Experiment: Voting for moderators

Hey everyone, I know people have floated ideas like this before, but please just hear me out before you lock everything down. 😁

So, like the title says, let’s run an experiment. Take one of those "low-stakes" subforums where the topic isn't super heated and there isn't a moderator assigned yet. Instead of having the current mods pick someone—let's be real, mods are human and they naturally lean toward people who think just like them—let the users actually vote for their own mod democratically.

Also, we should probably set some ground rules for voting so we don't deal with a bunch of troll accounts or clones. Like, maybe you need at least 100-200 posts in that specific subforum to participate, and obviously, permanent bans for anyone using burner accounts to rig the vote alongside their main.

The truth is, there are tons of different sections here. And I’m not just talking about politics; personally, I don't post much (which means I don't read much either, so I'm mostly just clicking😁) in psychology, Reddit-style threads, or a few other spots. I see all kinds of stuff getting banned that a vocal minority complains about, while the HUGE quiet majority stays far away from those topics entirely because of how the rules and moderation work.

So, just think about it. I'm not talking about some "dead" section where people post once a week. I mean a subforum that actually has some life in it. If letting the community pick the mod turns out to be a disaster, hey, no harm done.

If it works? Awesome, we can roll it out to other sections. If it fails? You can swap the mod back with a single click of a mouse. The users would actually appreciate being heard, and nobody could complain about the outcome because they were the ones who picked the person.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Have a great weekend! 👍

Look, even if we decided to run a poll like that, the reality is the moderator wouldn't end up being someone the current administration and owner actually want on board. At the end of the day, we can't—and frankly, we don't want to—force our existing staff to work alongside someone they just don't click with or can't agree with when it comes to moderation standards. It’s not just about their comfort, though; it would genuinely hurt the quality of the entire platform. Plus, there's the practical side: moderators need full access to the admin panels and backend tools because that's where all the technical resources and data live that allow them to do their jobs effectively. There is absolutely no way we’re handing those keys over to someone we don't trust or who hasn't proven themselves to be high-caliber, no matter how many votes they might pull in a popularity contest. That would be both unprofessional and, quite honestly, naive. We always circle back to the same point: the community's opinion is treated more like a suggestion than a mandate, and let's be real, we haven't exactly been known for being super receptive to suggestions in the past either.

True, and regarding a "successful business," someone's general attitude might be just as vital as their experience when they step into a moderator role—especially if they're being picked for a subforum where they haven't actually been an active participant.

Could those types of moderators end up feeling like outsiders? If the community doesn't take them seriously, won't they eventually start enforcing rules with draconian measures just to compensate for that chip on their shoulder?

We've seen several examples of this lately...

Someone with the right experience builds trust with the rest of the site administration, but wouldn't a friendly approach also be the ideal?

Because without that last part, everything else seems to fall apart...

Take Politics, for example; Uncle Strile is viewed as one of those people, or perhaps Cuka—why not activate them on the main forum to give them some accountability, while letting others have a bit of a free hand on some of the smaller subforums?

We should push forward the ones who can actually drive discussions rather than stifling or outright killing them.

(Otherwise, they might just butcher a thread and then lock it, even when the topic is as hot as a "hot potato.")

I’m curious about something else entirely—it might be related to how mods are picked, or maybe it isn't. Why do some long-time users who aren't mods get to have colored text? Do they just color it themselves every time they post, or did the moderation team hand out colors because they noticed these guys being particularly sharp, smart, or helpful compared to everyone else? It feels like a way to signal that their posts actually deserve to be read, almost like an official moderator warning. Am I on the right track here?

+ Honestly, I don't think a mod can really rise through the ranks without spending at least a few hours a day on this site. They should be diving into discussions as much as possible; after all, we're talking about an authority figure recognized by other authorities under that authority (can that dynamic actually mess up a debate if things get heated?). Also, I want to know: how do you actually spot a high-quality user? What does a "good" forum member even look like? What traits are we looking for?

Back in the early days, how did sites like Reddit or similar big US forums pick those very first moderators?

stormytinker40 said:I’m curious about something else entirely—it might be related to how mods are picked, or maybe it isn't. Why do some long-time users who aren't mods get to have colored text? Do they just color it themselves every time they post, or did the moderation team hand out colors because they noticed these guys being particularly sharp, smart, or helpful compared to everyone else? It feels like a way to signal that their posts actually deserve to be read, almost like an official moderator warning. Am I on the right track here?

+ Honestly, I don't think a mod can really rise through the ranks without spending at least a few hours a day on this site. They should be diving into discussions as much as possible; after all, we're talking about an authority figure recognized by other authorities under that authority (can that dynamic actually mess up a debate if things get heated?). Also, I want to know: how do you actually spot a high-quality user? What does a "good" forum member even look like? What traits are we looking for?

