Jmakin is interested in modding rules. He does a lot of good posting and some hostile bad posting, but I doubt he’d be vindictive as a mod. He’s a member here in good standing. Personally I like him and like having him around. He’s not perfect, but neither are goofy or wookie or whoever else the mods are. He should be able to be a mod, especially if he’s strongly interested in mod policies.
1 Like
My views on Sabo are well known; he is trying to radicalize the forum and should be stuck in containment threads. I was actually agreeing with Cassette’s judgement of the quote, I just thought if we’re going to talk about it we should all have a chance to see it.
1 Like
Is the list of mods public, or is it a secret? Apologies if the answer is somewhere upthread
Ah…my bad. I thought you were agreeing with jmakin.
I do think that post was worse than the general kind of insults that fly around here.
1 Like
It is not, although for some reason nobody ever seems to be able to find this page.
1 Like
Ponied by seconds! Suck it, Oreo!
1 Like
I am too polarizing of a personality and am perceived as too much of a hothead for moderating, as I learned over years of being passed over in OOT. But I do have an interest in the rules and have strong opinions of them and feel like I should have a voice in the conversation.
I’ve been pretty in favor of having some basic rules for a while now and felt this was a good opportunity to voice it as any.
1 Like
Ok. It’s not going to get done without a thread. And you probably have some ground work to do to even have a productive thread. From a politicking perspective, I wouldn’t push too hard until after the election, but if someone else is interested in the same kind of thing, maybe you can workshop some basic modding rules and then bring them forward into a thread. I think doing something like that via PMs or otherwise off the forum and then presenting together something at least a few people already agree on would give you the best chance for success.
Appreciate the response.
I think people would be less likely to make frivolous and personally motivated flags if they were outted.
Discussions alone can foster animosity. We kinda all accept that possibility when you engage in these conversations. I don’t necessarily agree that protecting a flagger is an effective way way to minimize this risk.
I’m not convinced that outing flaggers is the right way to go, btw. But a do think it’s much closer to an answer for this particular drama than trying to set boundaries for acceptable discourse beyond what we already have.
I think this is a big unaddressed need for the forum; it would be nice to have new blood. I don’t really have any ideas on how to expand the userbase. I’m more of a problem identifier than a problem solver.
3 Likes
For much of the same reasons I’ll never mod, I am not the one to lead that conversation. Someone with respect in this community like cuserounder or riverman needs to do it. The time has probably already passed for the conversation, but w/e.
That may be what has moved him to lobby for this, especially now, but I think he’s fair enough that he wouldn’t want the rules to be biased for him or whoever he supports generally.
Also, I’m not at all on board with the project in particular. I don’t want a set of rules for the site. Not at all. But I am on board with people making projects of what they think is important.
I might be on board for a strictly followed rule of “be kind”, but that would be a very different thing than what we have going on here.
2 Likes
What?
2 Likes
I do think jmakin would be a good mod. But yeah, I think the mods should rotate. I think if the plebs want something for the site they should try to convince enough people to support it and show their work with threads and polls and such.
If one were to do this, I think the starting point should be case studies of posts deemed problematic that were not hidden, then writing rules that one thinks would cause those posts to be hidden.
I agree that this should wait until after the election when things (hopefully) become less frenetic. People who are interested in this should probably consider bookmarking questionable posts for further discussion.
If you don’t want a set of rules, how would you feel about a public discussion over a non-binding code of conduct that some posters might agree on as the basis they will operate from in flagging posts? And if some of them want to play forum cop and aggressively flag posts that violate that code, at least we will know where they are coming from and what will trigger their flagging.
Personally I think there are enough flagging wars and hostility in the forum without making flaggers public. I’ve never flagged a post but if I did I would much prefer to do so anonymously with some of the more volatile posters on the site.
1 Like
Jeez man, who’d have thought getting a little post flagged would get people so heated.
2 Likes
This is a politics forum with a billion messages a day during the most stressed period of its existence and the biggest modding problem is a post being flagged once in a while.
I think we’re doing fine.
8 Likes
I don’t think it’s possible for a set of rules, binding or not, to make for fewer arguments about forum behavior. So, mods or flaggers doing what they feel like, having actions documented (not that flaggers can’t be anonymous) where the actions are reversible by the community (someone complain and then have a vote) I think is pretty clearly the best policy.
And if there are rules, I think as vague as possible is best. Specific rules are just worked around. “Attack the post, not the poster”? Ok, “That’s the stupidest fucking post I’ve ever read.” Either we respect each other or we don’t. Either we’re expected to be kind or we’re not. But, we don’t all respect each other, so there’s that.
1 Like