Lol at even considering making Keeeeeeeeed a mod. FFS people what are you doing
4 Likes
The vitriol in this thread is way out of line. No matter happened prior, your job is to try and take the heat out of the conversation, not add to it.
2 Likes
One of three, or five, for three months…sure leggo
I think for some people it is, but I just want to say about King_of_NY, he was very involved in everything when this site was first formed and along with beetlejuice was quite concerned about admins and mods being permanent/abusing power. People were called Stalinists. Many times. For KoNY it’s not about Wookie in particular.
3 Likes
KONY 2021
3 Likes
No poll necessary, if this gets 50 hearts it becomes the cold hard law of the site. Nobody posts in a moderation/forum governance green dot thread unless it’s a prime number day of the month.
5 Likes
Should be prime Julian day imo.
1 Like
This will be a bit of a long post as I’m trying to summarize the results of the polls in this thread to find out where there appears to be consensus and where there needs to be further discussion. I use some paraphrasing of the questions here.
Q1: Should there be a formal process to propose rules?
Consensus is Yes with 80% of the vote
Q2: Should there be a formal process to nominate moderators?
Majority is Yes with 63% of the vote
Q3: Should there be a request for comment process before moderator nominations go to a vote?
Consensus is Yes with 88% of the vote
Q4: Should the RFC process require a poll to approve wording before the proposal proceeds to a binding vote?
Consensus is Yes with 87% of the vote, although the Yes responses are split between a majority standard (46%) and a 2/3 standard (31%)
Q5: Should mods or admins need to sign off on proposal after it has gone through RFC process before it proceeds to a vote?
No consensus. 53% say no, while 47% say yes, with majority approval by mods/admins being the most popular option among those who say yes.
Q6: If a rule proceeds to a binding vote, what level of support does it need to pass
No consensus. 47% support a majority standard, 29% support a 2/3 standard, and 24% support a 60% standard.
Q7: Should official votes be public or private
Consensus (75%) is public
Q8: What is the minimum time a proposal has to remain in the RFC process before proceeding to a vote?
“At least a week” has majority support (54%), and an additional 23% support at least a few days.
Q9: How long should an official rule vote be left open?
Supermajority support (67%) for at least a week.
Q10: Should mods just make the rules?
Supermajority support (69%) for No.
Based on all this, I think we are making progress towards defining an RFC process that the forum could live with. I will try to write up some language and put it in this thread later today, but anyone else should feel free to do so if they want to.
6 Likes
I can’t bring myself to read all this, but one thing @anon10396289 said somewhere that I agree with is that this all getting way too complicated. You guys need to just pick someone you trust who will be transparent and empower them to do whatever they want. Having rules committees and all this other shit will legitimately be a joke and burn people out from something that is supposed to just be a fun way to waste time.
3 Likes
You’re not wrong but part of the problem is there’s no one that everyone/large majority trusts enough.
I feel like there’s some weird fear on both sides of the aisle that whoever is in “power” will turn this place into an authoritarian hellscape.
After I’m done with my mod term I will spend a while paying no attention to rules or drama. I don’t expect it to be at all challenging to do that.
This is like MUN. Some people got into that. I had no interest. There was a girl I liked in it so I went to one meeting, but that’s all I could take.
Yeah, I’m with jmakin. This place was founded on a decentralized, anti-authoritarian charter, and even people who like the rules mods might make would oppose the process.
I think the strength of the RFC process is that it doesn’t exclude anyone, and it doesn’t include and compulsory participation, either. If you care, you can join in the discussion. If you care to vote on the final product but not work on it up to then, you can. If you want to ignore the whole thing, you also can.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t call 2p2 an authoritarian hellscape. It was/is easy to not get in trouble and of course anyone can leave. It’s cool that this place is something different though.
2 Likes
Yea, I wasn’t really referring to 2p2 but I agree.
You guys should listen to wookie when it comes to polls and how to run these kinds of things. I highly recommend checking out his “double double blind” taste tests of various alcohols way back in the day on OOT. Those were extremely well run and organized and were great reads.
1 Like
I like the idea of letting mods do whatever they want and then recalling them if necessary. But I think the approval rating threshold of 50% or even 66% is too low. If a quarter of the entire forum thinks you are doing a crappy job, you should get kicked out. As we’ve seen it’s not that hard to get clear consent.
The same applies to voting for mods in the first place.
1 Like
Rules pertaining to forum moderation, including selection, tenure and conduct of moderators, shall be introduced through the request for comments (“RFC”) process.
Any user may initiate an RFC for a proposed rule by creating a thread in the About Unstuck subforum.
The purpose of RFC threads is to facilitate community input on proposed rules.
The initial post of an RFC thread should describe the proposed rule. Any user may provide input on the proposed rule by posting in the RFC thread.
After an RFC thread has been open for at least 3 full days , any user can request a Forum Administrator to create a poll within the RFC thread to approve the wording for the proposal. Upon receipt of such request, a Forum Administrator shall use the Administrative Account to create a public poll stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.” The poll shall remain open for a period of one week . If the poll receives support from either (1) at least two-thirds of all voters or (2) from a majority of voters AND a majority of moderator voters , the proposal will proceed to a biding rule vote. Otherwise, debate on the proposal may continue and any user can again request a vote on wording within the RFC thread.
If a proposal proceeds to a biding rule vote, a Forum Administrator will create a new thread in the About Unstuck subforum stating the proposed wording of the rule with the choices of “Yes” or “No.” The poll shall remain open for a period of one week . The proposed rule will be adopted if it receives support from at least two-thirds of all voters for moderator appointments or if it receives support from a majority of voters for all other rules .
Until rules regarding the selection and tenure of moderators have been adopted: (1) the current moderators will remain in their roles, (2) the moderators will not permanently ban any user unless that user publicly requests such a ban, (3) the moderators will not ban any user in a way that prevents the user from voting in an RFC poll or in a biding rule vote poll with the exception of bans issued in accordance with this section.
2 Likes
I think the problem here is people care too much lol. Like what you’re saying all makes sense but people should be willing and able to accept things not always going their way. If you think modding here sucks you’re in luck because this is literally just a message board to waste time on and nothing matters
2 Likes
Exactly. Just let @Beetlejuice do whatever he wants. Give it a few months and if it doesn’t work (it would work) we can try something else.
2 Likes
And to expand on this, people are all oh we need a constitutional convention. Which sounds reasonable except writing the short Constitution was incredibly complicated and took 116 days to write. Which was OK for the founders because it was actually important and needed to happen. For a hundred person internet forum on the other hand…
2 Likes