Patrick Bailey4 said:A forum doesn't necessarily have to be an objective space. But then again, rustydrifter10 claims that's exactly what she wants. I can only point out that she’s either being dishonest with herself or she's fundamentally mismanaging her approach to achieving that supposed objectivity.
As for the other examples you’ve brought up, I think you're trivializing the core issue. We are dealing with a fundamental societal question here—one that carries actual weight. I am talking about these broader geopolitical and political matters because they matter to our society at large. I wouldn't dream of demanding that the moderators of Formula 1 be die-hard Alonso fans simply because his following outweighs Vettel's. That is a triviality, a distraction from the larger social concerns that actually deserve our attention.
Besides, that isn't even what I'm looking for here. I'm not exactly seeking a specific kind of relationship with the moderators. Copy. The current state of affairs in our society is telling. It really comes down to how leadership manages the environment. If the moderators set things up so that everyone feels equally heard and satisfied with the Forum, then we have a healthy community. Even if all 183 moderators were fundamentally opposed to this referendum, if they actually performed their duties objectively and followed the rules, the engagement levels and poll results would still mirror the general consensus of the American public. Isn't that how a fair system should work?
Am I trivializing this? 🤣
Of all the possible ways to divide society, you’ve managed to zero in on the one specific distinction that interests you, declaring it paramount while dismissing everything else as irrelevant. But really, what does it matter whether Pangloss votes for this or that in a referendum? Does it truly change anything whether he’s a staunchly conservative watchdog or a staunch liberal? Neither label makes him any better or worse at his job as a music moderator. 🤷
You aren't seeing the full picture through your narrow lens. You suggest that a moderator should strive to ensure everyone finds equal satisfaction within the Forum, but tell me—do you truly believe such a feat is possible for any human being, let alone a moderator? Could even a higher power achieve that level of perfect equilibrium? Take our community at Formula, for instance. We have two trolls who spend their entire existence whining about how they're being oppressed and claiming they are victims of unfair repression. At the exact same time, we have at least five or six regular members insisting that these very same individuals are terrorizing the community, pleading for them to be banned permanently. And we haven't even begun to touch upon the larger global issues yet, and the bickering is already this intense.
What I find most amusing is your suggestion that "objectivity" should somehow force the collective views of this community to align perfectly with those of the general public. That is where you’re missing the point entirely. This whole senseless debate boils down to one thing: you’re just bothered by how the moderators voted, and you're frustrated by how everyone else here responded. But let’s be realistic for a second—this community isn't exactly a perfect cross-section of the American population, is it? It can't possibly serve as a reliable proxy for the country at large. The internet, and any niche community within it, naturally attracts a demographic that trends younger, more driven, more open-minded, and more literate than the average person on the street. It is only natural that when we tackle issues like this, a clear divide emerges between us and the rest of the nation.
Let’s circle back to your concept of objectivity for a moment. Looking at the poll results from our F1 enthusiasts regarding the referendum, we currently have two votes "for" and six votes "against." This means the gap between this group and the general population is actually even wider than the typical deviation seen across the rest of the Forum. I’m not sure if you’ve come across the research on this, but there are studies suggesting that Formula 1 fans tend to be socially distinct from the average sports fan. On average, they occupy higher socioeconomic tiers, typically boasting higher levels of education and greater household incomes. One could argue that this litmus test—using a global issue as the metric—has actually demonstrated that the voting structure of the F1 crowd is perfectly objective. In other words, it confirms that specific demographic divergence pointed out by those studies. And I won't even get started on one of those two "for" voters. He’s currently over at Chase Bank, fighting for the freedom to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because he believes God grants him that right. Think about that: God. His particular line of reasoning immediately brought to mind the infamous serial killer David Berkowitz, who murdered women based on instructions he claimed God gave him through the barking of a neighbor's dog.
And finally, one has to wonder: why should objectivity be defined by balancing things out against the consensus of the public or the nation? Someone a bit more radical than I am might even argue that we ought to find ways to shift the weight of the Forum's collective opinion toward the mainstream, rather than the other way around. After all, the majority here seems to be fundamentally mistaken regarding the nuances of civil rights.
Therefore, I would suggest you stop trying to force the Forum's demographic to mirror the general public. It isn't necessary, it isn't feasible, and if we are being perfectly honest, it certainly isn't a good idea.