⬆️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (114)
sorted by:
⬆️
I see your point, but how do we deal with shills/trolls and no discussions to combine our efforts into a singular goal without mods?
I think moderation is necessary, but I also respect your position.
I just ignore shill/troll post mostly
Singular goal, haven't thought in that, s'pose you can request sticky for a post you think is important
I don't even know what this "request for sticky" really is, honestly...
And who am I supposed to contact without mods?
I was hoping for more action from the users in here... I guess most of you are too fed up to do anything, and I don't blame you for it... I know exactly how that feels...
But if we don't do anything, who will?
My latest idea has been to encourage likeminded people to act with unity and to ignore those who are not likeminded. This too requires critical mass and planning, because in that scenario the good are considered as being in the minority and they have a greater challenge of having unity. The difference is that, as forum members know, having levers of power and apparent majority should be handled with one set of circumspections and transparencies, and not having them should be handled with another, and even though the two are continuous their tactical difference is real. So I may get back to the community about that.
Yes, please get back with that but keep in mind:
AI chatbots would easily overwhelm any small group of thinkers.
Who would your selected group ignore? How can you tell the difference between a real newly joined human and AI chatbot/shill?
What aims are for likeminded people? There are little to none likeminded people in here, while we agree on one topic, we differ on another. And how can we combine our efforts on tasks that we all slightly disagree on? "A house divided cannot stand"
I agree with your point about transparency. Mods actions should be transparent to the community, so they are well understood and they can trust these actions in the future and possibly rely on them.
https://conspiracies.win/p/17s5Ran2yH/please-ban-ufreewillofchoice-its/c/ (+30/-15)
https://conspiracies.win/p/17rmOGpGT2/is-ufreewillofchoice-mentally-re/c/ (+13/-5)
https://conspiracies.win/p/19BGFQ28Bu/why-cant-we-block-freewillofchoi/ (+11/-4)
If the community wants an action being done (these examples provided. I even exclude all of mine...) what mod would provide it?
And how can a useless mod be convinced that they are truly circumspective? I mean that in terms of a very lenient mod, who already allows useless chatbots, to be also useless for the community.
I would personally use the word "weak":
Weak moderation is all this community had in past time, and if you can't make the hard decisions, when the community wants them, then you're also weak, wouldn't you agree?
Unfortunately, I see you, and one other candidate, take this mod job as an opportunity to be liked and respected. You forget that your duty is to the people in the forum, not your own needs. You would be liked, but never respected.
Out of all the candidates I've seen so far, I can only vote for Graphenium - he's the only one, who saw a true problem in the community, and didn't even wait for a mod to start round tables discussions but did it himself.
In contrast, you want the same position, while showing no qualities than a regular user. Your philosophical approach is not a requirement for a good mod, in my opinion. Good user, bad mod.
Point is, you can't request sticky without active moderators, so I propose (ad) that you vote YES on active moderators.