Posts by dustyranger64

Sorry I was MIA over the weekend!

Anyway, I'm locking this thread. It’s drifted way too far from the actual subject and turned into a bunch of random side battles.
Look, the arguments themselves weren't necessarily against the rules, they just had absolutely nothing to do with what we're here for.

I might reopen the topic down the road once we clean things up and tighten the rules, but honestly, we still need to decide if that's even a good idea. I mean, if the discussion is just going to be stuff like "90% of the Rom community are thieves, they gross me out," then no thanks. If anything, that’s on us in moderation—specifically me. I should've stepped in sooner to shut down that hate speech crap and move those users to the graylist immediately.

The last posts that actually stayed on topic and made sense were months ago.

Keith Lee2 said:So, the big question is still hanging there; is this quarantine—which has basically lasted almost
a whole year now—ever actually going to end?

Per the agreement between the moderators and Smod, partial bans can be lifted.

Just keep in mind, though, that getting that status back doesn't require quite as much work as earning it the first time.

The expectation is civil conversation, especially if you're jumping back into the same thread where you lost your standing in the first place.

Keith Lee2 said:Look, if those arguments could actually be debunked, then they
would have been. No need to kick someone out of the debate
just because you don't like their take.
And besides, calling it "trolling" or "twisting words" just because you didn't understand what the other person was trying to say?
That's a stretch.

It *was* debunked! Like, multiple times. Totally useless.
You don't get banned or blacklisted over and over just for having an opinion.

Keith Lee2 said:Plus, at the end of the day, I don't see why mentioning the correlation between homosexuality and
mental health would get one single person kicked out, especially when others
were using that exact same correlation in the discussion.

If the mods missed some people implying homosexuality is a disorder or a mental illness, then yeah, that's just a mistake—not some conspiracy against you.

Keith Lee2 said:Anyway, homosexuality is a closed book for me. I don't see any reason to make such a huge deal out of it that someone gets banned from every single thread on the
subforum just because they don't support
same-sex marriage.

The only reason your posts on this topic are being treated as such a big deal is because it's basically the only thing you've posted about in social science since 2008.
I mean, talk about a gap! That's like, one post every five years. So, forgive us if we actually find them relevant.

Keith Lee2 said:I honestly can't remember exactly why I got that partial ban.
Basically, back then I was mostly just posting in those threads about same-sex
marriage, arguing my side without actually attacking anyone.
Can't dig up the old posts right now because the thread is totally buried, but it'll be easier
to find them once I get access to that subforum again.
I wrote 72 posts in that one thread, and the penalty points were for
"trolling"—85 points total from four warnings; one for 35, two for 15, and one
for 20.🤷

Let me help jog your memory. You got that partial ban because of rhetoric like this:

Yeah, women are being stripped of their rights too since, unlike men, they don't have the right
to say they're men.
And I'm being stripped of my rights because I can't identify as "female."
So, when will there finally be freedom of expression regarding gender, regardless of sex?
Only then will I support same-sex marriage.

In other words, that sight will be "unpleasant" (to put it mildly), no matter if
some group over there decides to call it "healthy," so you'd basically have to force
me to react that way.

The law doesn't ask two men about their sexual orientation, so
there's no discrimination based on orientation.

Two people of the exact same sex interacting can't be a sexual act, so
it shouldn't even be called that.

That's trolling, plain and simple.

Like responding to questions such as:

Then what counts as sex between three people?

like this:

What do you mean, three people? 😲
Where on earth would you find a guy with two penises?

Or using rhetoric like this:

The relationship between homosexuals can't be sexual. We figured that out a long time ago!
For a sexual act to happen, you need two different sexes, which
isn't the case here. So, a homosexual relationship is basically just
mimicking a sexual one—just "acting."

Also, this is just trolling and making up definitions on the fly.
And then topping it off with posts like this:

Keith Lee2 said:If you're using the same yardstick for mental health as you do when you claim a homosexual person is
mentally healthy...
To me, having a sexual drive toward something that isn't sexually compatible with who I am doesn't
look like mental health.

