Posts by Brenda Hayes16

Sophia Thomas7 said:That’s a pretty massive generalization to claim that moderator tyranny is happening across every single subforum.

Well, that's exactly what I didn't say.

If there’s a clear opportunity to curb moderator overreach, we should take it. Everyone wins.

The plan is laid out. Now we just wait to see if anyone actually wants progress, or if they'll just ignore it like everything else.

Sophia Thomas7 said:I still don't think there's a massive difference here, aside from the actual transparency provided by the voting process. They’d basically just propose the moderators they were going to pick anyway, chat with them beforehand, and then toss it to a vote. And then the inevitable questions would start: "Why are Mickey and Pero on the list but John isn't?"

As for the whole "friends" thing—unless there's hard evidence, which I can't really claim since I don't know every single moderator on this forum—it's all just pure speculation.

Look, if you've got moderators acting like petty dictators, then the possibility of "inner circles" and cronyism becomes a very real concern that we HAVE to address.

And honestly, you guys seem terrified of people asking why certain names made the cut. That's just how the rules work, period. Subforum mods pick the candidates, and that's that. There shouldn't be any "why wasn't I picked?" whining; it's a moderator's choice. You just look at the list, vote for whoever you want, and move on.
Fair enough.

dustyranger64 said:It’s basically a tiny inner circle making all the calls. I mean, if you guys are the moderators suggesting which candidates even make the cut for the forum vote, then you're the ones calling the shots!
You still haven't answered me! If there are two candidates and they’re both actually decent, why bother choosing one over the other? Why not just install both?

Oh, come on!

A little more inputting?
Look, I didn't actually know a single soul on the admin team when I was first tapped to be a mod. Not even one person I recommended for the role! We haven't exchanged a single DM, let alone been friends before this. So, what's the move now?

Voting exists specifically to curb moderator bias.
If the site needs two mods because, say, demand is high, then they should just say: "Hey everyone, this time we're voting for two out of these four candidates."
It's not exactly rocket science.
That way, we actually eliminate that sense of moderator unchecked power.

And believe me, if you look at how things are actually moderated right now, there's no shortage of potentially decent candidates. You can't just claim beforehand that someone won't do a good job.

The fact that you didn't know anyone is irrelevant. The bottom line is we need to reduce moderator favoritism and create some balance.
Give the actual users of a sub-forum a vote in who represents them.

Sophia Thomas7 said:You're operating under the assumption that there are always five high-quality users willing to step up for moderator roles. (Or maybe just two or three).

What happens if the current mods only see one viable candidate? Last time we were hashing out the expansion of LjES, if I remember correctly, there were only about three potential candidates—and two of them actually turned down the chance.

The truth is, no matter which way you slice it, no method is ever going to be perfectly transparent to everyone.

Look, I already explained this to dustyranger64 in my last post, so I won't bore you by repeating myself. There's only one candidate because they either have exactly one close friend or their criteria for others are way too intense (even if they aren't being hard on themselves). That’s the exact issue a new system needs to fix.

Nothing is less transparent than a bunch of mods picking someone behind closed doors. Anything else is an upgrade from that.

dustyranger64 said:I get what you're saying. Really, I do. It's just that I don't see why *everyone* would jump on the bandwagon for fashion. Doesn't matter if the options are narrowed down to two or five—people still pick favorites.

Honestly, whenever two or three users from a Reddit thread show interest in moderating a specific PDF that the mods have picked out, the administration usually just pops the champagne and calls it a day. They don't even bother putting it to a vote! They just decide which one of those two good candidates gets the boot. That’s probably why we haven't had much to celebrate around here lately.

If pdf x has two solid candidates interested in being mods, and those mods actually recommend them, why on earth would you only pick one? Makes zero sense.
So, get this—on the psychology PDF, they suggested both rosy and Pringles at the same time. Honestly? Both of them have been absolute rockstars as moderators. Not a single complaint against either one. Zero!
There were only two female candidates left. Honestly? It took months of constant nudging just to get them on board. Barely managed to talk them into it!
So, if we actually let the forum users vote on this... what would we even get out of it?

