For the sake of order and understanding all previous posts regarding moderation will be listed below. It would be nice to have all ongoing discussion in this one central post that I'm speaking in right now. I will chime everyone that has expressed actual interest in actual discussion.
The goal is to have community consensus to the best ability regarding a new mod to be active, I have reached out in modmail and PM'd Clem so they are aware if they are in fact currently around.
I'm requesting to be mod and am open to questions in that regard. For those that don't know me, I've been here since this community was created via an invite from the original mod, Axolotl Peyotl and have been active the last 5 years. I would hope my reputation has shown it's own proof that I care for this community and members, if not, I am willing to provide assurances to any concerns.
Here are the posts that (I'm aware) currently relate to this topic:
https://communities.win/c/Meta/p/1ARK0LXq6i/cconspiracies-has-had-no-active-/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0NmhL7/cconspiracies-has-had-no-active-/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0No4Rw/does-the-community-want-more-act/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0RBc7L/community-question-your-response/c
Here are the users that seemed interested in discussion:
If I've misread the replies and have left off any others that were interested in this discussion, please correct me.
Great! You moderate some essential communities very well and you do have the experience. As a quick answer, I'm confident we can include more users as "interested in discussion" based on the prior threads. I was thinking I or someone ought to do a bit of analysis on all responses to the subject so far, but they do need a bit of time to crystallize. It's possible to redirect people here as a megathread, if the cats can be herded. So I'll be back here.
If you want homework, you might look at the questions u/Neo1 posed me about shills. For instance, I'd frame, what constitutes "excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying 'meta' posts"? That would seem to be our best rule against forum sliding on the meta level but it doesn't handle topical sliding by the gradual change in the character of contributions toward some theories and not other theories. There's no forum rule that tells where our freethinking imaginations are intended to go, which makes us an easy target for sliders. We could (continue to) build consensus about where we're going (namely just "a fairer and more transparent world") as a preparatory antidote for this risk.
Consensus binds free thinking, hence making transparency (perception) opaque (suggestion). Also...what's fairer than being given free will of choice?
Is arguing necessary? If not...is it excessive to argue against one another? If it is, then what for?
If one argues to prove or refute a proposition to another, then doesn't one ignore that nature proposes being, which neither requires proof, nor refutation?
Free thinking, transparency, fairness, nature.
Argue aka "make white (argent)", enlighten.
I welcome more parties to the discussion.
While I respect the need to stop shills and sliding I'm cautious to avoid an overhaul type situation. I'm happy to adhere to the tenets that have been established by previous moderation.
That's a good post - https://conspiracies.win/p/17tegZSGDy/friendly-reminder-on-how-to-spot/c/ (Not mine, I just share the already compiled work of someone else)
Good list of the actions that shills take. Mods must take note of these when deciding who to remove/mute/deal with...
Did you get a notification to this thread from my chime of your username in the body of the post? Zxyl said the chime didn't go through to them so I'm trying to see where I went wrong.