How moderators should be chosen

Bradley Sanders4 said:I was actually just about to try and talk some sense into you. 🤣

It’s not really true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that on some of them, there simply aren't people willing to take on the responsibility. Most folks would much rather just post and stay blue.

You've got a point, veto might be a bit of a heavy word. It might work on some boards and fail miserably on others. I can already picture the crowd over at a site like Reddit failing to reach any kind of consensus. But whether you call it a veto or just consultations, the core idea is the same: ask the community if they want user XY to be a mod, and if not, find out why.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, I’d actually give Pero Perić the benefit of the doubt here. There’s a massive difference between him saying he doesn't want some evolutionist moderating his thread, and him saying he doesn't want Davor running the show. I mean, Davor has barely even touched this board—he’s popped up maybe twice on some random sub-forum, and both times he was acting like he owned the place and talking down to everyone else. You can ignore the first point if you want, but you really can't just brush off the second one.

Just like they do to the enemies of liberal democracy, for that matter. ☕

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.

Brenda Hayes16 said:The goal should be aiming for something better—finding that sweet spot between what the mods want and what the users want.

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

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

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

steelskipper5 said:I’m asking those linguistic fascists to take their eugenics programs somewhere else. Thanks and goodbye.

Timothy Davis59 said:The idea of letting users vote on moderator selections just isn't feasible on this forum. It’s a weak concept, and I sincerely hope you don't move forward with it. The only real input users should have is the ability to comment on a dedicated thread once the administration selects a potential candidate. Let that thread stay open for a few days before the official appointment; if people drop some heavy, legitimate criticism that makes the candidate look totally unqualified, then fine... the administration could take those serious concerns into account before making a final decision 🤷

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

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

dustyranger64 said:How many people actually have to walk out on Reddit and for how long before that decision finally counts? Seriously.

Does it even matter which users are leaving the PDF? Honestly, I just care about the numbers.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I was actually just about to try and talk some sense into you. 🤣

It’s not really true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that on some of them, there simply aren't people willing to take on the responsibility. Most folks would much rather just post and stay blue.

You've got a point, veto might be a bit of a heavy word. It might work on some boards and fail miserably on others. I can already picture the crowd over at a site like Reddit failing to reach any kind of consensus. But whether you call it a veto or just consultations, the core idea is the same: ask the community if they want user XY to be a mod, and if not, find out why.

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.

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.

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:That’s not really an "idea." You can vent about the moderators every single day, but they only actually get replaced if they lose touch with reality or decide to quit on their own.
The chances of users being able to vote a moderator out just two days after the admin council picked them? About as likely as the sun not coming up tomorrow.

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:My bad, I definitely misread that.

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

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

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.

dustyranger64 said: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?

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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