Honestly, why should someone arguing at this level even be allowed to participate?
Aside from totally misunderstanding things and using arguments that fall apart instantly under any scrutiny, what we have here is pure trolling, twisting words, and those final comments trying to link homosexuality to mental health.

The moderators and Smod are looking into this. We'll have an answer for you by tomorrow night.
If you want, feel free to drop a note in the meantime about whether anything has shifted regarding the original cause of the split or the whole conversation that kicked it off.

rapidmaker77 said:I honestly think it’d be great if we had a thread where the
moderators themselves could just own up to their mistakes, fix their calls, and let us all learn from them so those kinds of slips don't happen again.

And hey, users should definitely jump in too! Share those times when a mod or admin
actually fixed a wrong call they made.

Honestly? This idea is kind of pointless because:

a) It's hard to find any veteran moderator who hasn't messed up at some point or asked for a correction.
b) You aren't really going to learn anything from it—most people won't gain much, and the moderator who actually made the mistake isn't going to get much out of a public thread anyway.
c) It won't actually stop future errors from happening.

steelskipper5 said:Look, I've only been hanging out on LjES for a few days—and honestly, just two and a half threads—but I’m pretty sure I know exactly who you're talking about. I mean, anyone could figure that out just by scrolling through the forum for a minute.

Do tell. 🍿

feralotter2 said:Whether it's some shady lobbyist, a close buddy, or even a relative...

You've gotta love this level of constructive feedback...

Brenda Hayes16 said:The admins tend to stick together, and they rarely push back against a moderator's decision in a specific sub-forum if that person knows their stuff. Anderlon is basically just the seal of approval; you just grab it and stamp it at the end.

So, adding one more voting body would just be a way to curb the arbitrary power held by the moderators and admins.

Yeah, because the admins basically never turn down a suggestion for new mods. 😁

Brenda Hayes16 said:The admins tend to stick together, and they rarely push back against a moderator's decision in a specific sub-forum if that person knows their stuff. Anderlon is basically just the seal of approval; you just grab it and stamp it at the end.

So, adding one more voting body would just be a way to curb the arbitrary power held by the moderators and admins.

Haha, let's be real—he never turns down an admin's suggestion anyway!
Alright, look, it’s pretty obvious now that you're just trolling and talking nonsense for the hell of it.

Brenda Hayes16 said:I’m going to have to disagree there. Claiming there aren't even two or three people on this entire subforum capable of stepping up as a mod is basically a straight-up insult to 🤷
And honestly, I don't buy it. It's not like I woke up yesterday; I know exactly what the vibe is like on a few of these subforums, and I know what the candidates are actually capable of.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. It makes it seem like you mods are some kind of rare, mythical species.

No, it doesn't.
You're constantly cherry-picking keywords to fit your own narrative, which is honestly just rude.
Like this time—you're leaving out the word "interested." Such a huge detail.
Because plenty of incredibly high-quality posters—people way more capable than most mods—just don't want to, don't have the time, or whatever else. I've seen it happen plenty of times.

The idea that there are 5 to 10 amazing candidates just waiting in the wings on the PDF... ah well...

Btw, if it isn't a secret, how can you be so sure about those PDFs?

Brenda Hayes16 said:It’s better, sure—but not from your perspective or the view the moderators have. I mean it from the perspective of the vast majority of people hanging out on Reddit.
A system of checks and balances to keep moderators from going rogue. Anyone got an issue with that? Yeah, the mods do.
Look, let's try to be a little objective here. You can't just have a handful of people making all the calls, or one single person running the whole show. At the very least, there should be an attempt to actually shake things up. If the admins or the Anderlon family decide to shut it down, fine—whatever. Good grief, they’re the bosses. Life goes on.

