I am not going do entertain any further discussion of my status as moderator in this thread. This is not the place.
Oh well, my bad. He’s clearly operating in good faith then.
this isn’t about you. it never has been. the sooner you understand that the better off we’ll all be.
1 Like
He made a clear, well-defined poll. If you disagree, then state your reasons instead of throwing a hissy fit.
Yes, the polls are leading as we agree any fucking poll would be… but they are leading the community to take power…
Meanwhile, SenorKeed here is saying the only solution is to unilaterally put BeetleJuice and whoever Beetlejuice unilaterally appoints in charge of this new “Judiciary”? Wtflol, I don’t have an opinion on Beetlejuice either way but how the fuck is that fair or more just than what Wookie is suggesting?
1 Like
I don’t know how closely you’ve been following this the past few days, bc if you had you’d understand why he wouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt.
If I understand the OP correctly, it sounds like your next step is to ask one of the mods to start a referendum on a replacement mod.
We seem to have a consensus that binding polls should play a part in governing in the forum. However, not all polls created should be binding polls. There seems to be a legitimate need for signaling which polls are binding and which polls are non-binding. I think mods (and not admins) should play a role in this signaling. What that role is can be debated.
1 Like
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