What seems to be broadly popular is the latter.
1 Like
Yea it’s almost like people will not be happy with whatever mods do, lol
This seems like a normal part of a democratic process to me. This is how we should handle things if we’re actually trying to be a democracy.
If we dont wanna be a democracy, then lets have that conversation, but I dont think we’re ready for that yet.
Did you miss when I said that I wanted to be mod so I could be as transparent and open to feedback and criticism as possible? Including openness to votes to overturn any and all decisions I make or fail to make? I know you didn’t because you said it was a horrible idea and were completely opposed to it. But sure, I want to be an unaccountable dictator.
So here you’re proposing gatekeepers on both rule proposals and moderator nominations. Without actually saying who that would be, how they’re picked, etc. And this is after you had just spent the last couple of days acting as a gatekeeper in exactly that manner. No this poll isn’t good, I’ll rewrite it. Two people volunteer for mod? I’ll choose one to have a vote on him. You were acting as a gatekeeper. I suppose it’s good that you don’t think you should solely wield that power as you’ve been doing, but maybe you should give us some more details on who this gatekeeper is and how he’s picked and how he functions.
3 Likes
I don’t know if I will vote on all of the options here. But obviously there should be minimum requirements for a poll to be valid. For example, if someone posts a poll at 4a.m. Eastern Time and then closes it an hour later, I wouldn’t consider that valid.
I think one of the problems is the forum doesn’t have a well established procedure for how it’s supposed to operate. For instance sometimes mod appointments have to be approved by a community vote, and sometimes they are appointed without a vote.
So maybe it’s time for a constitutional convention.
5 Likes
Yes. I don’t think that was good, so I’m trying to find a more democratic solution.
1 Like
Seems like a good function for the independent judiciary that wookie voted against.
I can’t speak for Wookie, but I didn’t vote in the judiciary poll because I don’t think it is well structured. If that’s supposed to be a binding poll, then I would vote no, even though I think having arbitrators is a good idea.
My only concern is that this will could create a lot of polling and work for moderators. But then really, how often are we gonna draft major rules and stuff? Probably not often. if someone is willing to do the extra mod work, I think if we’re gonna rule by poll you absolutely need some kind of standard, as was demonstrated the last several days.
One side will complain about too many polls and just want mods to make decisions. Another side will complain that the mods are making too many unilateral decisions. Someone’s gonna be pissy no matter what.
I just don’t see any other sane way to do this other than what wookie’s proposed. I wanna make this thread a frickin banner, I think it’s that important.
Could be way wrong though, whatever. This is starting to get tiresome.
It’s hard to tell how serious that poll was, but I think it’s a very good idea. Since it’s very hard to tell how serious it is, no votes seem pretty understandable
meb’s proposal in another thread is worth considering. he seems to have put a lot of thought into it, and it could be a good starting point for discussion.
6 Likes
Mostly, y’all are too serious and need to understand that you won’t get it right the first time. Have the mods make some draft rules and updown vote them. Start with rules on making rules.
Ez clap?
3 Likes
Both of your polls are bad because they use loaded language. Moderator “for life” and “anyone putting up whatever they want whenever they want” are terms meant to make the opposing view look bad.
Some people want this forum to operate on a consensus basis, rather than majority rule. I suggest more polls should use a Likert scale if intended to gauge public opinion, rather than trying to force people into binary decisions.
2 Likes
feedback in that thread can help flesh out the concept.
2 Likes
is this a bad question lol
it’s necessary to ignore me and treat me like shit because we need to focus on the encroaching horde of 100+ alt right posters suddenly coming in and voting in bad rules. that’s the real crisis. not a fully autonomous moderator class, which is what precipitated this conversation. the timing is a coincidence.
2 Likes
when did I say that?
edit: sorry. That was exactly my point and why I was mad though. Wookie wanted the power to word the poll and didn’t want me to have it. Which was kind of annoying!
He’s saying both your poll and Wookie’s poll are bad because they both used loaded language. The second quote is from Wookie’s poll.
2 Likes
That’s sorta what I’m trying to do here, and I think we should nail down timeframes for RFCs and proper votes in this system.
How long should an RFC be open prior to voting on a rule proposal?
- No particular time frame
- At least a few days
- At least a week
- At least two weeks
- A month or more
0 voters
How long should a rule vote be left open?
- No particular time frame
- At least a few days
- At least a week
- At least two weeks
- A month or more
0 voters
it’s hard to tell how serious you’re being sometimes, that’s all
Right now, what I’ve put forth in this thread has nothing to do with the existing moderators being subject to new referenda or not. If you feel like they should, I think that’s reasonable, but maybe let’s establish our process and then use it to put forth whether or not any of the existing mods who wish to continue on should be subject to a new vote.
i try to express myself in a non-boring way because i like to have fun posting, but an independent judiciary is an objectively good idea and i’m the only forum member qualified to be chief justice
3 Likes