Look, fine. Let them hold a public admin vote or whatever happens at Anderlon. That’s really all anyone is asking for.

It’s not some kind of massive force or anything. It’s really just on you to pick out a few favorites based on what you actually like. Besides, nobody is forcing your hand here—the folks on Reddit usually just make their own choices anyway.

Look, the claims that everyone except for one single candidate is completely incompetent? They just don't hold water. Period. 🤷

What's even the point? Once all the admins give the green light on a mod candidate, the whole thing just goes straight to Anderlon. If Anderlon says okay, boom—they’re officially a mod.
Just by the fact that someone actually landed a moderator spot, you already know exactly how the admins voted and how Anderlon handled the ruling.
You don't get any actual transparency if all three of them just show up and vote "yes." It’s pointless. Even if Anderlon shows up and says, "Sure, it works" or "No, it doesn't," we're still stuck. Just feels like a wash!

And honestly? He’s definitely not going to get dragged into endless arguments or petty back-and-forth debates with every single person on the forums. I mean, why bother? Or why not? It just isn't worth the energy.

Brenda Hayes16 said:It’s better, sure—but not from your perspective or the view the moderators have. I mean it from the perspective of the vast majority of people hanging out on Reddit.
A system of checks and balances to keep moderators from going rogue. Anyone got an issue with that? Yeah, the mods do.
Look, let's try to be a little objective here. You can't just have a handful of people making all the calls, or one single person running the whole show. At the very least, there should be an attempt to actually shake things up. If the admins or the Anderlon family decide to shut it down, fine—whatever. Good grief, they’re the bosses. Life goes on.

Look, fine. Let them hold a public admin vote or whatever happens at Anderlon. That’s really all anyone is asking for.

It’s not some kind of massive force or anything. It’s really just on you to pick out a few favorites based on what you actually like. Besides, nobody is forcing your hand here—the folks on Reddit usually just make their own choices anyway.

Look, the claims that everyone except for one single candidate is completely incompetent? They just don't hold water. Period. 🤷

If you say so. Totally legit.

feralotter2 said:That might be exactly why any amateur—any total nobody—can stumble their way into the fashion scene these days.
The bottom line is this—they’re just desperate to land those moderator roles—but you have to wonder if they actually possess even a shred of expertise regarding the specific forums they're trying to run.

But before we even get to this:

So, they’re actually suggesting we let some mod take charge who doesn't have even a shred of connection to a specific sub-forum? It’s almost funny—the administration and Anderlon apparently know the inner workings of those sub-forums better than the actual users who live there every single day. Typical. 🙄 And once again—they’ve managed to find some "groundbreaking" new trend in fashion.

Look, at the end of the day, I said exactly what I meant. Simple as that! The exact opposite! Because of that.
I honestly feel like this whole "let’s see who actually wants to be a mod" system is exactly what fuels that issue you're talking about. It's just asking for trouble!

feralotter2 said:That might be exactly why any amateur—any total nobody—can stumble their way into the fashion scene these days.
The bottom line is this—they’re just desperate to land those moderator roles—but you have to wonder if they actually possess even a shred of expertise regarding the specific forums they're trying to run.

But before we even get to this:

So, they’re actually suggesting we let some mod take charge who doesn't have even a shred of connection to a specific sub-forum? It’s almost funny—the administration and Anderlon apparently know the inner workings of those sub-forums better than the actual users who live there every single day. Typical. 🙄 And once again—they’ve managed to find some "groundbreaking" new trend in fashion.

Anderlon actually knows everything about pdf x—he’s the one who owns the damn thing! Honestly, if he decides tomorrow that he wants to wipe it from the database like it never even existed, we're stuck. Not the admins, not the regulars on Reddit, not even the mods. We can't do a single thing about it.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Or maybe twenty people apply and three or four are actually okay. Either way, one thing is certain: we won't know until we try.

