Rule 1 is a slam dunk obvious pass. Rule 2, I thought was good while I was helping create it. I have some misgivings about it though as it was created around the idea that everyone truly wants this forum to be successful. I have my doubts that this is actually still the case.
If rule 2 passes, I believe the next thing that must be done is to create a clear set of community guidelines and standards for the forum. Whether this is done via RFC or some other process, it is clear to me that the majority of disagreement on this forum revolves around the fact that we do not see eye to eye at all on what standards we should try to uphold.
My understanding is that when term limits have been instituted for political office, they generally have not been applied retroactively unless that is explicitly made clear.
Iām really torn on two. I think it is a good policy from an incremental perspective though I would prefer a gap of 6 months. Iāll vote Yes; maybe in the future we adjust the gaps if needed.
Iām thinking of going yes too. And I agree with the above, adding that adjusting could also mean just getting rid of the gaps if they donāt prove to bring any benefit.
ETA: I just noticed that some of the Captains have Captain avatars now. Thatās cute! Does anyone have Captain Caveman yet?
I dunno man. I was given the impression that when my term is up, all feuding will cease, mod decisions will be respected even when someone disagrees, and kindness will flow forth freely from the pixels on the screen. It is pretty exciting!
I understand thereās a little sarcasm here, but I was one of the most vocal proponents of mod rotation, and IIRC correctly I explicitly argued that of course disputes will still exist over modding decisions, itās just that theyāre far less likely to accrue and curdle into chronic resentment. Plus, if someone winds up having a problem no matter whoās modding, they may realise that either their posting needs to change or this place just isnāt for them.
I worry that two months is too short, though. If someone can, in theory, be a mod for ten months out of the year, that may not yield nearly as much benefit. Weāll have to see.
I would not be surprised to see disputes get more rancorous, with the formation of factions whose goal is to try to prevent members of the other faction from becoming moderators. We may see a period of heavy attacks on other posters around mod approval votes.
āI would not be surprised to see the walls of the room in which Iām standing.ā
I think seriously contentious mod elections are unlikely, and if they happen itās only a small minority of posters who will have any serious appetite for them. Those posters are in a constant state of cattiness and mutual hostility anyway, nothing much changes.
What I worry about is overblown complaints about any new mod, to build a case for abandoning the new system. I donāt really want to risk speaking it into existence, but if there are loud and angry complaints about new mods from [you-know-who] and [itās-the-poster-youāre-thinking-of] Iāll consider that a little suspicious.
I mean, weāve already had multiple mods, and multiple mods have banned some of the same people, and weāve already seen the conclusion that all these different mods are biased. Iām sure 3 more mods will be all the difference, though.