Haha, just straight-up lying and making stuff up now. Typical.
Now this is what I'm talking about! Such a nice, constructive way to have a discussion. Love it!

Every regular participant should have a vote, simply because they are the users who actually care about that specific subforum. It’s just not right to ignore the majority while a tiny little group—some self-appointed council, like the moderators themselves—makes all the calls.

In the scenario you described, a vote wouldn't change anything anyway, because you're talking about a subforum where nobody wants to moderate. There are plenty of people interested, and claiming they wouldn't be "good" enough is just an excuse. Even in a crowd of volunteers, you're bound to find some gems.

If the mods refuse to suggest anyone they aren't tight with, or if they hold everyone else to impossibly high standards that they don't apply to themselves, that's their issue. That’s exactly the core problem we're trying to fix with a new selection process.

Bottom line: we should be able to find a handful of candidates—even if they aren't perfect—and let the users decide via a vote.

Now, if you ever run into that extreme situation where absolutely no one volunteers, then look, man, just ask your neighbor or your best man to moderate. It's a desperate move, but hey, it's justified.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Here’s the catch. Take the LjES and xyz threads, where people were basically arguing that a woman’s only value is her ability to have kids. Based on those discussions, there’s definitely a critical mass of people who feel that way. Now, imagine if they're the ones proposing a moderator who actually shares those views.

The current mods are saying "no way." And once again, some people are going to claim the system isn't being "transparent" enough.

Nah, you've got it backwards. The mods suggest the candidates, and then the users vote on them.

The problem?

dustyranger64 said:Man, you completely missed the point. Total miss.
Sorry, but that's such a fake example. Seriously, I don't see any reason to respect the opinion of someone studying social science if they actually believe some races aren't equal or that only idiots bother learning foreign languages.

And no, I wasn't belittling ( 😕 ) people on specific subreddits. I was just using some really obvious examples to prove my point that we don't need to value absolutely every single opinion out there.

Like steelskipper5 said, this forum isn't a democracy. It doesn't have to be a dictatorship, but it definitely isn't a democracy.

Listen, the mods are the ones who put up the candidates. The users in the subreddits just pick one from the list of potential mods provided by the current staff.
The voters aren't expected to write manifestos or long essays; they just click one of the options the mods laid out.

There’s no way to overturn that system. Balance is what keeps things from falling apart, and you know it. Besides, it seems pretty convenient for you mods to just be picking among yourselves.
In about thirty years, all the mods will basically be related by blood because of this whole "anti-politics" thing you guys have going on.

Brandon Lopez6 said:You totally missed the point here.
The admins pick a candidate—then the users weigh in with their comments—and then the administration finally decides whether to actually promote them to mod or pass.

My bad, I definitely misread that.

So, if that's how it works, there'll be plenty of actual criticism for every single candidate, and then the admins just get to play judge and decide whose feedback counts as objective and whose doesn't.
In my opinion, that means the "voice of the people" isn't really being heard at all.

Brandon Lopez6 said:Now that sounds like the best idea yet. 🙂
I'm with you on that..

That’s not really an "idea." You can vent about the moderators every single day, but they only actually get replaced if they lose touch with reality or decide to quit on their own.
The chances of users being able to vote a moderator out just two days after the admin council picked them? About as likely as the sun not coming up tomorrow.

dustyranger64 said:Nope. But I see you have zero issues putting words in my mouth.
That isn't waving a white flag. Seriously, feel free to explain to me why those specific examples should even be allowed to vote in the first place.

And that comparison to an asylum and doctors? Which I guess was supposed to imply I think all forum users are crazy or whatever? Honestly, it's just rude.

I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

They need a vote because it affects them; they're active participants in the very subforum where we're looking for a mod. Just like how citizens get to vote for the government and the President, even if they aren't perfect or "ideal" voters.

dustyranger64 said:Wishful thinking and reality don't always play nice together. Honestly, there's no need to turn it into some massive Yahoo! headline. Just getting it close to the level of a Yahoo! story is plenty. Or honestly? Maybe don't even bother if the change isn't actually making things better.

Why wouldn't they complain? Honestly, nothing is stopping them!

