How moderators should be chosen

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?

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.

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.

dustyranger64 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

dustyranger64 said: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!

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?

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.

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. 🤷

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.

I think I’ve lost my way a bit here—more expert in terms of linguistics or more expert in terms of moderation?
Because the former isn't a prerequisite for moderating, and really shouldn't be, but what about the latter?

a) Who did Daniel set as her successor?
b) If the social science moderators are incompetent or disinterested, suggest replacements to the administration or directly to Anderlon. I highly doubt the administration has some grand scheme to make the social science section socially fractured.

Without questioning yours or steelskipper5's expertise, just because someone makes a living out of something doesn't necessarily mean they are good at it or more authoritative than anyone else; that should be obvious.

Besides, I doubt that suggestions on what isn't working or how to improve things will be met with hostility; in fact, let's just move here and get started. 🤷

dustyranger64 said: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?

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!

Brenda Hayes16 said:Nah, you've got it backwards. The mods suggest the candidates, and then the users vote on them.

The problem?

Sophia Thomas7 said:You're operating under the assumption that there are always five high-quality users willing to step up for moderator roles. (Or maybe just two or three).

What happens if the current mods only see one viable candidate? Last time we were hashing out the expansion of LjES, if I remember correctly, there were only about three potential candidates—and two of them actually turned down the chance.

The truth is, no matter which way you slice it, no method is ever going to be perfectly transparent to everyone.

dustyranger64 said: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!

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?

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.

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. 🤷

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Look, I already explained this to dustyranger64 in my last post, so I won't bore you by repeating myself. There's only one candidate because they either have exactly one close friend or their criteria for others are way too intense (even if they aren't being hard on themselves). That’s the exact issue a new system needs to fix.

Nothing is less transparent than a bunch of mods picking someone behind closed doors. Anything else is an upgrade from that.

dustyranger64 said: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.

dustyranger64 said: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?

Oh, come on!

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?

dustyranger64 said: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?

Oh, come on!

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?

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.

Sophia Thomas7 said:I still don't think there's a massive difference here, aside from the actual transparency provided by the voting process. They’d basically just propose the moderators they were going to pick anyway, chat with them beforehand, and then toss it to a vote. And then the inevitable questions would start: "Why are Mickey and Pero on the list but John isn't?"

As for the whole "friends" thing—unless there's hard evidence, which I can't really claim since I don't know every single moderator on this forum—it's all just pure speculation.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Look, if you've got moderators acting like petty dictators, then the possibility of "inner circles" and cronyism becomes a very real concern that we HAVE to address.

And honestly, you guys seem terrified of people asking why certain names made the cut. That's just how the rules work, period. Subforum mods pick the candidates, and that's that. There shouldn't be any "why wasn't I picked?" whining; it's a moderator's choice. You just look at the list, vote for whoever you want, and move on.
Fair enough.

Sophia Thomas7 said:That’s a pretty massive generalization to claim that moderator tyranny is happening across every single subforum.