Posts by briskpuma23

Michael Sullivan5 said:The individual who truly cares for you will honor your wishes.

That depends on the request. Besides, why aren't you respecting their wishes?

Man, I don't know how you guys deal with it. Being bribed with food? How do you even survive that kind of psychological warfare?

We haven't seen any threads like this on this sub before.

It’s because they care about you and worked their tails off just to put food on your table.
The fact that most people today just expect a meal to appear without a second thought shows how much we've lost perspective.
So, have some patience and empathy; their intentions are coming from a good place.

Then there's that moment when you realize something about someone in your circle that nobody else has ever mentioned—and you realize it’s an original thought.

I’m still not entirely sure what the point of this thread is, but alright.

The less you know, the harder it is to piece things together. They operated with incredibly limited information, yet based on those scraps, they survived hundreds of thousands of years in filthy caves, surrounded by stench and darkness, just so we could eventually exist.

It’s really just the sheer persistence of our ancestors that strikes me. They didn't have the luxury of being "creative" in the way we define it today—mostly because we're too spoiled for our own good—but they were incredibly resourceful when it actually mattered. They managed to defend themselves against every predator out there and eventually mastered the wild.

Creativity isn't some mystical gift. Like you said—as an engineer, you have to think creatively, and you aren't exactly a genius either. What I mean is, creativity is a skill you learn and develop; everyone is creative these days. It's easy to be creative when you're juggling a hundred different variables. They barely had three to work with. Look at us now: American rappers call themselves creative, Jelena Veljača writes screenplays, Pokosica has a novel, and Bišćan thinks he's a soccer player.

Our cave-dwelling ancestors didn't have time for nonsense. But they left us with the very things that allow us to endure, despite how hopelessly pampered we've become: the instinct to survive and the capacity for empathy. Cheers.

So, you're actually holding a grudge against cavemen?

Creating isn't just about having an original thought. I wouldn't even say how much of a stretch original thought actually is as a concept. And it’s certainly not original thought that serves as the foundation for humanity.
When someone treats an original thought as their ultimate life goal, they usually end up just chasing the unoriginal urge to shock people.

Jeremy Davis7 said:briskpuma23;
Quincy:

I honestly thought this thread was actually about psychology—you know, looking at what kind of traits make someone want to be a moderator in the first place. I’m not here to lecture anyone on the official procedures, that’s not what this is about. I'll just lay one thing out plain and simple—there’s no big secret here—current mods basically just nominate new ones based on how much they contribute to their specific subforum. It's as informal as it gets. But let's get back to the actual topic: the psychological makeup of a moderator.

In my book, you can't separate how a forum functions from the actual motives that drive someone to take on a mod role.
They aren't two different things. They're tied together.

Why am I saying this?

What really trips me out about this whole setup is how a massive commercial media entity (one that operates on a global scale) can have its entire core business model built on the backs of volunteers! People who work for free, without whom the whole thing would collapse overnight.

It's pretty obvious the people running the show accounted for that in their math.
The whole business lives off that reality.

To me, it looks like pure applied psychology. The owner (or whoever is sitting at the top of the food chain) uses it in a very calculated, lucid way.

We all know—well, I hope we do—that industrial psychology teaches us that money isn't always the primary driver for people in the workplace.

Employee motivation isn't just some academic sociological puzzle; it's behavior aimed at hitting goals that satisfy deep-seated human needs.

People act the way they do because of internal psychological triggers. A person's output doesn't just depend on their skill, it depends on what's driving them.

And that right there is where the rabbit hole starts.

A manager's job—the person steering the ship—is to grasp the complexity of human personality and use motivational theories to pick the right tools, whether that's material rewards or psychological ones, depending on the situation.

One thing they can easily exploit is the basic human need to feel valued.
Big corporations do this all the time; they hand out status symbols, like fancy cars or executive perks, to keep people hooked.
Around here, the equivalent—as cliché as it sounds—is being able to use a larger avatar or a bigger profile picture.

Another huge motivator is praise.
People love hearing that they're trusted, that they're doing a good job, that they matter.
So, I'm curious: have any of you moderators actually been praised?
Like, through a private message or something similar?

Did it move the needle for you when someone reached out and offered you a moderator spot?
How did you react, and why?

I don't buy the idea that power is the only thing pulling people in here.
I get what people say about just wanting to contribute... whatever.
But I think the real engine is that inner drive to feel recognized—to feel like you've been plucked out of the crowd.

The way this whole project works has to be built on that. Everything I just said has to be baked into the system.
Otherwise, the boss wouldn't be able to "squeeze" out that intense volunteerism from the very people the business relies on.

I'm genuinely wondering: what methods are the people running this place using to try and manipulate you? Because obviously, someone is coordinating everything—and they're getting paid for it. Someone has to talk to advertisers, track the metrics, and handle the business side. How are they working to turn you into an instrument for their own ends?

