Maybe, maybe not. I’d vote no to his appointment and probably write a post about why as well. Especially if the appointment were to a term defined as “as long as [ he ] is willing.” And 80% is a high bar.
1 Like
I mean I don’t actually think this is going to be used often, or maybe at all. Who is actually go to the hassle of going to Forum Court? Hiring a Posting Lawyer? Drafting an Internet Lawsuit? People will be all oh you’re mad, well you can always take it up with the Forum Court and then people will be all ok fuck it that seems like nonzero work, who cares.
1 Like
P.S. This isn’t necessarily the thread to hash it out, and nobody asked my opinion, but mine is that governance polls like this one should not be anonymous. I feel that if a community member cares enough to vote on issues, they should be willing to state their opinion publicly.
However, I haven’t seen anyone make the case for anonymous voting so it’s possible my opinion could be changed.
Having said that I am a highly qualified Forum Lawyer and will take certain cases that interest me pro bono, pm me for details.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure it was discussed at exhausting length but I’m not doing the emotional labor to find it. Fuck that. All of these threads are just insanely stupid.
You’re not for real about this, right?
I mean, there is no mention of Forum Court, Posting Lawyers, or Internet Lawsuits in the proposal.
And after all that’s been going on, that you’ve been an extremely active participant in, you cannot possibly believe that “people will be all ok fuck it that seems like nonzero work, who cares.”
At the risk of being the 10,000th fish you’ve hooked, could you please engage seriously and sincerely or stop your trolling in these threads?
1 Like
I appreciate your position and I’m definitely not anti-mod at all. This proposal originated from Wookie’s thread and I view it as a way to help moderation on the site.
I mean it isn’t trolling it’s a joke. But the point I was making I think is correct, this is rarely going to be used because it just won’t be worth the effort.
We don’t have a moderation problem on this site. This is not a problem we solve by making the process longer and more complicated. The length and complexity of the process are a major symptom of the problem.
We need simple rules and decision trees for the mods that are easy to see and enforce. Then they need to feel empowered to enforce them. They need to have some kind of a check on this power so giving them 90 day terms that they are elected to seems good.
But during that 90 day term they’re judge jury and executioner (probably should be three of them preferably at least one from each of the major factions) and don’t have to answer to anyone. And crucially nobody gets to complain except 1 week out of the quarter around elections when we’re debating who gets to be mod.
These long winded threads about every single choice are a cancer that is killing this site. This is the only kind of content we’re creating right now and it all sucks. Every single bit of it.
I think you raised a lot of good questions and I don’t have time to dive into them all right now, so I’ll try to give a brief summary.
This site obviously needs a certain level of moderation and I believe these mods need to feel free to act in what they believe are the best interests of the forum. My full original proposal included details like individual mods having freedom to issue bans up to 24 hours but consulting the full mod team for longer bans. To balance this, I wanted to create an unbiased forum for a poster to issue a complaint when they feel a mod is abusing their power, not acting in the best interests of the forum, or to appeal an extended ban. A forum ombudsman of sorts. For this to work, I felt like this person(s) should be otherwise normal posters on a day to day basis who generally aren’t involved in forum drama. My belief is that having this avenue to raise a complaint and be heard can help to both lower the temperature a bit on disputes and also allow the mods to do their jobs without worry of having to deal with forum drama too.
1 Like
You were doing fine until you created the feedback option. The feedback needs to be extremely limited. These threads are a huge problem all by themselves.
The thing is, this came up because our mods believe there is a moderation problem on this site.
1 Like
No they think that they have no power to do anything about a group of people who are attacking them all day every day for being biased with absolutely no evidence. They’re tired of being treated like shit. I don’t blame them. That’s not a moderation problem that’s the role of moderator having absolutely no power and getting absolutely no respect.
And of course because they’re getting forced to be the trolls chew toys by the role they are starting to get irritated and emotional and their performance/decision making is getting more and more emotional. That’s what happens when you lock someone in a box with something unpleasant and don’t offer them any realistic way to get out.
I’m sorry but this entire discussion is predicated on the assumption that the mods have any real responsibility for this mess. They do not. The only people with responsibility here are the trolls and the people enabling them out of a misguided sense of who the fuck knows what. Whatever it is is preventing them from even perceiving a very real trolling problem that is causing valuable content creators to regularly quit the site.
1 Like
My point is, I believe my solution gives them the power to enforce rules as they see fit, while removing any ability for a regular poster to claim that we are creating authoritarian rule.
If a regular poster wants to claim that we’re living under authoritarian rule after the absolutely ridiculous display of the most toxic form of democracy imaginable we’ve all engaged in over the last couple of years I’m fine with perma’ing them on the spot for bad faith posting. We have tried the fuck out of it and it has led us here.
Nobody wants anything but regular workmanlike moderation aimed at keeping the threads moving in a positive productive direction. If anyone thinks that would harm their forum experience I think they should go somewhere else. 4chan exists.
I really think you’re interpreting this all the wrong way. If you asked all of our existing mods they would tell you that they know my proposal is not an attack on them. My goals are to provide our mod team with greater freedom, increase poster trust and value in their decisions, and reduce forum drama.
1 Like
I know, but your proposal is just inherently adding another layer of complexity on when we need to be stripping those out as quickly as possible. We have created something incredibly overwrought and it doesn’t work at all as a result. This is a situation where you get out of trouble by making cuts not by adding stuff.
Keed. This is a honest request. People are trying to solve a real issue here and you cannot stop with the trolling (ok jokes?) every third post. Tension are running high. People are going to misinterpret your “funny” jokes right now as pure trolling.
Please stop.
4 Likes
Dude stop telling trolling’s answer to Steven Colbert to leave character. He never leaves character. Ever.
Also making trolling’s answer to Steven Colbert (and I mean this in a friendly way I find a lot of Keed’s work absolutely hilarious and I appreciate it on several levels when I’m not the victim) a mod is a bad idea.
1 Like
Thanks for the response. I feel like I have a better handle on the proposal now. I’m still ambivalent about it though. I’ll have to mull it over some more and see what comes up in this thread (and others).