This is a bit rich. For well over a year now there have been numerous posts complaining about wookie and his “bias” against certain posters.
So we put up wookie for mod re-election and he won overwhelmingly in a community vote. We put up a vote for mod regime and a 6-month re-election cycle won in a community vote.
Anybody who read or knows what was posted in the thread that we shouldn’t talk about knows that wookie was mentioned several times, and not in a positive way.
Shortly after that a “mod rotation” RFC is put forth by someone who admittedly is not fully briefed on this forum’s history. While that poster is surely acting in good faith, others can question the process from which this RFC arose.
As I have said several times now, I favor mod rotations. But I am voting No on Rule 2 due to the way that it came about.
As with most claims made by the No On 2 crowd ITT, this has been addressed already, in the threads hashing this out previously. Wookie ceasing to be mod, if only temporarily, is a necessary outcome of introducing mod rotation with term limits. That doesn’t make it the goal.
There are surely some people who want rid of Wookie. There are others who want a system that doesn’t lead to a state of affairs where there are more-or-less permanent moderators and a sizable minority of regular, long-standing posters who feel that those moderators aren’t capable of treating them fairly. There are (cough cough) other regular, long-standing posters who were never once banned on 2p2 and have been temp-banned less than a handful of times here, who feel that those posters have a point.
If I have my history straight it came about because a thread people were playing a game in was closed → people took the game to PM → poster people were playing game with was permabanned → people started talking about a subforum where they might not get banned or have threads closed → that was met with tremendous hostility → PM thread published → people were called treacherous Nazis → lotta people threw their hands up in the air (and they certainly haven’t all come down) → meb started this RFC acting in good faith → some people had opinions and votes.
Thanks for your reply. As someone once said, everyone has their own version of history. When you start the story, what you include, what you leave out, how you interpret events, etc., etc., etc.
My post above attempted to explain my rationale for voting No (which another poster requested previously in the thread).
P.S. To be honest, perhaps I am a bit peeved about recent events since I previously spent a great many hours advocating for a mod rotation regime with very little support (there is no doubt that you were one of the leaders of that charge). Now recent events transpire and people jump on the mod rotation bandwagon like there’s no tomorrow.
It seems like you think mod rotation is, fundamentally, a good idea, but that you’re very uncomfortable with potentially not sharing the exact motivations of some of the other people advocating it. Can I ask why that is? If I think doing the dishes is good because I want clean dishes, and someone else thinks it’s good because clanking the plates will annoy someone, I don’t stop wanting clean dishes - you know?
They’re entitled to their opinions of course but it’s hard to understand why someone who over the past 6 months has a huge majority of their posts in AU or French BBV would be so interested in how the forum is modded.
Wow you got me! No I’m seriously asking. If your goal is to make this a better place (which I would assume you want because you are still posting here, I mean the other alternative is that you are here to do the opposite) then what does that achieve exactly? Spell it out for me since you did it so I would ask this exact question. If that and the rest of this isn’t just blatant trolling explain what your end goal actually is here recently? I’m legitimately curious. For a long time I enjoyed your posting but in the last month or two it seems you only show up to poke people with sticks.
When I searched for the thread I thought it would be funny to vote months late in a poll where my vote wouldn’t come close to counting. I hadn’t even noticed I’d already voted and didn’t remember doing so.
What’s “the rest of this”?
My end goal was to help this place. I only really weighed in on all this barely a month ago (in the months previous I made maybe 3 posts trying to be a diplomatic mediator) when Sabo was getting slandered and when Johnny et al wanted to set up a subforum and were getting abused for doing so. I sided with them and was thus abused. Anybody who sides against or “against” MrWookie and Team Whatever is abused. The relevant posts can be searched for.
Like, what is it you all really think we’re referring to when we reference a problematic and toxic culture here?
Two lines were crossed that bother me significantly more and should bother you (since you’re telling people how they should feel): An admin breaching trust and both reading and then making the PM public, and then people like you actually reading what was none of your business to read.
Thanks for the reply. I hear you even if I haven’t shared the same experience. I sincerely hope that this passes and both “sides” can give things a fair shot.
It’s not a premise, it’s a question. Clearly people would vote differently in different circumstances. But equally clearly, it’s inconsistent for 60% of the voters to want no mod re-election while voting by a larger majority to re-elect mods. You can’t consistently will the same thing and its opposite. (Or more formally, you can’t construct a rational individual with consistent preferences who would act like this electorate.)
The point of this is that it’s hollow to point to the 2/3 majority requirement as evidencing any kind of community judgment. The answer you get depends on how the decisions are packaged together (and in open voting cases like ours, how voters perceive the social consequences of particular votes). There is no actual coherent judgment of the community.
Rather, the point of elections is consensus, not measuring the will of the people. And votes are not the only way to achieve consensus. In particular, given that there are obvious divisions in this community and given that moderators are humans with emotions and biases rather than perfect computers implementing a moderating algorithm, it’s inherently consensus-building to regularly switch up the set of biased and human emotions that do the moderating. You want it to be like the weather in New England. If you don’t like the moderation, just wait two months and it will change.