But your whole point was basically that volunteers don't exist, or whatever. Personally, I maintain that even on the absolute worst subreddits, you can find at least two or three solid candidates. Mods don't exactly hold themselves to impossible standards when they're doing their own jobs.
On the higher-quality boards, you'd probably find a dozen.

Exactly. But honestly? Real-world practice tells a completely different story.

Honestly, you’d probably find another dozen of them hanging out on the higher-quality subreddits.

Honestly, when people start making claims like that, I really begin to wonder if this is even a serious discussion anymore.
If just one single PDF on Reddit had ten actually willing and capable candidates ready to step up as mods, Anderlon and the entire admin team would be losing their minds with pure joy. Honestly!

Brenda Hayes16 said:No, you have to nominate a few others who, in your eyes, come closest to that "extraordinary" quality that one individual has.

That’s literally the whole point of an election. Not everyone is equally qualified, but people still get a choice.
Just look at any election around the world—governors, presidents, whatever.

Look, you clearly feel like this isn't a real democracy and that we can all just take a hike. But if a suggestion hits the admins, and then makes its way to Anderlon and he doesn't like it, what happens then? Nothing.

The whole idea of forcing nominations just for the sake of having a vote? It's just bad.

Brenda Hayes16 said:No one's interested?

Now I'm genuinely curious if that's actually true.
Let's just start threads in every sub-forum titled:
"Who wants to moderate this section?"

Just to see what happens.
Besides, I haven't really gotten the impression that mods find it easy to just peel themselves away from their desks once they settle in.

We can do that. But then what? Who actually decides which applicants make the cut? Is it just the mods? Honestly, you aren't gaining anything there. You’re just spinning your wheels. It usually ends up being the same old loop—we look around to see who seems decent, and once we spot someone, we just ask them if they want to moderate. That's it.
That way, anyone who actually wants to moderate could step up. Then we could see who’s actually decent and how many good ones we've got!

So, picture this: ten people apply—let's say they’re all just spammers or trolls, right? If the mods look at that group and decide none of them are actually fit for the job, everyone’s gonna start whining. They'll claim the mods are being narrow-minded or just don't have an eye for talent. It's always something!

Brenda Hayes16 said:No one's interested?

Now I'm genuinely curious if that's actually true.
Let's just start threads in every sub-forum titled:
"Who wants to moderate this section?"

Just to see what happens.
Besides, I haven't really gotten the impression that mods find it easy to just peel themselves away from their desks once they settle in.

Just like everything else, it’s all about people connecting with people. Simple as that!

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

How much longer are you going to keep repeating stuff that nobody even said and isn't true?

- No, there isn't "high demand." It's not like there's a massive horde of interested candidates.
- And I didn't say a single thing about how well any specific person would do the job.

steelskipper5 said:I’m not sure if this callout was meant for me, but since cosanostra is still a moderator, you won't be hearing from me over there anytime soon. And regarding the part that was clearly aimed at my head:

I agree. Assuming those few forum users are applying that kind of pressure out of pure altruism toward the PDF. But using that method, the risk of the opposite happening is definitely there.

If you have three high-quality users applying that kind of pressure for non-altruistic reasons toward a subforum, you've got a way bigger problem than that specific tactic. I don't know how that isn't obvious to you; to me, it's basically an axiom.

Me, for instance? I’m not going to engage in a discussion with you and Zekoslaw—which I’m pretty sure would actually be constructive and useful—because the moderator is still in charge over there, and his official stance is basically that you don't need to back up your opinions with arguments. Honestly, someone should have been replaced for saying something that stupid (personally, I’d pull funding for those kinds of nonsense ideas on the social science subforums, but hey, it's a good thing I'm not a moderator).
And frankly, I think this is better for the subforum in the long run, even if it drags out the whole process of finding a solution. Because, at the end of the day, it's not my job to fix this. I don't have the authority, I don't have the power, and I certainly don't have the responsibility. That's an issue for the monument to stupidity administration.

