Maybe it was patronizing but not an insult.
Thatās ok bud I think I have a good idea when Iāve been insulted. And Iām not too concerned about it. I just donāt believe that Iām required to agree with it.
The opposite of this, assuming the worst of the mods, is just as bad. If we canāt give people room to start over with a clean slate and we canāt stop stupid tit-for-tat sniping weāre never going to get past this for longer than it takes a new mod to transgress against a poster.
3 Likes
Iāve never assumed the worst of the mods. Iāve barely ever been moderated on any site Iāve participated on (once wookie banned me for 48 hours on 2+2 on accident and I waited until the ban was over and PMād him to work it out) and in fact I canāt remember if Iāve actually ever once been moderated on this site. (Iām not going to count trolling Mason and getting permed on purpose from 2+2)
My opinion of whatās happened here is strictly related to my observations watching this thing unfold. I guess Iām now an enemy of some mods for disagreeing with them and having the opinion that some of their actions have contributed negatively to the situation and appear to be biased against certain users.
Edit: I did leave this site for a while until cuse stepped down from being a mod because he also decided that he was above the community.
4 Likes
It doesāt work, why stick with it? The users arenāt always right. The doesnāt mean donāt listen to them, but it also doesnāt mean do everything they say.
It ruins accountability.
How about we give mods the tools to stop the type of shit-posting that leads us to this mega threads?
If all of the mods were Dids Iād know who they are, but I honestly couldnāt say with absolute certainty who the current mods are which tells me everything I need to know about whether thereās a moderation problem. Iād prefer to allow the current mods to just do whatever the fuck they want and be done with this, because thatās very simple and way better than letting 1% of the users ruin the site.
1 Like
Anonymous mods removes any accountability from the modding process. Who do you take a challenge to for a poor decision? Who do we thank for a good excision?
It also doesnāt solve the basic problem; we need rules and we need a way to keep the rules in sync with what the community wants without a million poles that get 20% participation.
I honestly do not understand how anyone finds themselves remotely conscious of the moderation of this forum.
Get the frick over it.
3 Likes
Because we spent 5k+ posts debating the usage of a very obvious and commonly banned word - I doubt youāre gonna achieve any kind of resolution on who should run this site and how. I donāt see any way around implementing this that doesnāt require some kind of community consensus.
I am saying if weāre gonna use this system, letās at least do it correctly. We are not even doing that. My hope a long ass while back was that eventually the community as a whole would realize itās not working and try to elect a few people to mostly run things, and maybe this is the inflection point, but I doubt it is.
What do you think we should do?
Jbro, I like you as a poster but if I were mod I would have stopped the C-word derail a million posts ago. It isnāt helping further the conversation and is just pissing people off. Regardless of what your intentions are or anyone else who is responding to it, it isnāt helping and would stop.
We need a way to end arguments. We need a way to acknowledge that time has passed and opinions can change without just reignighting old arguments. We donāt have those tools so we need to build them.
2 Likes
I didnāt propose it because it was a good idea. I thought maybe it would illustrate some of the underlying principles at play. In general, I am in favor of transparency in government, whether of this country or of this site.
If a poll gets 20% participation, I think we should treat it as if 80% are voting to accept whatever the 20% decide.
If the poll is put as a banner on the top of the site, then I agree with this.
That why people lock threads. It both stops the discussion in a practical sense and makes it clear that the topic is not welcome anywhere else.
Or thatās how itās supposed to work.
Youāre right, Iām not asking to put a new set of rules to a vote. The one thing this experiment has shown is that it is not a good way to run a site.
Iām saying that the current owners of the site create a set of rules. One of the rules being they are re-evaluated every 3 months and are open to being reinterpreted if needed. And then we start the habit of talking about the rules every 3 months instead of every 3 goddamn minutes. Start off with the simplest set you want, just make sure part of it is looking at them every 3 months.
My rules would be:
-Weāll revisit the rules in three months
-Mods can excise derails from threads at their discretion
-Events that took place in another thread are a derail
-Personal insults are a derail
-Past forum events are a derail
-Complaints about moderation are limited to the moderation thread
-More than three posts from a single poster about a moderation decision is a derail
Thatās how weād start the new experiment in iterative forum governance.
3 Likes
Thatās a horrible idea. Why should I be bound by what the 20% of squeaky fucks want?
But we allow those arguments to be started in other threads where the mods felt powerless to stop them. (from what I remember of the Cuse/Jal tsunami)
Iām leaning towards the idea that we need another go-around at figuring out forum governance.
I donāt think we did a good job the last time. I thought the process was poorly executed, but I didnāt want to be heavily involved because of my own controversies at the time. I think I was mostly posting around the edges and pointing out flaws and not doing as much advocating for what I thought should be done as I should.
1 Like
Why did the mods feel this way?
What do you think of my idea to heuristically develop a rule set? Empower the mods to do whatever they think is good and just, subject to a majority vote to override any decision. Then carefully document those decisions to come up with an implicitly agreed upon standard of behavior?