Community rule vote: Moderators and moderation logs

[microbet]

@NotBruceZ

You might not be able to quote a post in a closed thread easily, but the timestamp has the link to the post.

The post was from exiled before we started discourse.

[anon29622970]

It’s currently an incredibly close vote on rule 2 with a little over 2 days left. At 59-41, it would be dead by the slimmest of margins. I am holding my vote, but plan to use it before the deadline. Not sure how many other prospective voters are out there, but I would suggest making positive arguments for this new system if you want to see it passed. Basically, everyone else be more like @microbet

[MimosaDef]

I’m leaning no, but most likely scenario is I forget to vote, lol. I could go for something like microbet is talking about (everyone takes a turn like collecting wood for the nightly campfire), but this isn’t that.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

Serious question to you @anon29622970:

The “current” system requires that Mod’s be re-elected every 6 months by a 2/3 vote. If a moderator is doing such a good job that 2/3 of the community supports him or her, then why is it necessary to force that mod out? It certainly is the case that we run mods here ragged, and it is difficult to get volunteers (who are acceptable to the community and aren’t volunteering just because they want to ban a certain user for example). All this does is push us further towards not having mods. And while I get that Microbet is legitimately arguing that no mods is a good thing, the past year on this forum demonstrates that you need moderation, at least in an open forum that anyone can join.

[All-InFlynn]

@j8i3h289dn3x7

If a moderator is doing such a good job that 2/3 of the community supports him or her, then why is it necessary to force that mod out?

I address this in #121 also. tl;dr the re-election votes are not stringent, it will ~never be the case that enough people will have a specific problem with any given mod => re-election is virtually automatic => the minority of posters who (inevitably) do have a problem with that mod are just thrown under the bus.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@All-InFlynn

it will ~never be the case that enough people will have a specific problem with any given mod

If it is never the case that enough people will have a specific problem with a given mod (which seems unlikely, I think Wookie’s a dog to be re-elected anyway), then why do we care if that person is still a mod? Seems like they’re doing a bang up job then…

[All-InFlynn]

@j8i3h289dn3x7

why do we care if that person is still a mod?

@All-InFlynn

the minority of posters who (inevitably) do have a problem with that mod are just thrown under the bus.

@All-InFlynn

Most people are just going to want to not have to think about it and, if neither they themselves nor a poster they’re especially tight with have beef with the mod, they’re mostly just going to re-appoint the mod. I think this leads to what you might call the tyranny of the indifference of the majority. And I’ll again stress that none of this requires any malicious actions or intentions on the part of the mods.

I’m sincerely not trying to be snarky when I say: You could try just reading the posts.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@All-InFlynn

I’m sincerely not trying to be snarky when I say: You could try just reading the posts.

And I’m sincerely not trying to be snarky when I ask, why do we care if a minority of posters has a problem with a moderator? Given the 66 percent re-election requirement and low turnout, it would have to be a pretty small minority.

[All-InFlynn]

@j8i3h289dn3x7

And I’m sincerely not trying to be snarky when I ask, why do we care if a minority of posters has a problem with a moderator?

Because we’re a community and no member of the community should be unjustly alienated through the (inevitable) accrual of resentment towards a permanently entrenched mod.

[NotBruceZ]

What should happen to users who are justly alienated?

[All-InFlynn]

I feel like it’s already happened.

[NotBruceZ]

Do justly alienated members usually recognize that they are not unjustly alienated?

[All-InFlynn]

What does it matter?

[Trolly]

@All-InFlynn

a permanently entrenched mod.

Can we get a moratorium on this hyperbolic shit? The mods need to be re-elected and approved by the community under the current rules. Nobody is “permanently entrenched.”

[NotBruceZ]

We should evaluate alternative systems based on the range of possible outcomes, from optimistic to pessimistic.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@All-InFlynn

Because we’re a community and no member of the community should be unjustly alienated

@NotBruceZ

What should happen to users who are justly alienated?

I mean, Bruce kind of hit the nail on the head there though. Isn’t the best judge of whether or not someone has been justly or unjustly alienated… the rest of the community? And given the 66.6 percent threshold, we’re not even talking about a majority of the community. I mean 80 people voted in this poll and this is a community rule change. By your own admission turnout in moderator re-elections is going to be lower…

[All-InFlynn]

@Trolly

Can we get a moratorium on this shit?

No, because:

@All-InFlynn

So you might say: Well, mods now have to seek re-confirmation. But here we encounter the fact that most people simply don’t care that much. Most people are just going to want to not have to think about it and, if neither they themselves nor a poster they’re especially tight with have beef with the mod, they’re mostly just going to re-appoint the mod. I think this leads to what you might call the tyranny of the indifference of the majority. And I’ll again stress that none of this requires any malicious actions or intentions on the part of the mods.

Again, sincerely, no shade or snark intended: please, just read the posts.

[j8i3h289dn3x7]

@Trolly

The mods need to be re-elected and approved by the community under the current rules.

Not just re-elected either! They need to be approved every six months by a super-majority.

[All-InFlynn]

@j8i3h289dn3x7

I mean, Bruce kind of hit the nail on the head there though. Isn’t the best judge of whether or not someone has been justly or unjustly alienated… the rest of the community? And given the 66.6 percent threshold, we’re not even talking about a majority of the community.

No, we’ve seen multiple cases of posters who clearly feel alienated and yet also do not get perma’d when that’s put to a vote. If the community has endorsed their ongoing membership, it makes no sense to suggest that they are ‘justly alienated’ from it.

@j8i3h289dn3x7

By your own admission turnout in moderator re-elections is going to be lower…

I didn’t say turnout would be lower. I said people wouldn’t engage with the issue as much, wouldn’t think about it as much.

[microbet]

I will not vote against Wookie in a re-election. I think lots of people here would be no better as mods than him and I’m not going to help mimic mod rotation using what is essentially a recall vote. That’s a terrible system.