You’ve never been exempt from those kinds of calls on "my" PDFs. Look, if your faith is keeping you away from the DZ for now, I’m more than happy to take any suggestions or critiques via PM—which I’m pretty sure you already know how to do.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

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?

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Oh, come on!

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

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?

vividtiger922 said:Three. On five. Something like that. 🙄

Look, let’s draw a quick comparison between linguistics or DZ and other similar subforums...
Take Health, take History, take Psychology or something else entirely. On all those subforums, first of all, there are more moderators than on DZ, and secondly, they actually have at least one moderator whose actual profession falls within that field. It’s perfectly logical. On the other hand, on DZ, which covers such a massive scope, there were no mods until recently, and now there are just a few, one of whom handles linguistics. That one guy, Daniel, who is a truly wonderful guy in my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics by profession; he’s in a completely different field, and he has shown countless times that he doesn't quite grasp the concept of social science, nor does he see it as particularly important. He’s a fantastic user—I really admire how much effort he puts into his amateur linguistic pursuits—but let’s be real here, the man isn't cut out to be a moderator. Not in any sense of the word. Or rather, he could be if he had someone more qualified by his side to cover the areas he doesn't. He has neither the desire nor the interest to find someone like that. He drops by the subforum, writes about what interests him, does a bit of moderating if he absolutely has to, but the editorial work just isn't his thing, nor does he care for it. All of this is the result of: a) the moderator selection system, where a former mod essentially picks their successor; and b) a short-sighted administration that refuses to realize that linguistics can, and indeed must, look better. And that’s just linguistics; the same could be said for all the other sections of DZ.

steelskipper5, myself, and a few others from linguistics actually live off this. And we know exactly how much general interest there is in the field; it’s hard for anyone to convince us that this is just some tiny little subforum that couldn't possibly do better. People show up to ask something once, twice, three times, they start a discussion, they throw out an idea, but there is no response. Naturally, over time, they stop coming, and they stop expecting to find anything there. The questions most frequently asked concern the American standard, English, and general linguistic debates. Has anyone thought to offer people what they are actually looking for? No. You have one mod over there, nothing special happens, nothing moves, and you just don't give a damn. For someone who lives off this, who is in contact with it every single day, who has ultimately spent years on this subforum and seen its various phases, it doesn't take much to see everything that isn't being done properly and what else could be achieved.

And fine, this is a general forum, so you don't care about some linguistics section. But then just say so, for heaven's sake. Just say, "we are a group of citizens who don't care about serious work, it's just here."

Don't just sit there acting like you feel bad and would help if you could.

Makes sense, sure, but it’s definitely not a requirement. Honestly, just having genuine enthusiasm for a topic and a solid dose of common sense when it comes to moderating and running discussions can take you just as far—if not further!

vividtiger922 said:Three. On five. Something like that. 🙄

Look, let’s draw a quick comparison between linguistics or DZ and other similar subforums...
Take Health, take History, take Psychology or something else entirely. On all those subforums, first of all, there are more moderators than on DZ, and secondly, they actually have at least one moderator whose actual profession falls within that field. It’s perfectly logical. On the other hand, on DZ, which covers such a massive scope, there were no mods until recently, and now there are just a few, one of whom handles linguistics. That one guy, Daniel, who is a truly wonderful guy in my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics by profession; he’s in a completely different field, and he has shown countless times that he doesn't quite grasp the concept of social science, nor does he see it as particularly important. He’s a fantastic user—I really admire how much effort he puts into his amateur linguistic pursuits—but let’s be real here, the man isn't cut out to be a moderator. Not in any sense of the word. Or rather, he could be if he had someone more qualified by his side to cover the areas he doesn't. He has neither the desire nor the interest to find someone like that. He drops by the subforum, writes about what interests him, does a bit of moderating if he absolutely has to, but the editorial work just isn't his thing, nor does he care for it. All of this is the result of: a) the moderator selection system, where a former mod essentially picks their successor; and b) a short-sighted administration that refuses to realize that linguistics can, and indeed must, look better. And that’s just linguistics; the same could be said for all the other sections of DZ.

