@superuberbob, @MrWookie, @catfacemeowmers, @Riverman and @anon10396289 have each been nominated to serve a 6 month term as moderator, which would begin once confirmed and serve through 7/1/22. A 2/3 majority vote is required to confirm a moderator per the current moderator appointment rules. Each poll should be viewed as an individual confirmation, as a result 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 new moderators for this term are all possible. These polls will close at Noon CT on December 31st, at which time results will be official.
Do you support confirming superuberbob to a 6 month term as moderator?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you support confirming MrWookie to a 6 month term as moderator?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you support confirming catfacemeowmers to a 6 month term as moderator?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you support confirming Riverman to a 6 month term as moderator?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you support confirming SenorKeeed to a 6 month term as moderator?
Folks. I voted no on Wookie. Not because I think he’s a bad guy, or biased, or any of that.
Rather because his ideas of what should be moderated seems very out of whack with what passes for consensus with the rest of the user base. He’s much more active than most people believe is right.
I regularly see flags from Wookie for stuff that I wouldn’t dream of moderating. Although im probably moderating less than others.
Theres also a bit of a hecklers veto here as well. Rightly or wrongly, people say he devisive, so he kind of is just because of that. Plenty of other folks can moderate, let’s just keep rolling through them.
I truly like every poster on this list and value their posting.
But I voted for a continuation of the relative peace and tranquility we’ve had lately. I don’t want to see dueling mods. I love the job Tilted has been doing, and I can’t even remember who the other mods are right now, which is awesome.
I left Riverman blank because I have no idea why he’d want to be a mod. It’s like someone not from Ohio choosing to be a Browns fan instead of having it choose you. So I don’t want to be part of the undoing of a guy who already doesn’t have the sunniest disposition. Love you though!
I like Wookie as a poster. I clicked on this link explicitly to vote “no” on him as mod, and to vote “yes” on anyone else whose name I vaguely recognised.
I’d actually rather install jman/badpostingdog as mod. Take that for what it’s worth. At least, as a lawyer, he gets that the judge needs to exercise a modicum of fucking fairness, even towards people he doesn’t personally like. I’m afraid to say that Wookie does not possess such a quality.
A few days ago I made the following posts. I don’t bring it up except to raise a question: what sort of forum do you want to have? Do you want to have a forum where discussion is free and open and wide-ranging? Or do you want to have a forum where the UPerton Window of acceptable discourse is tightly policed by posters and moderators? I’d be an excellent moderator of the former type of forum and a terrible moderator of the latter.
Is it the job of the moderator to foster an environment conducive to vigorous debate? I would say yes. But we need to decide what sort of forum we want. One where the UPerton Window is actively policed through various tactics, leaving a narrow slice of acceptable opinions on certain topics? Where accusations of trolling, entreaties to ignore, and accusations bad faith are used as toys against those expressing forbidden opinions? That’s fine by the way if you guys do want that sort of forum. But it wouldn’t be a good fit for me as a mod or probably a poster, and I think a lot of my friends agree.
Which brings me to the other reason I might be a good moderator. It would be a gesture of goodwill towards a certain faction. Entrusting someone who is closely identified with that faction with the terrible and sacred powers of Moderator would be a powerful gesture. It might help heal the wounds. It would make them (and me) feel like they are part of the community with a stake in what happens here.
And I’d finally be able to split off my own derails.
I don’t think that there was anything in that thread that needed moderating. I’m struggling to even see what the rationale would be. The current moderators did a good job of letting people talk and hash things out on their own, and moved posts around to new threads as necessary.
If one person is reporting a bunch of posts I might PM him and try to get his perspective on what he thinks the problem is. Which is pretty much what I’m doing with you in this post: what was the problem with that thread and why would there need to be any moderation at all in there?
Changed my vote on Keed to yes. He’s clearly going to be thoughtful and considered, and is unlikely to take any moderation decisions that would be out of whack with consensus.
One thing to think about. Given that mods tend not to disagree or overrule each other at the moment. The moderation of the site tends to reflect the most active moderator rather than the least.
I’m assuming people are voting no on keed because he’s a bad poster but there’s very little reason to think posts quality is a good proxy for mod quality
