Request for Comments: Gatekeeping Rule and Moderator Votes

About Unstuck
188

I agree. Logically that does not make sense to me.

I guess it boils down to what we are trying to accomplish and what we are trying to watch out for. If we want to establish a process that facilitates enacting popular new rules, we should have “low” vote margin thresholds.

If we are concerned that the process will in some way lead to many “unwise” new rules, we should have “high” vote margin thesholds.

I am very much in the first camp which is why I prefer a “low” (i.e., majority) threshold, especially for the preliminary vote on the proposed text of any new rule.

Having said all that, I am happy to follow the consensus and my overarching concern is to move forward as fast as we can. Speed is valuable especially when “fatigue” is looming around every corner.

1 Like
189

I can see arguments for setting it up different ways:

What should approval thresholds be?
  • Higher threshold for RFC vote than for binding vote
  • Lower threshold for RFC vote than for binding vote
  • Same threshold for RFC vote and biding vote

0 voters

190

Yea I’m fine with that. It makes sense we would make the poll too, because you can only pin OP’s to the banner and not replies.

192

This seems like an incredibly round about way to copy best practices wrt moderation.

193

what do you mean

194

38 posts were merged into an existing topic: About Moderation

201

Here’s where I think we are now. The changes from the earlier proposal are:

  1. No special role for mods RFC approval
  2. RFC approval threshold is 50%
  3. Binding vote threshold is 60% for normal votes and 2/3rds for mod appointments

===================================================================

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 a majority of voters , the proposal will proceed to a binding 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 binding 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 at least 60 percent 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
204

Thanks for incorporating feedback and modifying the proposal. I have one more question. Originally this RFC process and voting protocols were to apply to all new forum rules, including but not limited to mod selection (terms, etc.). The most recent proposal only mentions forum moderation in the first line.

Did you limit this to moderation on purpose? I would hate for us to have to go through all this again when new forum rules are contemplated. Can you reword the first line to include all forum rules?

Thanks much.

2 Likes
206

Does this address the need for minimum participation? Should we have a sticky or a mimimum number of votes?

Are we banning gimmicks and new accounts from voting?

207

Nearly all of the rules that have been discussed recently are what I would consider moderation rules. E.g., who should be mods, how long should they serve, how can they be recalled, should their be an arbitration panel that users can appeal moderation decisions to, should certain words be censored? All of these are moderation questions

The main thing that falls outside the scope of the rule-making process in my view is actual administration of the site, including who can become an administrator. The current admins have expressed a desire that their admin roles should be neutral and consist in keeping the site running and carrying out certain actions in accordance with community wishes (e.g., giving users moderation powers). So this process should make it clear when an administrator should make someone a mod or make a mod back into a normal user, what types of rules mods should enforce, how they should enforce them, and how much discretion the community wants them to have.

This isn’t specified in the proposal, but I think the understanding is that the admins will make a banner announcement when they put a proposal to a binding vote. @jmakin has also said he will help look out for irregularities in the voting if needed. any other restrictions on who can vote could be proposed as a separate rule.

208

You didn’t answer my question. Why did you narrow this entire thread down to just moderation.

I am 100% on board if this process applies to the entire forum rules, but far less so if it only applies to moderation. Now maybe I see what boredsocial may have been talking about. If you think we are going to spend weeks/months of valuable forum time, energy, oxygen, and patience just to say we can vote for new mods, that is crazy. We can vote for new mods today, yesterday, tomorrow.

I have NO IDEA why you are deviating from Wookie’s OP on this very important point. It makes no sense, none.

209

I tried to answer your question, but maybe the answer was indirect. What kind of rules do you think the forum wants to implement that wouldn’t be moderation rules?

212

The proposed framework would apply to rules for selection, tenure and conduct of moderators.

To expand on this, this would allow the following types of rules (and probably more):

Selection: how are mods elected, when are mods elected, how many mods can there be, who can vote for mods, etc.

Tenure: do moderators have terms, how long are the terms, are there limits to the number of terms someone can serve as mod, can mods serve consecutive terms, what happens when a mod resigns, what happens if a mod becomes inactive, how can the forum recall a mod, etc.

Conduct: what rules should mods enforce, what else should they do, when should mods ban a user, can mod decisions be appealed, etc.

@whosnext If there are other types of rules you think the procedure should be used for, I think it would make sense to list them rather than leave it completely open ended.

It seems like we are getting to a workable proposal, so I would suggest that we put it up for a “go forward” vote starting later tonight unless there are other concerns that come up.

215

Thanks for the reply.

While I still disagree with positioning this rubric as pertaining only to moderation, let’s just put down my disagreement as a semantics issue. A similar discussion arose when JT led an effort at enacting forum rules awhile ago. Many people see/saw forum rules as essentially “moderator rules” and I see/saw them as two distinct (yet related) entities. For example, if you see our recent “C-word” debacle as falling under this rubric, then I am less in disagreement.

Thanks again and I am confident that this will pass both votes with flying colors.

227

@jmakin could you make a poll on the wording below in this thread? The poll should read “Should this proposal advance to a binding vote?” and have choices of “Yes” and “No.” Please make a public poll that closes in 1 week.

The modifications from the previous draft include specifying that the rulemaking process will apply to “standards of user conduct” in addition to moderation issues. This is to make it clear that issues like the recent c-word discussion would be covered by the rulemaking process. I also added some words to specify that binding votes will happen through public polls.

I’m @-ing everyone who has made multiple posts in this thread to notify them that the language is going up for a vote.

@MrWookie @anon10396289 @microbet @whosnext @All-InFlynn @RegretS @NotBruceZ @marty @King_of_NY @Rugby @beetlejuice @j8i3h289dn3x7 @boredsocial @anon29622970

===================================================================

Rules pertaining to standards of user conduct or 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 a majority of voters, the proposal will proceed to a binding 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 binding rule vote, a Forum Administrator will create a new thread in the About Unstuck subforum with 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. 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 at least 60 percent 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; and (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
228

I’m at a superbowl party w/ vaxxed friends, will do it tonight or in the morning

1 Like
242
Should this proposal advance to a binding vote?
  • yes
  • no

0 voters

3 Likes
243

Thanks for putting this up. Looks like it is set to private. I think the consensus was to have public polls so we can see who is voting. Any chance you could change it real quick?

3 Likes
244

guess these numbers were derived from conversations itt but they feel high and would seem to create a bridge to nowhere and just maintain the current state of affairs. hope I’m wrong

246

I think rule changes should require super-majority support for the same reason that we require more than a simple majority to amend the US Constitution. We want changes to the fundamental ways in which this forum operates to be harder to change because we want these changes to have legitimacy. We won’t ever have unanimity on some of these rules, but we would like to approach unanimity that the process has been fair.