How moderators should be chosen

fadedsailor932 said:To actually sniff out a decent moderator—whether they're Supermod level or an admin—you need real talent. I’m certain there’s a huge pool of people who would make excellent moderators, yet I know for a fact the administration would never greenlight them. Why? Because they don't fit the current management style of this forum. In a way, I get it—the less the mods stir the pot, the less the admins have to deal with. But let me be clear: moderation isn't just handing out warnings and bans. It requires intuition. Some people are born with it, some learn it, and some—unfortunately—never will. They just hide their own incompetence behind rules that are often impossible to defend.

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?

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

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?

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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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?

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?

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Were you ever a moderator over at Yahoo!? Because I used to be a Supermod, and at one point, I was managing a pretty massive collection of PDFs. Back when they introduced that new system where anyone could become a mod just by hitting a certain post count on the PDF section and then getting a vote from the community—the best part of the staff vanished from the forum forever.

I won't even get started on how a specific group of people were appointed just to go on personal vendettas against everyone else. Or how often it happened that two mods on the PDF section had totally opposing views, leading to one banning someone while the other unbans them, or one locking a thread while the other unlocks it.

How are you even going to prevent people from voting using clone accounts? And if the voting is public, what stops a group of people who aren't even active on the PDF section from casting votes? At the end of the day, just because someone has racked up 232,352 posts and is "popular" doesn't mean their contributions are actually objective or high quality.

dustyranger64 said:Awesome. First thing's first: let's trim that list from five candidates down to just two. Honestly, out of those five, only two actually seem even remotely interested in picking up the mod mantle. That's point number one. We've had several top-tier users on here—super popular, totally objective, and highly respected folks—turn down the moderator role multiple times. And that's even when the offer was made by people they aren't even buddies with!

So, now that you’ve split into two groups, what’s the game plan? How are those biased, compromised mods going to decide who actually gets a vote? Who are these two candidates even supposed to be? And more importantly, how are you going to stop everyone from losing their minds when people like Perica Bukić or maca Maradona realize they aren't running or don't even get a say in the matter?
Why do you think the whole "rigged" thing and all those conspiracy theories are already settled?

No way, that definitely wasn't me!

Ready?
Punishment is weak, there’s way too much off-topic nonsense, debates are total garbage, and the rules feel totally inconsistent? Oh, you think that has nothing to do with them changing the rules to let people vote for moderators based on popularity? Yeah, right. If you actually want to chat with the people who used to moderate and supermoderate Yahoo!, no biggie—they’re hanging out right here on this forum. I can give you the lowdown on how Yahoo! actually runs and how being "popular" basically kills any real moderation.

Look, let's be clear—I'm not saying this way of picking moderators is perfect. Far from it. I’m definitely not claiming it's the gold standard. But honestly? This whole "popularity contest" alternative has some massive holes in it. Just huge gaps.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I agree that picking mods solely through popularity contests is a desperate move. That said, I think it would be fair if the users on a specific subforum had the right to veto a proposed moderator candidate. Of course, it should work both ways—mods should also have the power to veto a user's candidacy.

Edit: Brenda Hayes16, having just five people is basically impossible. Sometimes we wait months for a mod because there's literally nobody willing to step up and deal with the headache of a particular subforum.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I agree that picking mods solely through popularity contests is a desperate move. That said, I think it would be fair if the users on a specific subforum had the right to veto a proposed moderator candidate. Of course, it should work both ways—mods should also have the power to veto a user's candidacy.

Edit: Brenda Hayes16, having just five people is basically impossible. Sometimes we wait months for a mod because there's literally nobody willing to step up and deal with the headache of a particular subforum.

Brenda Hayes16 said: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.

steelskipper5 said:Go tell Anderlon to let the admins swap out moderators whenever they see people ditching a subforum. There—that's your version of "controlling moderator tyranny."

steelskipper5 said:Which, again, looks like an even bigger failure on the part of the monument to stupidity administration for letting a subforum rot to the point where nobody even wants to touch it.
I mean, new subforums should only pop up when there’s actually enough interest for people to stop crowding other sections. Except for the formal debate area, obviously. ☕ And if it eventually gets to the point where nobody cares about it anymore, then either the administration messed up by opening it in the first place, or they just totally dropped the ball on keeping things running.

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.

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.

Timothy Davis59 said:And here we see the true face of these so-called liberals. Democracy is just a convenient tool for them, used whenever it suits their interests.