Since Day One we as a community have consistently advocated and voted for minimal rules, minimal moderation, and most-of-all community moderation. That is, modding via community standards, NOT modding via personal standards. This is the clearest mandate of all mandates ever mandated. (This was the lynchpin of the Cuse-NBZ fiasco.)
Maybe recent events have shifted the community views on this issue to some degree. But having a hot-headed poster in the heat of a controversy ask to be modded so he can perma-ban a bunch of posters he doesnāt like is BEYOND CRAZY and should not be accepted. I cannot believe we even got to this point.
In terms of the voting, there are a myriad of issues with this entire process. For one, you can be sure that the posters that BoredSocial listed as being on the chopping block the minute he becomes a mod would vote NO if they knew/cared about the vote. And I donāt think getting 51% of the vote, for example, should mean that somebody becomes a mod. A higher threshold is clearly warranted.
Finally, although I am probably coming off as decidedly anti-BoredSocial, that is not my view at all. He is a great contributor to the forum who makes a ton of valuable and informative posts on a wide variety of subjects. Having said that I donāt think he should become a mod for all the reasons that he had laid out himself that are diametrically opposed to the core principles of this forum.
Why does Micro, the guy whose ideas about how the forum should be run really originated this mess, have any input on this again? Seriously the guy started the fire, fed it fuel, used an industrial bellows to make it hotterā¦ and is now telling us that he can stop pumping air on it and if the good posters all quit heās got Young communists there to replace usā¦ but that apparently we can look forward to them just calling us Chadās and Karenās.
What an inspiring leader lol. Absolutely genius. Iām sure trading me, cuse, jman eventually, skydiver eventually, wichita eventually, and god knows who else for a bunch of kids is going to go great. You guys enjoy that.
So is what is valuable to the site. For me the most valuable posters are the news aggregators some of which for the most part only post a sentence or two. I wont name names because ill leave someone out but the discussion is good, but not what i value the most.
So hereās the thing. You have to choose which posters youāre going to keep. You literally canāt keep them all. You want to keep those three and itās going to cost you 4-5 very good+ posters.
If you think that banning those three will blow the whole thing up I guess your choices make sense. I happen to think the opposite of that. Iām already very much tapering off how much I post here though. I have other stuff I could be doing and this place is a massive time sink.
Yeah thatās probably true. I care enough to fix it if someone gives me the power to fix itā¦ but if nobody is going to fix it and itās going to keep going this way Iāll happily take my ass elsewhere.
I like BoredSocialās posting, agree with him re: the 3-4 toxic posters and was inclined to vote yes upon opening the thread. But his campaign pitch is super, super Trumpy, meaning accurately identifying a problem but then grossly exaggerating it and going about solving it in grandiose narcissistic āI alone can fix it/bomb the families!ā way.
Iām gonna run on the opposing ticket. We should all just love each other.
In fact, it will be mandatory. You must tell each member of the forum you love them every single day. By threat of Guillotine. I know somebodyās working on a motorized one after they get their stimulus money.
Reading on I see BS was intentionally sabotaging himself because he really didnāt want the jobā¦ such a Trump move! I switch my vote to Yes as punishment.
