How moderators should be chosen

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

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

dustyranger64 said:No, it doesn't.
You're constantly cherry-picking keywords to fit your own narrative, which is honestly just rude.
Like this time—you're leaving out the word "interested." Such a huge detail.
Because plenty of incredibly high-quality posters—people way more capable than most mods—just don't want to, don't have the time, or whatever else. I've seen it happen plenty of times.

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

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:Oh sure, it's a total secret. Just like how one of you two refuses to actually name any candidates for your subforum.

Besides, it would be easy to just pop open a thread on the subforums, maybe even pin it to the top, titled something like: "Discussion regarding potential subforum moderators" or whatever. That way, you'd see a bunch of candidates—some actually serious ones—showing up, stating their availability, sharing their thoughts on the subforum, stuff like that.
Or, if you aren't going to do that for every single subforum, you could at least have one official, working thread somewhere on the site titled: "Applying for a Subforum Moderator Position."

Then you'd definitely have more interested people. Basically, you need to work on the propaganda for your own seats and show people they're actually available.

It's easy to just claim people aren't capable or simply don't want to.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Honestly, what’s the point in even mentioning it? It doesn't change a thing about who I think would be an excellent candidate.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Honestly, what’s the point in even mentioning it? It doesn't change a thing about who I think would be an excellent candidate.

feralotter2 said:Because maybe it could prevent one bad choice from simply replacing another.

Timothy Davis59 said:If there's something worth mentioning, then let's talk about it... 😁

Sophia Thomas7 said:My bad, I didn't realize this thread was about how the LJES mods aren't up to par and we need to start scouting for replacements. Totally missed that subtext.

Just throwing a comment out there for the sake of it, I guess. 😁

Sophia Thomas7 said:Honestly, what’s the point in even mentioning it? It doesn't change a thing about who I think would be an excellent candidate.

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

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

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

dustyranger64 said:Do tell. 🍿

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

dustyranger64 said:Yeah, because the admins basically never turn down a suggestion for new mods. 😁

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

Sophia Thomas7 said:What kind of "objectivity" are we even talking about? I told you I found one candidate suitable for my pdf. You’re insisting I need to add several more, even though I can't get behind those choices.

How exactly is that being objective?

Sophia Thomas7 said:Honestly, what’s the point in even mentioning it? It doesn't change a thing about who I think would be an excellent candidate.

Timothy Davis59 said:If there's something worth mentioning, then let's talk about it... 😁

Brenda Hayes16 said:I'm not joking around.
Go ahead and keep fighting amongst yourselves. You’re clearly just trying to stop a massive wave of interested folks from this sub ever getting a vote, all so you can keep running things however you want without anyone calling you out on your nonsense. 🤷

Look, you can't call it "objective" if you aren't being objective yourself. It’s a circular argument. Besides, moderating a community isn't exactly rocket science; the job shouldn't be so demanding that one single person has to shoulder the entire load for a thousand users. 🤷
And let’s not even get started on you guys actually putting in some real work on propaganda for the moderator slots just so you'd have actual candidates to pick from—though we all know that's the last thing you want to do. 🤷 So, we’re left asking the big question: why?

Honestly, it doesn't even matter for this specific thread. I’ve seen on a few different subreddits that there were candidates who actually wanted the job—people who had the support of the majority and even went on record during the appeal process explicitly stating they wanted the position. But nope. Not a chance. That moderator didn't even blink at their statement.

So, let me get this straight: we don't even have any candidates lined up, and you guys aren't even trying to stop the whole thing from going completely south because you’re too busy protecting your own little cushy seats and pushing that propaganda around. 🤷

Steven Reed said:Do you have any idea how many clones would show up to cast their votes? Sure—I realize that increasing the user count might be exactly what Anderlon is aiming for—but honestly, I’m not even sure he’d actually enjoy it.
Reviewing and tallying all those valid versus invalid ballots... honestly, I don't know who would even volunteer for that headache—and personally, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, even if I were dead. 😍

Voting for or against the MOD—it’s an exercise in pure futility. Between all the hidden pitfalls and logical traps, you're basically just asking for a bigger mess.
Did Mark appoint his buddy John as a moderator? Honestly—it doesn't bother me one bit—as long as Mark and John actually do their jobs right.
The real issue arises when Mark and John start moderating poorly—basically playing favorites and picking sides among certain groups on this Reddit thread—along with all the other nonsense I’ve had the displeasure of witnessing since I joined these forums.

So, here’s my suggestion—the mods could actually ask the community who they’d recommend for a moderator position. I say "could"—it's not like it's mandatory, though some people do go about this via private message—but it would be a much better way to handle things.

If we want to actually curb this moderator overreach—and I mean really stop the arbitrary whims of the staff—one solution seems obvious: Anderlon needs to strip the admins of their power to install or remove mods whenever they feel like it based on "forum needs." This assumes, of course, that nothing can be changed without his personal blessing—which is exactly what I gathered from reading through this thread.

