No, I didn’t. Just because they “feel” alienated doesn’t mean they are actually being alienated.
Yes, you did.
This is a newly-introduced qualifier; in the post in question you were speaking of the community’s judgement as ratifying an acknowledged state of alienation.
2 Likes
You literally quoted me stating that the community should decide whether someone has been “unjustly alienated” whatever that means, but ok.
1 Like
Yes, which literally constitutes you stipulating that they have, in fact, been alienated.
2 Likes
Just because someone feels alienated doesn’t mean they have actually been alienated. But again, alienated is such a nebulous term this is an absurd argument.
That’s certainly true, but you, I, and everyone reading this knows you stipulated in that post that they were alienated. If you now regret that stipulation and wish to withdraw it, that’s of course your prerogative.
2 Likes
Mother of God. 10 points to Gryffindor.
6 Likes
I agree with your point. However, given that very few people publicly favored mod rotation (over other mod regimes) every time it was discussed previously, I think you are in the minority (which is perfectly fine of course).
I think this got lost, but this is wrong. Current mod terms are not indeterminate. Moderators are up for re-election every 6 months.
1 Like
If there are almost 50 posters in this RFC vote saying that they don’t want mods to ever be immediately re-elected, how is it even possible that a mod could win re-election by a 2/3 majority? The answer is that mod elections are not especially fair. Votes aren’t secret, turnout is low, and the elections aren’t contested.
In fact, the whole mod rotation requirement would appear to be a paper tiger. If there’s a 2/3 majority in favor of re-electing a particular moderator, then how hard is it to just RFC the restriction away with a 60% majority? Not hard at all. The reality, though, is that it would be a lot harder to get 34% of the vote to block a moderator’s reelection than it would be to get 41% to block an RFC change. There are people ITT arguing that this is a stealthy plan to de-mod MrWookie. If that theory is true, then it would suggest that it’s easier to get 60% of an RFC vote than 34% of a mod re-election vote. That’s a little hard to believe, but is it completely implausible?
2 Likes
Getting 60% on rule 2 here is light years easier than getting 34% to vote to remove Wookie. We have basically had both votes and one is razor thin while the other wasn’t close. I say that as a yes voter on rule #2. I think for a few this is a way to get rid of Wookie but for a large majority of yes voters it isn’t. I’ve long advocated for rotating mods so I voted yes here even though I would not vote to de-mod Wookie under the current system.
6 Likes
This seems entirely consistent with the rest of my post?
Lots to reply to, so gonna try to consolidate down.
-
As the person that started this RFC, it was about creating a system that would work best for the community as a whole and give more freedom and a sense of duty to the mods during their terms. It was meant to benefit both users and mods of the forum and was not intentionally targeted at a single mod. I regret that it was ever allowed to be made to appear that was the goal.
-
@microbet and @All-InFlynn have made good arguments in this thread about the benefits of a mod rotation system and how things can deteriorate in a community without it. Those attempting to argue against them would be best served by trying to explain what they view as detrimental about this system, rather than arguing about a single mod. If this were really about trying to get rid of a single mod, creating a system where they can still be a mod 10 months out of the year was a seriously flawed design.
9 Likes
I’m tired. I misread your colon as a period.
1 Like
I’m glad you’re not my doctor.
23 Likes
I’m going to offer this up as proof that I had zero ill-will towards Wookie and that I started this truly in attempting to do what is best for the forum.
This is a PM I sent him on February 1st (it’s ok for me to choose to share my own PMs right?)
Also shows I truly believe in encouraging our mods to take regular breaks.
Ultimately, while I had some misgivings, I still feel those in favor of this system are making far better arguments than I’ve seen from the side saying this is a bad idea. But I’m open to hearing if anyone wants to talk about how this goes wrong in your head.
Nobody thinks you had ill will towards Wookie. However the timing of this was really poor like a week or so after the Captains Counsel thread, and the Captains are absolutely using your idea to get rid of Wookie.
Thread winner.
1 Like
Seems like there is one group here that keeps wanting to make this about wookie.
3 Likes
This makes the history of what actually happened sound a lot more organized and intentional than it was. The Captains thing didn’t originate as a plan to get rid of Wookie, it started because a thread that people were participating in (a game) was locked.
1 Like