We PM each other about everything. I haven’t seen any bets, but I might not be in all the PMs. There were about 500 on soccer.
1 Like
There’s obviously nothing inherently wrong with PMing people and honestly I would be stunned if anyone took the viewpoint that there was.
To @cassette 's point if there are fruitful conversations being had in PM because of reason x, y and z then we should try and reasonably address those issues assuming they have merit. I don’t think that should be especially controversial either.
tbf I made those before the month absence, too 
Maybe it’s just my perception then. A month ago I was like, “Hey there’s Goebs, that guy who likes UFC, and hearthstone, and plays in a band.” Now I’m like, “Oh it’s Goebs, he’s really angry about something. Not really sure about what tho.”
1 Like
We had a good time in the UFC thread last weekend. So it’s far from all that.
2 Likes
I agree you have been posting like sabo.
No, I think you are missing the point of my initial response to nonono. He said the people who are unsatisfied with the current mod system are a minority. I responded by saying that this is false: 50+ users made more posts “underground” than were made on the entire forum across the same time period. My claim is that the majority of users on this site wanted to participate in a conversation that Wookie is deadset against allowing (see my locked threads and the ever-present throttles).
Even when I invited the entire forum to a PM thread, Wookie locked the thread (without a word in the Mod Log) and then told me via PM that I wasn’t allowed to discuss the idea on the forum. He was doing me a favor by not deleting the thread entirely, in his words.
6 Likes
If I hacked all your accounts and posted on them I still would not have been clever enough to script it all like this. It’s breathtaking.
Thanks for posting that. I think I understand better although I’m not sure if I agree that a majority of people are unhappy with the moderation. A majority of people I think are becoming unhappy here in general. For a variety of reasons. Which is why trying to find some solutions that rectify that is a good thing.
After having time to think about this the only thing I really care about is having a place that is better for all to post here. A better sense of community. I’m still not sure who is trying to do that and who isn’t but it isn’t relevant in a sense. I personally am willing to work towards it and see what happens. Threads like this seem like a step in the right direction. I should apologize for the level of my animosity towards you and a few others during this whole process. I was angry about a lot. Some of it probably valid and some of it probably misguided but that also isn’t relevant. It wasn’t productive so I will try and be better on that front going forward.
15 Likes
Correct, you are treated as if you don’t give a fuck because you act like you don’t give a fuck. You act like Chris Paul swerving into people and then looking to the ref for the foul….then arguing incessantly with the ref when they don’t fall for your tricks. With that said, I nominate Scott Foster for mod.
While there’s been some discussion of the length of break, no one seemed to have any issue with the specific language of this proposed rule correct?
I would like to add two sentences to the end for clarification.
**For the sake of clarity, the 2 month break mandated in this rule means that a mod rotating out is eligible for nomination in the next mod approval process that begins two weeks prior to two months after they rotate out. This rule replaces and makes all prior rules regarding mod terms null and void. **
Any additional thoughts? We can put these up for an official language vote starting tomorrow afternoon according to the RFC process, so I’d like to use today to hammer out any remaining details. This is the time to speak up if you see any potential language changes needed. Thanks all for your participation in this process! I know some of it is always going to create some friction, but I truly believe we are on a positive path with this.
2 Likes
Moderation Terms. The forum will be moderated by a rotating team of moderators, which is intended to promote consistent change and a spirit of community moderation. Moderators will serve for a term of approximately six months. Moderators’ terms of service will be staggered such that moderator terms end on a “Rotation Date”. The first Rotation Date will be [date–to be filled in when approved], and future Rotation Date will occur every two months. On each Rotation Date, any moderator who has served in their current term for at least 6 months will rotate out as a moderator and take a mandatory break from serving on the moderation team until the next Rotation Date.
Nominations and Elections. Two weeks prior to each Rotation Date, a nomination thread will be created in the About Unstuck forum requesting volunteers to serve as a moderator. Anyone who volunteers in the thread and receives at least 10 likes to their post will be nominated. After the nomination thread has been open for 3 days, the nomination thread will be closed, and another thread will be posted in About Unstuck with an individual poll for each nominee, which will will remain open for 3 days. Any nominee who receives at least two-thirds approval will be added to the mod team immediately. This means they should be in place for roughly 1 week prior to the Rotation Date, and a moderator’s term will last approximately 6 months and 1 week. For the sake of clarity, if a moderator’s six-month term ends on a Rotation Date of July 1, then they would be eligible for nomination in the mod approval process that leads up to the next Rotation Date (September 1). [This rule replaces and makes all prior rules regarding mod terms null and void.]
