have it.
If somebody thinks cuse is doing a shit enough job to warrant being removed, then that person should step forward and offer to replace him. I’m completely unwilling to do that. So I’m with cuse even though I think he has handled NBZ terribly throughout.
That and I almost never do anything that causes harm to a forum. If so it’s often a one-off. So whatevs.
If you believe that is a prerequisite for asking a mod to step down, you are crazy. But my guess is that you are just joining in on the fun of ratcheting this higher and higher until the fate of the human race hangs in the balance.
Cool, I am able to delete my posts over 60 days old which I’ve done. You can delete the rest of my posts (I’d finish the job myself but the software won’t let me delete anymore posts for 24 hours) and then my account or use the anonymize button as you prefer.
