Should c/Conspiracies jointly petition admin for a single new moderator as opposed to a mod team or no mods?
Please answer YES or NO in separate main comments below, with any reasoning as desired (including proposals of individual mods, no mod, or multiple mods).
YES indicates our direction should be to get agreement on there being one mod approved first with details to be sorted out later, NO indicates we should take any other direction.
This poll methodology is recognized to be unscientific but is better than nothing. Thank you for your responses. The previous poll yielded 4 votes in favor of moderation, 1 vote against, and 1 vote conditionally in favor.
I recognize that many distrust voting and believe in other methods of consensus, and of individual or group activity; I merely point out that remaining silent on a position is generally treated as giving consent to others to make the decision.
Which is why two weeks ago I stopped pressing for the position as soon as doubt in me and other possibilities was broached.
Mods should be moderate and not trying to press the community into their own decisions without evidence of community support. I suppose the governance model of "follow me regardless" works for very good decisive independent mods, but I hardly believe that's what this existing community wants. You've noticed I'm pretty decisive about the things I do selectively insist on from community members.
We're on a platform that has an established attrition pattern. A mod that promises new blood is likely not to have the thriving of the extant contributors foremost in mind. To me, thriving is the current community getting more inspired to collaborate, and a first mod would be better toward that goal than anarchy IMHO.
Are you voting that we should not petition admin for a single mod but should go some other way? You also say it's right "trying to get a mod". You sound "indecisive".
Yes, I'm waiting for C to add me.
FTFY
False.
Hi TINAE : Please explain confusion here : in the sidebar it says
That said, Why in nearly every thread here, people call each other Bad names, & No respect for others, & No open minds. - Those are opposite of the Sidebar, yes? - How do you think a moderator should or could make these 2 Opposites match?
Not based on your reputation it isn't.
Your recollection of my reputation holds very little weight.
To your fatass, maybe.
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. Since there is evidence the community favors new moderation generally, we can agree on a single name and 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 moderator should be. IMHO if we select the most qualified moderator first it will become easier for those in favor of a moderator team to obtain the first mod's help in crystallizing consensus about the nature of the team. If we do not select moderators the community 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.
If you were running an actual poll, you'd be in violation by trying to influence the voters on how to vote.
I wasn't going to respond, but I see that you're taking a strong personal interest in this thread. First, there are no generic rules, and I laid a ground rule that anyone could give their reasons. I couldn't find a rule against influencing voters (and you're certainly influencing voters).
More important, I've known you sometimes to respond to logic despite your odd content fixation. You also seem to be adapting to the community's nonverbal consensus and votes in terms of your post volume and selection. Those might be good. I still think you seem to have an idea that the sidebar rules don't apply to you. It is Content Policy that the community "treats others in the way that they would want to be treated." Maybe you want others to diss and insult you the way you do them, to spam and pester, and to badger with illogic and so on. But it seems there's a simpler solution, which is just a little flexibility and further adaptation. If you actually communicate and show that you want to be respectful, honest, nonviolent, nonabusive, then you might not need to adopt all the tactics that push boundaries and get you threatened with discipline, like bullying, attacking, and disruption.
In short I'm trying to recall when I've seen that human side in you where you're here to create a better future, to respect even your enemies, and to convince people with truth rather than with force. You can show that anytime. The NatSoc who dehumanizes others dehumanizes himself.
Leave it to the reddit power mod squatting on 70+ subs to advocate for more moderation...
SR was a "power-mod" on Reddit? - Never visited that place, so only asking.
I've repeatedly said I have no presence on Reddit. People make up what they want to believe. I have been a moderator on other small sites.
Everyone in this thread is fucked. If any of you are modded, this board will die.
Why do you think I wouldn't be a good mod?
Because you're just another Karen out for power. You sided with pedophiles to get my last account banned. You try to implement rules in subs you aren't a moderator for, and act like you speak for everybody. That isn't a leader, that is a dictator.
I didn't get you suspended and I didn't side with the pedo, as I told you then, I was trying to look out for you.
See, this is the subversive nature I speak of.
You were criticizing my telling the pedo to get Kirked, "for my own good". Yeah okay, Stalin.
I didn't ping anyone. I was trying to get you to see reason, you got yourself suspended by your words and your behavior.
Oh, sorry, you DM'd them* despite denying it.
You were siding with the pedo spammer, pure and simple. Your "see reason" equates to NOT wanting pedos to die and NOT saying mean words to them.
Very kikey behavior.
You think I did that but I didn't.
The pedo was already being noticed and was suspended.
So that's a no vote. Since someone asked, I downvoted you for obscenity, as is typical for me.
Yep, I see the most dumbest shit removed from gaming, for no reason sometimes.
I expect that to start happening here too.
But that will certainly revive the place right! I find it strange people want a "dead" sub so bad.
Kaarous is an open Project 2025 shill. Never should have gotten power anywhere.
Cry harder, but you aren't ever getting unbanned.
Thank you for your service!
I know. You won't unban anyone who's against the agenda that you are paid to promote.
Who shits up my sub. Fixed it for you.
Not even you believe that.
You know yourself my ban was because I called you out directly for abusing your influence to promote an ideology you are paid to support, the one that provides your current employment.
You'd rather promote Chinese propaganda like a fucking wumao than actually talk about video games. Mainly because you hold no interest beyond their use for propaganda for your cause.
Also, that Call of Duty thing you left up is so obviously fake it hurts.
You refused to talk about videogames, and wanted to use the sub as a vehicle to launder your pet peeves and faux activism.
Fixed it for you.
You were told to behave or be gone. You chose to not behave. It's that simple.
You were downvoted by swamp ass for voting the wrong way 😄
I don't care who it is as long as they ban JG5 and his seventeen billion alts.
You literally abandoned your anti woman stance just to beg for censorship. And you're simping for women in power now, oh how the tables have turned 🤣😂
[Or rather, the mask drops]
I haven't abandoned it. I'll talk about feminists when they have power again. The closest they've come to power lately is being used as the patsy for Vought's aggressive push to debank adult content (Collective Shout).
Right now we're dealing with the pedo natalist occupation, bound together by what they did on Little St James.
We then need to deal with the new Epstein, Joanne Rowling, and her child trafficking through the Ukrainian warzone.
Thanks, so you're still a conditional yes.
You're siding with and thanking a literal domestic terrorist, imagine my shock.