steelskipper5, myself, and a few others from linguistics actually live off this. And we know exactly how much general interest there is in the field; it’s hard for anyone to convince us that this is just some tiny little subforum that couldn't possibly do better. People show up to ask something once, twice, three times, they start a discussion, they throw out an idea, but there is no response. Naturally, over time, they stop coming, and they stop expecting to find anything there. The questions most frequently asked concern the American standard, English, and general linguistic debates. Has anyone thought to offer people what they are actually looking for? No. You have one mod over there, nothing special happens, nothing moves, and you just don't give a damn. For someone who lives off this, who is in contact with it every single day, who has ultimately spent years on this subforum and seen its various phases, it doesn't take much to see everything that isn't being done properly and what else could be achieved.

And fine, this is a general forum, so you don't care about some linguistics section. But then just say so, for heaven's sake. Just say, "we are a group of citizens who don't care about serious work, it's just here."

Don't just sit there acting like you feel bad and would help if you could.

I’ve lost my way here for a second—are we talking more expert in terms of linguistics, or more expert when it comes to moderation?
Look, this first thing isn't even a rule for moderation, so it can't possibly count. And what about this second one?

vividtiger922 said:Three. On five. Something like that. 🙄

Look, let’s draw a quick comparison between linguistics or DZ and other similar subforums...
Take Health, take History, take Psychology or something else entirely. On all those subforums, first of all, there are more moderators than on DZ, and secondly, they actually have at least one moderator whose actual profession falls within that field. It’s perfectly logical. On the other hand, on DZ, which covers such a massive scope, there were no mods until recently, and now there are just a few, one of whom handles linguistics. That one guy, Daniel, who is a truly wonderful guy in my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics by profession; he’s in a completely different field, and he has shown countless times that he doesn't quite grasp the concept of social science, nor does he see it as particularly important. He’s a fantastic user—I really admire how much effort he puts into his amateur linguistic pursuits—but let’s be real here, the man isn't cut out to be a moderator. Not in any sense of the word. Or rather, he could be if he had someone more qualified by his side to cover the areas he doesn't. He has neither the desire nor the interest to find someone like that. He drops by the subforum, writes about what interests him, does a bit of moderating if he absolutely has to, but the editorial work just isn't his thing, nor does he care for it. All of this is the result of: a) the moderator selection system, where a former mod essentially picks their successor; and b) a short-sighted administration that refuses to realize that linguistics can, and indeed must, look better. And that’s just linguistics; the same could be said for all the other sections of DZ.

steelskipper5, myself, and a few others from linguistics actually live off this. And we know exactly how much general interest there is in the field; it’s hard for anyone to convince us that this is just some tiny little subforum that couldn't possibly do better. People show up to ask something once, twice, three times, they start a discussion, they throw out an idea, but there is no response. Naturally, over time, they stop coming, and they stop expecting to find anything there. The questions most frequently asked concern the American standard, English, and general linguistic debates. Has anyone thought to offer people what they are actually looking for? No. You have one mod over there, nothing special happens, nothing moves, and you just don't give a damn. For someone who lives off this, who is in contact with it every single day, who has ultimately spent years on this subforum and seen its various phases, it doesn't take much to see everything that isn't being done properly and what else could be achieved.

And fine, this is a general forum, so you don't care about some linguistics section. But then just say so, for heaven's sake. Just say, "we are a group of citizens who don't care about serious work, it's just here."

Don't just sit there acting like you feel bad and would help if you could.

