What it boils down to is that other posters think that those posters are unjustified in their complaints and refuse to give in for the sake of creating a negative peace which is the absence of tension. There are irreconcilable differences. Drama ensues because one side chooses to keep arguing and the other side chooses to respond.
Let’s be honest here. If your primary goal is the removal of said mod, you’re probably going to lose repeatedly, and the drama will continue if there are continued complaints about said mod, which will happen. The end to this occurs when either you get fed up and leave or you complain enough that you wear people down and they give in to you or you complain enough that people get sufficiently annoyed to change the rules and empower mods to moderate your complaining more harshly. Or you just give up, but I don’t think anyone expects you to do that.
Lol. Literally nobody in this thread believes you give a shit about mod term limits and literally everyone knows this is all about your petty feud against some current mods who dared to interfere with your trolling.
You’re quite wrong. I’ve consistently argued for a wider spread of mods for short terms, and for them to become a mod again after a break of a term (if they want to). But I suspect you know that anyway and the accusations of trolling are more of the usual projection.
So how do we go about creating a rule that banishes this horseshit discussion to French BBV? Do I need to make a request for comments thread first? Maybe a request for poll wording thread? The forum should have banished all this forum drama to French BBV months ago, but instead you all were allowed you vent and complain in ATF with the hopes that maybe you would be satisfied with whatever rules came out of the mess you started. But let’s face it, you never gave any kind of a fuck about the process. All you ever cared about was Wookie getting demodded.
Legit curious why @iron81 voted no. He’s possibly the only person voting no on this that isn’t doing it because of a personal petty squabble, besides maybe Keeed.
I voted no because you guys are putting way too much effort into figuring this stuff out and I wish a third of the posts on this forum weren’t about moderation.
How is that fixed? It’s the exact same gobbeldygook. I abstain because I have no idea what Yes or No means.
This is 1000x worse than the California Propositions. At least they clearly spell out. “A Yes vote means …”, “A no vote means nothing will happen” You should at least stipulate what no means.
A yes vote means that we adopt this method of choosing and renewing moderators. A no vote means that we continue with the arbitrary and capricious means of doing so.
In the same vein, 2/3s of what? Voters in said poll? Maybe that’s obvious, but I’m surprised that it is not spelled out. Bunch of lawyers, programmers and math types on this site, you’d expect the wording to be tighter.
