This isn’t wrong, but in context the sentiment seems a bit odd. Granted humans are fickle and the way poll questions are framed affects voting and anyway how can we really know anything man…
it’s still a bit much to say that a 2/3 vote isn’t a reasonable measurement of the community judgement. Or at least I’d like to hear if you have a better way to gauge it. Delegitimizing the community voting system seems like it would be bad for everyone (except people who just want chaos).
those guys sound bad!
I’ll say, I think I see where bobo is coming from here. You have posters like whosnext who seems to be saying that they like the idea of mod rotation but are completely turned off by how shady the events surrounding this have been. As bobo points out, if the same rule had been put forward in a different way, it almost surely would have passed. As it is, people have understandable objections to the transparent bad faith that’s been on display for the past few months from a vocal minority.
What transparent bad faith are you talking about?
Like, what is this shit? Funcrusher is the one who crossed a line by reading something someone else openly posted in a non-private post? What did the mods say when you reported Funcrusher’s unacceptable behavior?
GMAFB. You guys are ruining your own case with this nonsense.
This is wrong in other ways, and there’s really really nothing wrong with not reporting posts, but a lot of this is like “that Bernie bro made a mean tweet. I’ll never vote for Bernie.”
But I don’t want that to sound at all like I agree with the “bad faith” premise in Trolly’s post. Keeed, 6ix, Jal, Marty, and even “lol, he admits it” fidget have all been acting in good faith and as Keeed has said multiple times (demonstration of good faith) it’s possible to both think Wookie is not doing a good job and that mods should rotate.
The bad faith you have when he doesn’t answer your polite question. Shame on you Ked.
“You say you want mod rotation as something for the good of the community, but it seems like you just want to get wookie out!”
“Yes… and also yes. He is thoroughly bad for the community and this whole thing should be easier to understand with him as such an illustrative case for why mod rotation is good.”
“Ha, so you admit it!”
“…Yes? But also, kill me please? Like, put me on a grand trebuchet and launch me into the sun.”
What I’m saying is that the community judgment doesn’t exist. You can tell, because different reasonable ways of trying to measure it produce seriously inconsistent results. The entire chain of reasoning that runs from mod won 2/3 reelection vote → community judges that mod is great → there must not be many posters who feel alienated or they deserve it or etc. is fatally flawed, because the second step relies on a nonexistent community judgment.
I strongly disagree that this delegitimizes community voting. As I said, voting is a tool for creating and detecting consensus. It’s a valuable tool, but that doesn’t mean we have to be blind to its limitations. In particular, I would argue that a periodic up/down two-thirds vote on re-electing moderators is not an effective tool for ensuring that we don’t end up with a group of posters who consistently feel like they are on the outs with the powers that be and are second-class citizens in the community.
Once you dispense with the unhelpful illusion that we need to be somehow consulting the community-judgment oracle to pick our leaders, it’s easier to see that we can do a better job of building consensus simply by ensuring that any mod that some group finds objectionable isn’t always going to be there. It prevents people’s idiosyncratic personal beefs with particular mods from becoming (or appearing to become) part of their permanent record. Over time, it means that more and more members of the community have taken a turn on the front lines and have more perspective about the decisions that get made. And, frankly, if some posters find that every mod who takes on the role is an asshole, maybe that helps them see that they’re actually the asshole and perhaps motivates some personal growth.
Stuff like this irritates me quite a bit. What way could this have been put forward that wouldn’t have been shady and transparently bad faith in your view? If you’re saying this when it was put forward by someone who has publicly and privately supported the mods on this site and stated breaks for them would be healthy due to how the stress of being a mod of an online community can needlessly leak into everyday life. What way would you accept this if not this way?
I mean, we did this once before not long ago, and immediate re-election was more popular than required time off then. It’s not like I just made that up.
People feeling this way is understandable, but it really needs to be emphasized that acting on these feelings is a one-way ticket to the chaos you want to avoid. If a large majority of the community thinks that something is a good idea, but some people are strategically voting against it because they want to punish other people in the community, that’s basically the definition of irreconcilable differences. If satisfactory compromises exist, but people won’t adopt them because they don’t want a satisfactory compromise, then… how do you see this playing out? Acting this way basically precludes any happy ending.
It’s also possible to think Wookie isn’t doing a good job and that mods shouldn’t be forced to rotate.
Obviously. Did you think I’d disagree?
^^ This is well explained, but it’s the part that I’m not sure I buy. To be honest, what I suspect will happen is that this rule will pass and then at some point we will hear some persistent complaints that the modding still sucks and that the mandatory breaks aren’t long enough.
^^ This is something I am hopeful about if this passes, but I’m still not convinced we need to make the switch to get there. We could have more people taking turns being mods as it stands.
^^ This would be great. (But again, the cynic in me is doubtful).
In short, I do see some things to be hopeful about, but I am still not convinced that this is the rule modification that’s going to bring the change we’re looking for. So, I’m leaning No still, but I’m pretty ambivalent I guess.
Thanks for the interesting posts.
Dispense with the months of shit-stirring, blatant trolling, and hyperbolic “tyrannical entrenched permamod” silliness (not saying you personally were involved in this). I get that this is frustrating for the people who’ve been pro-rotation since before all this drama.
I mean, whosnext seems like a neutral voice who’s stayed out of the drama and he’s straight telling you the bad-faith nonsense is hurting the cause.
If booting out Wookie was the goal all along, say so and explain what mod actions he’s done that are unacceptable.
I believe that some turnover of mods is a good thing. I don’t believe that forced 100% turnover is a good thing. I believe that term limits are a dumb idea in politics, so I see no reason to have them here. I would rather just expand the mod staff to a size where spots are always going to be opening up and new blood will come in.
What people decry as forum drama, I think of as forum politics. And to me, it’s just this really pure form of politics that I find fascinating. If you have an interest in participating in local politics, I think you should try modding here.
I think that you were trying to find a solution to the problem and that is admirable. I think there is a correlation/causation thing going on here that is valid for some and invalid for some. That’s where it gets tricky. Like would you have ever stepped in to try and make some new rules had things been humming along smoothly? Of course not. Now does that mean your personal efforts here are bad faith? No. Does it mean you are part of the mob demanding Wookie’s head? No. But where that gets muddled is a 10% minority of the site does care greatly about ousting one particular mod and they have all latched on to your idea as a way to do that.
Does that make your idea bad? Nefarious? No. But the timing of it looks bad to some because there is a correlation and also at least some degree of causation between forum WW2 and this starting up. So that’s why you have been under fire. I don’t think it is particularly fair but to answer your question the answer is that if it had been put forward at another time, rather than at a time when a subset of the forum is threatening to quit over one mod, then I don’t think any suspicions from anyone arise.
That’s not how it comes across when you say voting is a “hollow, oracular illusion” and that consensus doesn’t even exist. OK, voting is an imperfect tool for gauging the community’s judgement that can be gamed in some ways, I agree with you on that.