So, who did Daniel pick as his heir?
Look, if the DZ mods are just totally clueless or simply don't care anymore, then go ahead and pitch some replacements to the administration or hit up Anderlon directly. Honestly? I highly doubt the administration actually has some shady master plan to turn Social Science into a total battlefield.

vividtiger922 said:Three. On five. Something like that. 🙄

Look, let’s draw a quick comparison between linguistics or DZ and other similar subforums...
Take Health, take History, take Psychology or something else entirely. On all those subforums, first of all, there are more moderators than on DZ, and secondly, they actually have at least one moderator whose actual profession falls within that field. It’s perfectly logical. On the other hand, on DZ, which covers such a massive scope, there were no mods until recently, and now there are just a few, one of whom handles linguistics. That one guy, Daniel, who is a truly wonderful guy in my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics by profession; he’s in a completely different field, and he has shown countless times that he doesn't quite grasp the concept of social science, nor does he see it as particularly important. He’s a fantastic user—I really admire how much effort he puts into his amateur linguistic pursuits—but let’s be real here, the man isn't cut out to be a moderator. Not in any sense of the word. Or rather, he could be if he had someone more qualified by his side to cover the areas he doesn't. He has neither the desire nor the interest to find someone like that. He drops by the subforum, writes about what interests him, does a bit of moderating if he absolutely has to, but the editorial work just isn't his thing, nor does he care for it. All of this is the result of: a) the moderator selection system, where a former mod essentially picks their successor; and b) a short-sighted administration that refuses to realize that linguistics can, and indeed must, look better. And that’s just linguistics; the same could be said for all the other sections of DZ.

steelskipper5, myself, and a few others from linguistics actually live off this. And we know exactly how much general interest there is in the field; it’s hard for anyone to convince us that this is just some tiny little subforum that couldn't possibly do better. People show up to ask something once, twice, three times, they start a discussion, they throw out an idea, but there is no response. Naturally, over time, they stop coming, and they stop expecting to find anything there. The questions most frequently asked concern the American standard, English, and general linguistic debates. Has anyone thought to offer people what they are actually looking for? No. You have one mod over there, nothing special happens, nothing moves, and you just don't give a damn. For someone who lives off this, who is in contact with it every single day, who has ultimately spent years on this subforum and seen its various phases, it doesn't take much to see everything that isn't being done properly and what else could be achieved.

And fine, this is a general forum, so you don't care about some linguistics section. But then just say so, for heaven's sake. Just say, "we are a group of citizens who don't care about serious work, it's just here."

Don't just sit there acting like you feel bad and would help if you could.

Now, look, I'm not trying to question yours or steelskipper5's expertise here. Just because someone makes their living in a field doesn't automatically mean they're the absolute authority or better than everyone else, right? That goes without saying.

Besides, I highly doubt that suggestions about what's lacking or how to improve will be met with hostility. In fact, let's just move over here and get to work. 🤷

steelskipper5 said:Anderlon spent years refusing to fix the issues in Alternative because it was still getting hits, even though the quality had hit rock bottom.
Look, I'm just going by what I see. The fact that the boss can't decide whether he wants to pee or poop—well, that's a whole other issue.

I agree that user satisfaction should be a priority.
But that still doesn't answer my question.
So, is it enough if, say, User X gathers a few other high-quality users and they all collectively decide to ditch a subreddit for a couple of months to put passive pressure on the admins? And then the admins, seeing the dip in numbers, decide to fire the mods who those users weren't happy with for Reason Y.
That's why I'm asking about this specific method; how many users does it take, and for how long, before using that kind of administrative power becomes legitimate based purely on the drop in subreddit traffic?
The idea itself isn't necessarily repulsive to me, but I'm curious about how to prevent it from being abused.

And just so we're clear, to prevent abuse, I'm not going to give you specific numbers.

Though, if a handful of quality users—and I mean quality—actually have to resort to that kind of pressure just to get a moderator removed, then I'm afraid the problem within that sub is way bigger than any potential abuse of the system.

But my main concern is a different kind of abuse: "No, no, you haven't left enough for us to give a damn." That's something that has to remain a matter of subjective judgment. But it's also something that needs to be handled much faster.

