While I’m not the sharpest tack, I would say that trolling people who have recently questioned your modding behavior appears to be some pretty solid evidence that you are biased.
Dude. I hadn’t posted seriously in that old thread for over a day and you had to show up to take a shot at the “others”. I think you have this backwards.
I’m not sure if I’m being a crazy lurker but after reading all the stuff you guys dished out in your own PM thread you’re really going down this road about being supposedly butthurt over what Wichita said??
Can we just start with the first part, the “personal attack(s)” part? How is that possibly a personal attack? I’m not doing an Eddie Haskell here, I’m seriously asking. This could be a fruitful discussion.
I’ve said there’s no hard science to giving hearts to a post, but considering your post only got one ironic heart and Econophile’s not-cool post got eleven, are we sure? I mean, I obviously was banned for a ‘personal attack’ but are we even sure this is what’s being referenced? Because the weird part is I had a whole long thing before the ‘I’d stick to lurking’ part where I addressed the nature of his post, and that might be where the personal attack was. That post is deleted but maybe you could ask MrWookie to tell us.
I wasn’t Eddie Haskelling you either. I’m sure that’s the only reason you ignored my polite question, so, just clearing that up.
I don’t want to get into a prolonged back and forth about this, but telling someone to “stick to lurking” is the same as telling someone that they shouldn’t post here or in other words that their voice doesn’t deserve to be heard. That’s not a very nice thing to say to any poster, but I think it is particularly bad to say to new or infrequent posters because it discourages growth of the community.
There are more constructive ways to respond to posts that you disagree with or that you think are out of line.
Just thinking out loud, what if each mod had a thread in ATF noting things like date of election, terms served (assuming there isn’t a term limit, though I would support one), and a poll in the OP that gauges the satisfaction of the community with the mods performance? Something like a permanent ‘recall’ poll, with some sort of rule like “if the approval ratio dips below X then the mod is replaced.” Depending on poll capabilities it could even be something like a 5-point scale rather than a binary yes/no to add some nuance to it (even though the vast majority of answers would be either 5s or 1s).
I think having an anonymous poll would be good so that posters could express their feelings without fear of backlash, but I’d be concerned about sock puppet voting. Is it possible to have an anonymous poll but restrict voting to users above a certain trust level? Maybe the community would prefer that, idk.
The threads could also be a place for specific mod complaints or discussions, which might help keep that out of other threads (or, ya know, they could end up blowing up and destroying everything).
I realize this won’t address all the concerns that some have with moderation, but I also am skeptical that a place this large could exist without moderation at all so I’m trying to think of feedback mechanisms that might help with issues like the ones we’re having.
(@ ing @trolly and @anon46587892 because their posts in the sabo thread made me think of this but I felt this thread was a better location for the discussion)
idk about the poll, but maybe a page upfront with info on the mods, rules, how to get and RFC going would help. People have complained that they can’t figure out the RFC process. I’m reluctant to ask admin if they can do this since they’re way overworked with forum nonsense as-is.