So, seriously... why on earth should some homophobic, misogynistic troll on Reddit or Yahoo! get a say in who handles the moderation? Makes zero sense!
Why on earth would a historical revisionist get a say in who handles moderation at a history site? Seriously? Makes zero sense.
Why on earth would an orthodox creationist get a say in who handles moderation for the natural sciences? Seriously. It just doesn't make sense!

Just because they aren't random chatters, but actually regular users on Reddit?
Look, I’m out. I refuse to post on a forum where someone like Pero Perić gets a say in who moderates the PDF files—especially when that guy thinks being gay is on the same level as being a predator or a murderer. And there's no way in hell I'm letting some hardline creationist, who wouldn't know basic biology or scientific proof if it hit him in the face, decide who handles the natural sciences. Just isn't happening for me!

A veto? Honestly, respectively, I think that's a terrible move. You can't stop people from letting personal vendettas or old grudges drive their decisions through a veto. It’s way more logical to ask the folks on Reddit for moderator suggestions rather than asking them to handle vetos. That feels much more constructive—plus, some of us are already doing that anyway!
In fact, those kinds of discussions are exactly why I decided to stop suggesting certain users for mod roles. Once I saw that some of the more experienced users on here didn't think someone was competent or mature enough for the job, I just backed off.

The goal should be aiming for something better—finding that sweet spot between what the mods want and what the users want.

And this idea that you don't want people from the "patient" subforum to vote? That’s honestly laughable. It’s basically just waving a white flag.

Don't forget, even in an asylum, there are doctors looking after the patients. Not everyone is sick, and the mods are the ones who decide which couple of candidates will eventually be voted in as the new mod.

But hey, I guess you could say: why bother sharing the strawberries when you can just eat them all yourself, right?

And of course, making a minimum post count a requirement is exactly what turned Yahoo! into nothing more than a glorified chat room. Honestly, any comparison to that ridiculous forum is officially over.

Five is just an arbitrary number; it could be seven or maybe two, depending on which sub-forum you're looking at or how many candidates actually show up.

At the end of the day, the regular users should have some say in checking moderator tyranny, rather than it being a one-way street.
Balance is everything.

So, why the hold-up?
Seriously, I don't see a problem here, other than the fact that it keeps the moderators from acting like they own the place.

Back to my thoughts on Yahoo!.
Even if we changed one specific thing that isn't quite like how Yahoo! does things, it wouldn't suddenly turn this forum into their mess—and honestly, I’d be the first person fighting against that happening.

Over there, the users get to pick whatever they want, whereas here, the mods present five candidates (who actually *want* to moderate) along with a voter list.

The group of five moderators would essentially be the ones making the choice, just like how right now they pick one final moderator for a specific sub-forum without giving the regular users a vote.
So, there really isn't much room for complaining here, much like how you all managed to convince yourselves there's nothing to complain about regarding the current system.

Practically everyone active on a sub-forum would have a real shot at choosing from those five. The only people who'd get filtered out are the ones who show up to chat once every few days or something. It's usually not a big deal to put a list together, so there's no reason to whine; if you aren't on the list, just be more active and move on.
People start getting loud when you strip away their freedom and their right to vote just to impose someone else's whims.

dustyranger64 said:Honestly, this is a total disaster of an idea. It’s basically just a carbon copy of that Yahoo! model, which really just boils down to nothing more than a popularity contest.
Look, you've got a few things to deal with here:
So, how exactly do you decide who gets picked as a moderator? Like, what's the actual criteria for that "top contributor" status? Honestly, it feels like there's a huge flaw here. Post count doesn't equal quality. You end up with spammers circling the top active users list just because they post constantly, while some absolute legend of the forum—someone who actually adds value but posts less often—gets totally overlooked. It’s frustrating!
And that’s when you finally hit the popularity contest issue—which, let me tell you, is way more complicated than it looks!
I don't see how picking people that way actually solves anything. You think you're cutting out the cronyism, the brown-nosing, or the favoritism toward whoever voted for you? Not gonna happen.

If you actually think this voting method helps the community, just go take a look at the state of the Reddit threads and the level of discussion happening there. Seriously.