Back in the early days, how did sites like Reddit or similar big US forums pick those very first moderators?

In the beginning, there were these cliques, and there wasn't really any democracy per se 😁 once those cliques started shifting and—let's say—diluting that VIP status for the "legends of the forum," that was the start of a more democratic version (mostly because the number of active users suddenly spiked)

I wasn't around from the very start, obviously, but I became active around 2009. About a year or two after registering, I started posting here more often, fell in with a certain group, and then that crew from the most popular and beloved sub-forum went off to start another forum, where we hung out—parallel to this one, etc., etc.

BACK THEN you could hop onto Reddit or somewhere else and spend a few hours in the evening dying of laughter. There were actual "cliques" on every single sub-forum; they essentially kept their sections exactly how they were. These were the people who acted as a magnet for users—the ones who would start threads, offer advice, and basically just entertain and wow everyone.

It was a sort of "in" crowd; you were either in or you weren't. You had to earn your spot (and prove yourself) to be part of it. 😁 (Sort of like the popular groups at Beverly Hills High School, I guess 🙏 the geeks and such... except you knew you were in the top tier because you'd always win the little competitions we used to have, lol, while others were effectively getting "fan mail" and things like that.)

That crew eventually moved on (two or three of them even passed away, unfortunately, one recently, as far as I know, along with many younger people or those in their prime, not retirees)—so now, even years after everything that happened... I suppose the only option left is for moderators to have fun by sparking discussions in the sub-forums they manage, rolling up their sleeves, and getting maniacally busy opening threads to attract new clientele.

Because the old guard (the sub-forum motivators) won't be coming back, or aren't as active as they used to be... and it's been that way for quite some time.

Susan Price30 said:In the beginning, there were these cliques, and there wasn't really any democracy per se 😁 once those cliques started shifting and—let's say—diluting that VIP status for the "legends of the forum," that was the start of a more democratic version (mostly because the number of active users suddenly spiked)

I wasn't around from the very start, obviously, but I became active around 2009. About a year or two after registering, I started posting here more often, fell in with a certain group, and then that crew from the most popular and beloved sub-forum went off to start another forum, where we hung out—parallel to this one, etc., etc.

BACK THEN you could hop onto Reddit or somewhere else and spend a few hours in the evening dying of laughter. There were actual "cliques" on every single sub-forum; they essentially kept their sections exactly how they were. These were the people who acted as a magnet for users—the ones who would start threads, offer advice, and basically just entertain and wow everyone.

It was a sort of "in" crowd; you were either in or you weren't. You had to earn your spot (and prove yourself) to be part of it. 😁 (Sort of like the popular groups at Beverly Hills High School, I guess 🙏 the geeks and such... except you knew you were in the top tier because you'd always win the little competitions we used to have, lol, while others were effectively getting "fan mail" and things like that.)

That crew eventually moved on (two or three of them even passed away, unfortunately, one recently, as far as I know, along with many younger people or those in their prime, not retirees)—so now, even years after everything that happened... I suppose the only option left is for moderators to have fun by sparking discussions in the sub-forums they manage, rolling up their sleeves, and getting maniacally busy opening threads to attract new clientele.

Because the old guard (the sub-forum motivators) won't be coming back, or aren't as active as they used to be... and it's been that way for quite some time.

That’s wild! Haha, talk about a total train wreck. 😁 I mean, the internet really only started hitting the mainstream during that 2000 to 2005 window. Since then? It’s just been an endless explosion.

Passed away? Do we even have a "tombstone" section on this forum? Can anyone actually tell me which users we're talking about? It feels like we should have some kind of virtual monument—something "in memory" of them. After all, these were real people who helped build this whole viral community.

As for how played out these topics are... I’m suggesting that the admins just lock down most of these threads on the boards—especially those endless ones that go in circles day after day, talked about by every generation under the sun. We need to clear the slate and let some of these discussions start fresh from square one. Honestly, there's an obvious issue here that isn't going to fix itself easily. We just need to start recycling topics.

Is there anyone here who’s willing to step up? I’m looking for people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty—the ones who could act as initiators or drivers. Basically, we need some "entertainers" for the various sub-forums to keep things moving. Lately, the mods have been pretty quiet on a lot of the boards, like philosophy, the natural sciences, the arts, current events, you name it. We need some fresh energy to keep those sections alive.