Was the mere fact that someone—say, another moderator—reached out to you enough of a reason to "take the bait"?
Who actually gave that person the green light to contact you?
Does this feel like part of a larger pattern?
Is anyone asking you guys to handle this stuff on your own?
Have you ever seen an official manual for this, or have you been personally nudged to act this way?
It feels like a well-oiled machine here, one that’s basically designed to keep itself running indefinitely.

Someone had to design this whole setup. In my opinion, it takes just a tiny handful of employees—maybe one or two per major US region—using pyramid-style engineering and clear instructions based on behavioral psychology to build up enough momentum to stay unstoppable.

Once those wheels start turning... once that flywheel gets spinning... all the boss has to do is check the reports, count the cash, and enjoy the ride.

If I were sitting in his chair, I’d set specific targets for that small group of employees and build a reporting system—basically a bonus structure—if they hit their numbers (you know, traffic, ad revenue, all that jazz).

PS.
I also don't think you can run a business on pure volunteerism for years on end.
Let's be real: people will work like this for a while... until they're completely burnt out and fed up.
Then you have to go out and recruit new blood—people who actually want to be there—just to keep the machine alive.
That means you have to factor in a predictable turnover rate for volunteers, which clearly needs to be part of the plan.
For those of you actually doing the moderating, have you noticed any signs of this?
Like, do they push out the less motivated people by stripping away perks or authority, while giving more power and privileges to the new recruits?
I don't know... just asking.
Looking at it pragmatically... it sounds totally plausible to me. Honestly, if I were making my living off this forum, it's exactly what I'd do too.

😉

God, help me. 🤦

I honestly thought this thread was more about psychology—that both newcomers and regular commenters were genuinely curious about what makes a good moderator.
I’m not planning to dive into the technical procedures; that’s not what this is about. I’ll just clarify one thing—there’s no secret here—current mods suggest new ones based on how much they contribute to their specific subreddits. So, there isn't really a formal process.

Anyway, back to the actual topic: the psychological traits of a moderator.

Most moderators actually try to avoid the role, only stepping up after being constantly nudged.

It’s a bit of a closed loop: reluctant moderators—who are usually just responsible users—become mods, then they get nagged into suggesting others who are just as responsible and just as reluctant.

Moderating is a sacrifice, much like being a dedicated user. As Zvonimir Boban once said, you only truly become someone great by sacrificing yourself for others.

Now, let's address the capitalistic, superficial, and unfortunately typical question from the OP: how do you do this for free?

This subreddit is our baby—and by "our," I mean everyone here who gives their best, or at least contributes something meaningful.

And why do we do it? Because we can. As long as we have the ability, we remain truly free—because only a free person can consciously choose to do things without compensation. As for those who make money off this—let them; we clearly don't need it.

Do you want to talk about this in general terms, or should we break it down by specific subreddits? I'm not really sure how to approach the latter.

Managing an average subreddit—and I mean actually responsible moderation—takes way less time than actually reading through interesting threads.
Engaging in the discussion is much more demanding than just moderating.

So, unless you're looking at those few massive subreddits that need a huge team just to stay afloat, moderating is pretty easy for any active user who has consistent standards, or at least some sense of them.

But anyway, that's not even the point. The real question is why anyone would even want to be a moderator on Reddit, and I’d argue the reason is the exact same one that makes someone join the platform in the first place.

He can snack on it whenever he feels like it.

People become moderators for the exact same reason they join Reddit—to actually contribute something.

Every single question the OP asked could have been directed at any regular user. I mean, why on earth would you give away your thoughts, ideas, conclusions, and questions to everyone else for free? Why spend hours deep in discussion? What drives someone to spend over an hour just drafting an opening post? And you’re doing all this pro bono. So, what’s the actual payoff?

At the end of the day, a moderator is just a regular user with a few extra permissions.

And just because someone makes money off a certain situation—well, people make money off the fact that we're breathing, too—it doesn't mean it's smart to quit living.

I’ve already covered everything in my opening post.

Just a quick heads-up so this discussion doesn't devolve into mediocre excuses. career and money aren't valid justifications for small children.

You can save those clichés for your equally pointless coffee dates with friends.

This is an anonymous forum, for God's sake; there’s no need to pretend here. Just write clearly—"we're too busy/successful, God bless you."

And here's another one who thinks money equals happiness.

I know it’s not exactly trendy to advocate for large families these days, unless you’re coming from the Catholic Church—but it’s easy for them to talk when they don't even recognize their own kids.

To be clear, my stance on needing at least five kids has nothing to do with some nonsense about "procreation" or any kind of moral crusade.

The truth is, you have children for your own sake.

When our time finally runs out, most people—especially people today—will find it pretty hard to sing My Way while looking back at their lives as a selfless sacrifice for others. There's no way. Most of us are just focused on how to cut corners, how to get the most out of life while spending the least, how to hustle, how to score a weekend trip to a beach house, then head to work, maybe join a committee, and so on. In short, we'd rather people didn't judge us by our actions.

And given the kind of shallow people society has turned us into, we can barely manage to bring one child into this world; having two would already feel like an incredible sacrifice.