I revised your proposal for clarity–this was intended to be fully meaning-neutral and just wordsmithing, so apologies if I missed the mark anywhere. I would suggest removing the bracketed part and either just deleting any conflicting rules or listing them specifically here. My concern would be that in a couple years, it won’t necessarily be obvious to anyone when this rule was adopted relative to some other rule that might conflict. That said, I was too lazy to try and figure out a comprehensive list of what those rules are, so maybe leave it in unless someone else feels ambitious…
9 Likes
Spectacular rewording! I think that’s much better and clearer now. Let’s operate off of bobman’s wording from here and comment if there are any further language changes needed.
5 Likes
I mean you gleefully scoured through that PM thread pretty thoroughly looking for dirt (and sadly found very little) so you should know what you’re writing is simply not true. Only a small fraction of the posts in that thread could be even ungenerously characterized as doing what you describe.
3 Likes
Change “Rotation Date” to “Purge Day” and I’m in.
4 Likes
Why? Because your nitpicking bullshit turns all conversation in a thread about you. You are channeling Chez these days; not adding anything to a discussion just adding noise that makes it harder for people to discuss something.
2 Likes
This thread dying out a bit today is a good sign to me. I think it means we’ve found a good equilibrium on this that doesn’t require further argument. Tomorrow afternoon per the RFC process quoted below, I will be requesting that an admin post polls in this thread to approve our final wording of Rule 1 and 2. I would request everyone’s support on approval of the wording and subsequent support in the binding rule vote.
If you are on the fence about your support, I’m asking you to give something new a shot. This is a system that will make sure that every member of the forum feels they have a voice in how the forum is run and will empower our mod team to do their duty for the best interest of the forum during their terms.
Here is the RFC process to approval:
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 .
3 Likes
Whatever the result Meb, you have done a great job here shepharding this through in a constructive way.
15 Likes
This thread has been open for the required 3 days, and I would like to request that we officially move forward with a poll to adopt the wording of two separate rules per the RFC process. Please post a poll for each rule separately. Thanks for your help in this process!
Note to all voters: a Yes vote on these does not equate to you approving these as a binding rule. It means you are approving the wording and with approval we can move forward to a binding rule vote. I would appreciate all of your votes in support of this. A majority yes vote is required to move forward. Thank you!
Rule 1: A stickied and locked thread shall be created in the About Unstuck forum listing all current moderators, the date they were appointed, and the date their term ends unless they choose to resign early.
Rule 2: Moderation Terms. The forum will be moderated by a rotating team of moderators, which is intended to promote consistent change and a spirit of community moderation. Moderators will serve for a term of approximately six months. Moderators’ terms of service will be staggered such that moderator terms end on a “Rotation Date”. The first Rotation Date will be September 1, 2021, and future Rotation Date will occur every two months. On each Rotation Date, any moderator who has served in their current term for at least 6 months will rotate out as a moderator and take a mandatory break from serving on the moderation team until the next Rotation Date.
Nominations and Elections. Two weeks prior to each Rotation Date, a nomination thread will be created in the About Unstuck forum requesting volunteers to serve as a moderator. Anyone who volunteers in the thread and receives at least 10 likes to their post will be nominated. After the nomination thread has been open for 3 days, the nomination thread will be closed, and another thread will be posted in About Unstuck with an individual poll for each nominee, which will will remain open for 3 days. Any nominee who receives at least two-thirds approval will be added to the mod team immediately. This means they should be in place for roughly 1 week prior to the Rotation Date, and a moderator’s term will last approximately 6 months and 1 week. For the sake of clarity, if a moderator’s six-month term ends on a Rotation Date of July 1, then they would be eligible for nomination in the mod approval process that leads up to the next Rotation Date (September 1). This rule replaces and makes all prior rules regarding mod terms null and void.
2 Likes