Is anyone actually considering a "Forum 2.0" relaunch? Just a total reset—dumping everything into the archives and starting from scratch with new threads, maybe keeping only the absolute best hits as PDFs on the new site? 🤷

stormytinker40 said:That’s wild! Haha, talk about a total train wreck. 😁 I mean, the internet really only started hitting the mainstream during that 2000 to 2005 window. Since then? It’s just been an endless explosion.

Passed away? Do we even have a "tombstone" section on this forum? Can anyone actually tell me which users we're talking about? It feels like we should have some kind of virtual monument—something "in memory" of them. After all, these were real people who helped build this whole viral community.

As for how played out these topics are... I’m suggesting that the admins just lock down most of these threads on the boards—especially those endless ones that go in circles day after day, talked about by every generation under the sun. We need to clear the slate and let some of these discussions start fresh from square one. Honestly, there's an obvious issue here that isn't going to fix itself easily. We just need to start recycling topics.

Is there anyone here who’s willing to step up? I’m looking for people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty—the ones who could act as initiators or drivers. Basically, we need some "entertainers" for the various sub-forums to keep things moving. Lately, the mods have been pretty quiet on a lot of the boards, like philosophy, the natural sciences, the arts, current events, you name it. We need some fresh energy to keep those sections alive.

For a long time, the moderators were essentially part of that inner circle.
(Meaning, those who became mods were simply the most active, popular, and articulate users within that specific subforum.)

Now, that isn't necessarily the case anymore, for several reasons...

We're currently in a situation where we have to recruit mods who will actually accept the role when everyone else declines. These people aren't always the "first choice," and even then, they clearly have to deal with an overwhelming amount of nonsense every single day. There just wasn't this level of stupidity in the threads before; now, you practically need nerves of steel and the patience of Mother Teresa.

Plus, I wouldn't say a moderator can change much in any given subforum in the long run if they don't have the right people around them—you know, high-quality members.

And that's about it, I guess...

Cheers

stormytinker40 said:I’m curious about something else entirely—it might be related to how mods are picked, or maybe it isn't. Why do some long-time users who aren't mods get to have colored text? Do they just color it themselves every time they post, or did the moderation team hand out colors because they noticed these guys being particularly sharp, smart, or helpful compared to everyone else? It feels like a way to signal that their posts actually deserve to be read, almost like an official moderator warning. Am I on the right track here?

+ Honestly, I don't think a mod can really rise through the ranks without spending at least a few hours a day on this site. They should be diving into discussions as much as possible; after all, we're talking about an authority figure recognized by other authorities under that authority (can that dynamic actually mess up a debate if things get heated?). Also, I want to know: how do you actually spot a high-quality user? What does a "good" forum member even look like? What traits are we looking for?

Back in the early days, how did sites like Reddit or similar big US forums pick those very first moderators?

Pure nonsense.
You could have "colored letters" too if you just knew how to color them yourself. 🍿

Usually, those old-timers get that option around Easter, when they're busy dyeing eggs.

stormytinker40 said:Is anyone actually considering a "Forum 2.0" relaunch? Just a total reset—dumping everything into the archives and starting from scratch with new threads, maybe keeping only the absolute best hits as PDFs on the new site? 🤷

It honestly would be such a dream if someone could just archive this whole site and launch a mirror version with all our content intact, but with actual, reliable technical support, because let’s face it, the tech side of things here is kind of falling apart right now.

Of course, doing something like that would require some serious investment.

crimsonhound80 said:Pure nonsense.
You could have "colored letters" too if you just knew how to color them yourself. 🍿

Usually, those old-timers get that option around Easter, when they're busy dyeing eggs.

Did you know some users here actually have their own signature colors? 😁

Like this:
crimsonhound80's color 😁

This whole thing started once the server went haywire with special characters. 🤣

Aha, so there actually exists a noble William Bennett53 shade.

Why even stress about it? You’re never going to make everyone happy, I guess. Right now, the left wing is just completely losing its mind, but I remember back when the balance between left and right was actually decent. Back then, you could actually have a real conversation, and those trolls who would show up with the exact same tired posts all the time... well, they just got shut down by people messing with them. Nowadays, it feels like those are the only ones posting on most of the "serious" threads. If the owner only cares about clickbait and engagement numbers, then honestly, there isn't much to complain about, because nothing is going to change until those clicks start dropping.

Just to follow up on a few points here—we have a new supermoderator active over in the Politics section. Since this individual previously served as an administrator, they bring a high level of objectivity to the table. If you have specific concerns regarding moderation or particular staff members, feel free to reach out with direct questions. General complaints without any substance probably won't get you very far anyway.

I’ll admit I was pretty confused for a while about who was actually in charge of moderating the Politics subforum, especially since different people kept stepping in to manage things. There were plenty of complaints about that, but to clear things up: Uncle Sam is now the supermoderator for that area.