These posts are honestly a bit disturbing. I was never part of the CoC PMs as anyone who read them can tell you. I also find it unacceptable that members of a forum believe a single member maintaining mod powers is more important than what is best for the community. The insistence on constantly twisting a discussion of the best way to handle moderation of this forum into needing it to be about one member is also damaging to the continued existence of this forum.
I don’t believe posts like this are fitting with the spirit of discussion, collaboration, and engaging in a respectful manner that I requested in the original post. So if you choose to continue down this path, I will no longer be responding to anything that you post in here and would advise others to do the same.
Sorry, maybe I misused grandfathered (in fact I probably did.) I’m not suggesting they’re exempt from the system. I’m saying when their turn for a confidence vote comes up in a few weeks, the old system will still apply to them should they choose to continue wanting to mod. If they are confirmed, then they move to the new system of a 6 month term.
Otherwise to me this is just a blatant, “hey you’re up for confirmation in a few weeks? Let’s get those rules changed to get you outta here before the vote can take place.”
I have no idea if anyone being up for a confidence vote is actually true because it isn’t recorded anywhere, but I would advise no matter what that no change takes place until the suggested “first date of the second month after passing of the new rules.” Otherwise we’re just kicking the can down the road six months on all of this.
To institute a rotation system, we have to start the rotation somewhere.
Hi folks. I’m the other mod that no one except a couple people reeeeeallly hates. I know, y’all tend to forget I’m here, mostly because I get so frustrated that rather than doing what I really think needs to be done, I just take a few hours off.
I just wanted to make a comment on this.
This, right here, this quote, is 100% correct. Look at the pinned thread about approved rules. I mean, actually read it. Here’s a link, in case you don’t know what I mean:
There is a link there to some proposed rules written a couple years ago and a lot of discussion on those, but we’ve never actually officially adopted them.
Now, if you please, take a look at an RFC thread, that I started in accordance with our approved process, about instituting a rule about gimmick accounts, something I’ve seen people from every side of the latest drama bitching about. Stupid me to think that something like this would be uncontroversial. Also stupid of me to think that my request to stay on track and for anyone to offer suggestions on language would actually be honored. As it is, I had to do the rewrite myself. And my post got ignored by people just wanting to fight about other things.
Anyway, please, let’s continue to make more rules about who should be a mod, because as far as I’m concerned, the same issues are going to continue to occur until the mods, whoever they are and however they are elected, have actual guidelines to follow/enforce.
None. I think rotating mods would be great (fwiw I also don’t particularly care if a mod wants to serve for life as long as there’s a method available to remove them.) But I think the implementation of a new system shouldn’t punish those under the existing system, particularly when their vote of confidence is literally weeks away.
And yes, I need to confirm that timing is accurate but I thought I remembered Wookie mentioning his time was coming up in early August or somewhere around there.
I don’t think we need rules for how you mod. Other than maybe a discussion of what should constitute a permanent ban or how that is done, I trust whoever is in the position to do their best for the forum, and the rotation of mods means that the community should evolve to a sort of equilibrium understanding of what we want from mods.
Thinking that you need rules written out for how every mod action should be done is where we’ve gone a bit wrong in this forum. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an online community that tried to make rules for how the mods should perform their jobs, but that is checked here by creating rules for how mods are selected and creating timeframes for how long they perform their duties and forcing rotation and community involvement on moderation.
I’ve suggested a model where the mods document their decisions in detail (this post was bad because of X and Y action was taken) and welcome feedback and discussion. As the community gives feedback on various moderator actions, a rule set is heuristically generated based on implicit (if everyone is more or less in agreement) and explicit (there’s a poll on the moderator action in question) agreement. Then posters can see what the community accepts or doesn’t and there’s no need for cumbersome rules that take weeks or months to pass. And then moderating becomes less like you’re the little lord of the forum and more like your turn to do the dishes.
First, I would go through each of the proposed rules written by JT back then and edit them to be slightly more succinct, then put each one to a separate RFC process. Of course, we’ve seen how well that works, but hey, no one ever said I wasn’t insane. Then put each to a vote.
Then pin them to forum somewhere everyone can read them.
Then I would have a separate discussion about consequences for posters breaking said rules.
The problem right now is that everyone has a different opinion of what the rules are, whether someone has crossed a line, and what should be done to someone that has crossed the line. Until it’s standardized, we will ALWAYS have these arguments.
I modded the most popular forum on 22 for years and we never standardized what crossing the line was because it’s an impossible task. When you entrust someone to be a mod, the community is saying I trust your judgement. When those powers come with a term length and a forced rotation it says we trust you but we’re also not going to make anyone King/Queen of the forum so that they are above any other poster.
This in a nutshell is why I want to see this system implemented.
And I’m telling you you don’t need that. When you create rules for what isn’t acceptable, what is more important than what you stated as unacceptable behavior is what you forgot to state. And then creating a cumbersome process that takes a month to ratify that a new behavior is unacceptable. How about let’s just say I trust you to decide during your term what is unacceptable?
It’s because the mod powers are viewed as entrenched and permanent, so animosity towards a mod just builds more and more over time, and in turn their animosity towards certain posters. And it means we have mods absolutely acting in a biased fashion over time, because it’s impossible not to develop these implicit biases when you’re in this position without a break. The forced rotation of mods will absolutely cool temperatures on both sides and force people to have a better view from both sides of the table.
I mean, dude, I would absolutely love that. I truly would.
I am saying, it doesn’t happen. We temp ban someone, and get rations of shit for a one day ban. One day. To the point where I am reluctant to actually use ANY mod powers.
Chads used them, and got accused of being hacked because certain people couldn’t believe that he would actually use his powers against them!
As for this proposed rule, I honestly have no opinion.
No one can be someone’s lapdog when there’s a constant rotation of mods as chosen by the full community. This job has clearly stressed you, and I’m trying to tell you that you’re going to like things better on the other side when you’re given a break. Then maybe in a few months you like it enough that you say sure I’ll serve another six month term.
I’m just asking people to give this a try. I’ve yet to actually see anyone post what would be a true negative of this system? More so just concern over how this impacts our current mods. And my argument is I’m trying to tell you both that a break will be good for you.
I know you have received some unfair criticism, but some of this is a problem with your style, not a problem with the system. When you temp’d me you insulted me and made me feel like an outsider on the way out. I was honestly shocked not about your temp but by the way you went about it.