Because we are so spiritually numb and, let's be honest, lazy and immature, we’ll probably end up ruining the kid too. We’ll pass all our neuroses down to them, instill hypochondria and cynicism, blast them with antibiotics the second they cough, and then complain at the office about how "fragile" our child is. Besides, if you spend your time talking about your kid at work, only the worst kind of boss would actually trust you with a serious project. So, that one child becomes the perfect excuse to stay lazy and avoid doing any real work.

But again, after fifty or sixty years of dodging actual life, retirement rolls around with its tiny pension, and you realize that your one precious child doesn't really love you. They’re busy living their own selfish little lives with an equally rotten spouse and an only child of their own—an obnoxious, spoiled brat who won't even bother to visit Grandma. That's when you realize you have nobody.

That wouldn't happen if you had managed to have five kids. Granted, one would probably be an idiot. One might get hit by a bus, but that still leaves you with three healthy individuals. Healthy because, by necessity, they had to learn how to share, and because you didn't have enough time to focus all your dysfunction on just one person, they didn't develop those stupid neuroses. Plus, a big family naturally builds a competitive spirit, starting from when they're toddlers fighting over fries at McDonald's during a Happy Meal you take them to on Sundays because you're too lazy to cook a Sunday roast.

And those three healthy ones will actually love you. They’ll remember how warm and happy the home felt, conveniently forgetting the fact that it was only warm because you could only afford to give them one bedroom. They’ll turn all the flaws of their upbringing into beautiful memories. And they’ll take care of you in your old age because they grew up to be decent people. When you die, someone will actually cry for you. And honestly, there’s nothing more a person can wish for than that.

If you scan the current threads, it’s obvious that there’s a massive imbalance between what's happening now and the sheer volume of posts obsessively revisiting the American Civil War or WWII.

There’s a very specific pattern emerging here—it’s basically just spreading fear, panic, and moral outrage. Just look at these three typical examples: An Introduction to Civil War in America, What is America celebrating in Mexico! and The Government is setting up Mexican autonomy in the Eastern Plains tomorrow!

The go-to phrases are almost always the same:

1. Is this what we fought for?
2. Traitors, sellouts, old-school communists, etc...
3. There's going to be blood again.
4. They are inciting a civil war.
And stuff like that.

It’s interesting to see who exactly is calling for disillusionment, gloom, or predicting an armed showdown between different factions. It's always the extreme right-wing types—the "true patriots" who live for the flag and the anthem, claiming to love America more than anything else, except, apparently, they wouldn't mind slicing up anyone who doesn't fit their definition of an American. No, they'll tell you, it's not about hurting anyone—it's just an inevitability.

In their eyes, everyone is to blame for the state of the country today: the media, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (they love grouping those two together), the FBI, the perceived weakness of the American people, the communist legacy, and anything involving Mexico.

They use the harshest language possible against anyone with a different opinion—which, strangely enough, gets tolerated far too often—while constantly calling for a return to the 90s. Most of them are just homophobic Thompsonophobes.

They get their "intel" from the weirdest places, mostly emigrant websites or from former and current intelligence agents and other shady characters.

Why am I bringing this up? Because it's fascinating how this loud minority, acting like a pack of wolves, dictates the pace and decides which topics dominate this forum.

Their ability to force certain agendas, while simultaneously undermining any attempt to discuss actual current events, prevents most reasonable people from using this space for what it was actually intended for.

What are they after? Whatever it is, it isn't good. By pushing nothing but negative, apocalyptic forecasts, they're clearing a path for dark-minded types to take power. Don't forget, during the last election, the most popular politician among these commenters was Franjo Tuđman!

I'm saying this for the newer users who think this forum is a perfect reflection of American society. It isn't. It has zero connection to reality. Don't let them dictate the conversation. Try talking about things actually happening in the world. Maybe you'll get through three pages before someone starts shouting about fascists, communists, the FBI, or people nostalgic for the old regime.

True, he was practically walking on water...

velvetmaker3 said:They did an incredible job guiding the country toward independence and victory. Look, war is a nightmare by definition, so nobody is going to sit here and say, "Oh man, war was just great." It was brutal, obviously, but they managed to steer it to a successful conclusion in our favor. I honestly think if they had stayed in power for another twenty years, we’d be in a much better spot than we are right now.

Sanders's rise was just the inevitable fallout from their era. It seems you're struggling to grasp that today's Republican Party is essentially a massive patronage machine. That's the direct result of Harmon's obsession with ensuring his party held onto power and controlled every single lever of government.

That toxic mindset is why the Republican Party would rather wreck the entire country than step down from office.

Because of that legacy, political loyalty is still the primary metric for success, even though we haven't lived under a communist regime for two decades.

Harmon and Herdugo Šušak are the ones responsible for what we're dealing with now, so swearing at them is really just wishful thinking.

Yeah, they left too soon. Honestly, I still get a little choked up thinking about how good things were back when those two were in charge...