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.
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.