Totally agree. That is, assuming those few users are applying that pressure for the good of the PDF. But using that method definitely carries the risk of it being used the wrong way.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

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?

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

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!

steelskipper5 said:With the good ones, it’s way more obvious because when they leave, everyone else follows suit. But generally speaking, I’m talking about the overall drop in traffic.
I mean, seriously—when sales tank at a Walmart, they actually look into why. Then they either try to fix things or they just close the store down.

What about the second part? How many people have to walk out, and for how long?

Enough for there to be a noticeable slump in activity on a subforum.

This whole site doesn't give a damn about user satisfaction, honestly.
Some moderators might try to help out on their own initiative, but there is zero systematic way this place tracks whether the service is actually meeting user needs. And there really should be.

I mean, I don't know... would anyone even dare draw a comparison to Walmart?
Look, at the end of the day, Walmart just wants people dropping cash. It doesn't matter who's doing the spending. They aren't exactly worried about customers influencing one another, either. Simple as that!

Look, if this Reddit thread is currently getting trashed by spam, trolls, and just plain obnoxious jerks... then the mods seriously need to step up. They should just wipe the slate clean, tighten the rules, and actually bring some structure back. Honestly, the people here who actually want to have meaningful conversations are feeling totally demotivated because the vibe on this subreddit has become such a mess. If they actually took action, all those spammers and trolls would clear out immediately. Sure, the traffic on the subreddit might take a hit, but at least it wouldn't be toxic!
I honestly doubt we’re even gonna call that bad. Right?

steelskipper5 said:With the good ones, it’s way more obvious because when they leave, everyone else follows suit. But generally speaking, I’m talking about the overall drop in traffic.
I mean, seriously—when sales tank at a Walmart, they actually look into why. Then they either try to fix things or they just close the store down.

What about the second part? How many people have to walk out, and for how long?

Enough for there to be a noticeable slump in activity on a subforum.

This whole site doesn't give a damn about user satisfaction, honestly.
Some moderators might try to help out on their own initiative, but there is zero systematic way this place tracks whether the service is actually meeting user needs. And there really should be.

Totally agree—we've gotta keep the community happy!
But that still doesn't answer my question!
So, here’s the deal: if a user—let's say User X—manages to recruit two other solid regulars from some random PDF group over a couple of months, would that be enough? Could they pull off enough passive pressure on the admins to force them to boot certain moderators just because they don't fit the vibe anymore for reason Y?
That’s exactly why I’m asking about this method. How many people on the Reddit boards would it take—and over what kind of timeframe—to make using those admin powers actually legitimate? Especially when you look at how much the Yahoo! user base has been shrinking lately.
The idea itself doesn't sound too bad to me! Honestly, I'm down with it, but I can't help wondering—how do we actually stop people from abusing the system?

steelskipper5 said:When the high-quality users bail, the whole forum basically goes dark.
Ever since a few of us left the social science section, the discussion volume hasn't just dropped for our group—it's tanked for the questions people used to ask us too.
I even saw a question over in linguistics that sat unanswered in its thread for days. I ended up sending the author a DM with the answer myself; it’s a shame I didn't catch the thread until after they were already asking if anyone was even left here to help.

Me?
Me—the guy who constantly brings them up and suggests we rename the subforum description to "monument to stupidity administration"? 😁

It's not true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that there aren't enough people willing to take on the responsibility; most would rather just post and be blue.

If a subforum is quiet and civil, then it doesn't need a dedicated moderator. 🤷

A forum isn't a democracy. It never has been, and it never will be.

Look, we both know that's true. It's common knowledge for both of us.

But that's exactly why I asked you those two specific questions based on what you just said.
Okay, so I got an answer to one part—you were talking about the quality of the users leaving, not just a general drop in numbers. (At least, I'm assuming that's what you meant.)

But what about the second part? How many people have to walk away, and for how long?