Should c/Conspiracies jointly petition admin for new moderation as opposed to it remaining an unmoderated Wild West?
Please answer YES or NO in separate main comments below, with any reasoning as desired.
This poll methodology is recognized to be unscientific but is better than nothing. Thank you for your responses.
Add: There is now a megathread. I would still appreciate contributors taking the time to add a YES or NO here to gauge interest on this specific question (thank you early adopters).
YES
I miss the time when Axeotl_Peotl made those discussion posts. Nobody seems to care about community effort anymore, we need a proper moderation. Wild, wild west is not working at all - it's just some users sharing their views, and no communication happens.
And there are shills that nobody cares to address... They are just blocked by users... Who can fix that?
Vote analysis after 12 days:
Yes from u/Neo1, u/SicSemperTyrannis2, u/SwampRangers, u/Thisisnotanexit. Conditional yes from u/DresdenFirebomber.
Goals: discussion posts, community effort, order, teamwork, stickies, wikis, proper moderation enforcement (against shills, trolls, spam, flames, sequestrable topics (FlatEarth, Nazis), tyranny).
No from u/GuywholikesDjtof2024.
Concerns: censorship, tyranny.
A very large silent contingent can be considered to have abstained despite awareness of the poll. Evidence indicates they lean toward No (preservation of anarchy) but legally via their nonadvocacy their standing is equivalent to going with the flow of what the most active are doing. There was also a burst of what could be grouped as envelope-pushing activity to test the community's limits, and this has included some self-moderation as it's lessened. u/Graphenium, though silent here, can be commended for taking on himself the role of promoting group action via ordinary user rights rather than mod rights, in posting an independent roundtable; this too was met with silence by many.
Therefore we can declare the vote (unless people chime in late) to have rendered a passing total of 4-1-1 in favor of Yes; but to interpret the vote it's clear that it reflects only those willing to be active in supporting a mod board of most any composition. As we proceed to build informal consensus if any, the contingent that consciously deprecates deliberative processes by nonparticipation, and by active redirection via other activity (including squabbling), will need either to draw itself out into making commitments, or to be bypassed by their alternate activity being overcome by community consensus activity.
Thank you for collecting the data, SwampRangers! I'm also for declaring the vote, a lot of time has passed for people to make up their minds already.
u/Graphenium , I'm surprised that you haven't voted in here. Could you please do so soon? It's great that you're initiating discussions, but when another person has initiated a relevant discussion, I think it's important to follow-up with your thoughts, as much as you want others to follow-up on your own discussions.
This isn’t a real thread. It’s just people who follow SR around and interact with everything he posts.
The only people who’ve voted in it so far are you, TINAE, then swamp who doesn’t actually ever post here just had 3 people follow him to the thread (aka not community members) and Dresdenfirebomber an obvious shill who also isn’t a community member.
Hmmm... Strange take... I am perhaps missing some backstory here.
I am replying to the thread because I received notification when I am mentioned, as SwampRangers did in the comment above. He also added your name, so I know you also got the notification.
Could you let me know of what's actually going here? I know Dresdenfirebomber from his recent comments flooding JosephGoebbles5's posts, where I exposed his spam + another account that did the same, I think the other account was JosephMalta or something...
Either way, you have good ideas. If you think we can do something positive, can you please share that with me, because I am all for it. I also have some willing people to create an entirely new forum, where you'd be perfect for a mod.
Please let me know in a personal message, not as a reply to this one.
I only proposed this line of inquiry because you and u/Neo1 were interested in revival. Looking forward to your next roundtable (or whosever it is that arrives).
You mean so you can slide it with gay unrelated bullshit? I can’t wait either. Im going to make it about the Revelation of the Pyramids documentary. Lmao.
YES
The one no vote here references tyranny. Obviously tyranny is bad. Should be for basic needs such as removing spam and flame wars. Previously flat earth had been sequestered to its own .win since one person was taking over this one with it, although IIRC that deci went against the public vote held on that very topic which makes it an even better example.
Yes.
"I love censorship" he says.
I don't love censorship but I do enjoy order and team work.
In no way is a mod position the way to get that. That might even make more division :(
I disagree, we were happy under Axolotl Peyotl's modding and also Clemaneuverers, they just aren't available right now and now the trolls know, so yes we need someone behind the helm.
And how are you going to stop whoever gets in power, if the person ever decides to abuse their powers? Send mean tweets? Beg them? What?
What do you do when the thing you so crave for comes back to crush you?
Have done nothing, and they don't care about this board enough.
I've requested that I be the mod, I've been here since day one when Axolotl invited me here.
A mechanism should be in place. Maybe even a requirement that whoever is appointed mod changes every so often? A rotation? At least 3 people? It's doable.
YES. c/Conspiracies has significant contribution and no active moderation. New moderation would allow featured content (stickies), access to building the wiki including its roundtable history, better ability to facilitate roundtables and other meta discussion, and enforcement of the sidebar rules. Of particular note, in recent hours we've had a repeated contributor with whom many are familiar who shows much potential for bringing the Conspiracies forum into disrepute via platform-deprecated allusion to criminality,
and this strongly directs active moderation.[Add: which was finally handled by u/Paleo via admin tools.] If there is evidence the community favors new moderation, we can present that to Meta and have a likelier response window than individual query might yield, even if it's known that we will take time to determine who the moderation team should be. IMHO if there is not significant evidence the community favors new moderation, it will be unlikely to trace back the path to its former glory and will be easily slid into disreputable and closed-minded tracks. I encourage everyone to speak their minds, and also if possible to comment YES.Woke and Censorship-pilled.
Hard no. We have seen the dangers and devastation of tyranny. This place has done awesomely without tyranny. This is a useless and meaningless post. Delete it now.
Only if the stormfaggots get purged.
Will keep your conditional in mind. Too many conditionals complicate a question.
He is an atheist and hates women.
He also fornicates with cats! (Actual line from an early US election campaign)