Probably happens sometimes. But honestly? It’s a far cry from being an actual rule or some official guideline.

Why do you think nobody ever asks?

The regulars in a specific sub-forum, as well as any mod going through the impeachment process, know everything about everyone there.

Because of that, they’re the ones best qualified to choose. Post count definitely isn't a measure of authority. Sure, let's say popularity plays a role—that makes sense. People naturally gravitate toward popular figures, but being popular doesn't mean someone is a clown just performing for the crowd to keep a sub-forum entertained. Most popular users earn their status through objectivity and smart posts, things people actually value. Besides, nobody actually wants a clown in a moderator position.

Let me give you a concrete example:

Mods for a particular section should nominate five candidates from within that section and notify all the forum members who have voting rights.
They’ll be the ones who know who actually shows up regularly, and those are the people with the right to vote.
Then a public vote happens. Simple as that.

Why would that be considered bad? And why would appointing a moderator's buddy be any fairer?

Also, why are you assuming the forum would turn into Yahoo! or some endless chat room? First of all, enforcement there is almost non-existent, off-topic posts happen on every single thread, and the principles are totally different. Here, we actually have penalties and reports, which is the fundamental difference.

So, yeah, your arguments don't really hold water.

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, you don't need a better argument than the boss said so. We're in his bar—if we don't like how things are run, we can go drink somewhere else.

The real kicker is that the boss couldn't care less about us.

Oh, okay. And that’s actually a reason that would satisfy me, just because it’s honest. Fair enough, I get it and I accept it. It’s just a shame the truth can only be spoken by a mod if they're an ex.

It’s pathetic how they spin it and advertise the current choice as being better for some "reason X," as if the people on this forum are too brain-dead to realize what's happening.

If the mods don't have the guts, maybe at least one admin could just be straight up and say, "Yeah, this is how it is." It's like they think if honesty isn't valued in mod circles, then it shouldn't be valued among the users either.

What's the point, when it's obvious everything could work just fine if it were built on a foundation of honesty?

feralotter2 said:Featured from the thread Complaint regarding moderator Nica Quote

Nica Quote

Regarding this, I have a few questions to pose.

We keep seeing cases where a moderator is shuffled from one sub-forum to another—one day they're here, the next they've moved elsewhere—even when those sections have absolutely nothing in common. It seems like they just want anyone to moderate, regardless of context; it's as if they were sent by God to oversee this place and everything is perfectly fine. Yesterday they're in Politics, today they're in LjES, tomorrow who knows where... personally, I think this is wrong—please weigh in, everyone.

The second thing I can't wrap my head around is why existing moderators aren't suggesting new candidates or successors. After all, who are they going to nominate if not someone exactly like themselves? If the current mod is good, fine—everything works. But if the current mod is incompetent, they'll just pick someone equally useless, creating a cycle where certain sub-forums are doomed to stay stagnant forever. 🤷
Do you think it might be better to ask the active users within a specific section for suggestions, rather than just relying on the moderators?

Signature.

To me, the most logical move would be for the users who actually hang out in a specific section to vote on or pick from a pool of candidates. And if a mod is currently being replaced, they should probably share their thoughts on potential candidates publicly.

I honestly don't get why the selection process is almost exclusively admins and mods picking from among themselves. Moderation isn't a job done for the staff; it's done for the people using that specific part of the site.

The whole "mods need to be similar and aligned" excuse doesn't hold water. Not even a little bit. Why? Because it’s blindingly obvious that moderation styles and criteria vary wildly from one sub-forum to the next, and from one mod to another. It always has been, and it always will be.
It feels like mods are picked based on friendship, familiarity, or just being from the same city—basically, building a little clique so they can back each other up no matter what, making them harder to unseat.

No matter how much any individual mod messes up, the blame also lies with the people who decided to put them in that position. The way new mods are selected needs to change.
I just hope you guys are getting some sort of private benefit from this system, because the community definitely isn't seeing anything but losses.

I want to hear some actual, worthy arguments for why new mods are chosen this way. There aren't any. There are zero arguments that actually make sense.

btw. I'm not complaining about Nica; it's just the sheer lack of logic here that bugs me.