With three admins on board, you’d think—given that power isn't concentrated in just one person's hands—that we could actually expect the most objectively qualified candidate to come out on top. It's not exactly rocket science.
A suggestion for the admins—just because it’s easier to grab a former moderator since they already know how the tools work doesn't mean it's actually the smartest move. Chill out a little and take a risk; you might just stumble upon an excellent new mod. Look, if they turn out to be a disaster, we can always strip them of the title—but that just lands us right back at Anderlon.

Can we please just drop that idiotic rule about how a Mod 58 PDF can block a mod installation? The whole point of having home-base PDFs is to handle exactly that—otherwise, there’s zero incentive for me to ever step up and become an archive mod. 😢 🤣

rustydrifter10 said:Maybe that person just doesn't want to be dragged through the mud here right now.

Regarding the whole moderator selection process—honestly, we've been over this a million times, and the conclusion always ends up being the same: nothing is changing. Look, I get it, the current system isn't perfect, but it’s the most workable option we have at the moment. That said, I'm totally open to chatting about it, because hey, maybe some genuinely great new ideas will surface, which is exactly what we're doing right now.

Someone mentioned that the users aren't asked who they'd prefer to see in charge. Now, I do ask sometimes, but usually, I'm reaching out to people I've personally offered a moderator role to who turned it down, or folks I think provide really high-quality content on the PDF, or people I just generally respect even if I don't think they're quite cut out for the actual job. I don't poll everyone every single time, but I do it occasionally. And honestly, those suggestions have actually helped me during later searches; there have even been times where I ended up suggesting someone because they were recommended to me, though only if I truly felt they were a solid candidate myself. For me, it’s not enough to just follow someone else's lead; I need to be able to stand behind my choices and say, "Yes, I personally believe this person would be an excellent mod." Some people just can't make a call like that, no matter how many other names are thrown around.

And we can always circle back to the fact that this forum isn't a democracy, and from what I can tell, it isn't going to become one anytime soon.

We can also reiterate that the owner has absolutely no intention of changing how mods are selected. If we happen to come up with a better idea—something actually superior to the current setup—we can certainly pass it along to him, and then it's entirely up to him whether he accepts it or shuts it down.

When it comes to the different methods being proposed here, I'm definitely on the same page as what dustyranger64 and Sophia Thomas7 have already pointed out.

Sophia Thomas7 said:My bad, I didn't realize this thread was about how the LJES mods aren't up to par and we need to start scouting for replacements. Totally missed that subtext.

Just throwing a comment out there for the sake of it, I guess. 😁

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

Brenda Hayes16 said:I'm not joking around.
Go ahead and keep fighting amongst yourselves. You’re clearly just trying to stop a massive wave of interested folks from this sub ever getting a vote, all so you can keep running things however you want without anyone calling you out on your nonsense. 🤷

Look, you can't call it "objective" if you aren't being objective yourself. It’s a circular argument. Besides, moderating a community isn't exactly rocket science; the job shouldn't be so demanding that one single person has to shoulder the entire load for a thousand users. 🤷
And let’s not even get started on you guys actually putting in some real work on propaganda for the moderator slots just so you'd have actual candidates to pick from—though we all know that's the last thing you want to do. 🤷 So, we’re left asking the big question: why?

Honestly, it doesn't even matter for this specific thread. I’ve seen on a few different subreddits that there were candidates who actually wanted the job—people who had the support of the majority and even went on record during the appeal process explicitly stating they wanted the position. But nope. Not a chance. That moderator didn't even blink at their statement.

So, let me get this straight: we don't even have any candidates lined up, and you guys aren't even trying to stop the whole thing from going completely south because you’re too busy protecting your own little cushy seats and pushing that propaganda around. 🤷

Sophia Thomas7 said:This is great. So, I'm "not objective" simply because I mentioned that one person impressed me. Brilliant. Thanks for the deep philosophical exchange. 😁

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.

Steven Reed said:Do you have any idea how many clones would show up to cast their votes? Sure—I realize that increasing the user count might be exactly what Anderlon is aiming for—but honestly, I’m not even sure he’d actually enjoy it.
Reviewing and tallying all those valid versus invalid ballots... honestly, I don't know who would even volunteer for that headache—and personally, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, even if I were dead. 😍

Voting for or against the MOD—it’s an exercise in pure futility. Between all the hidden pitfalls and logical traps, you're basically just asking for a bigger mess.
Did Mark appoint his buddy John as a moderator? Honestly—it doesn't bother me one bit—as long as Mark and John actually do their jobs right.
The real issue arises when Mark and John start moderating poorly—basically playing favorites and picking sides among certain groups on this Reddit thread—along with all the other nonsense I’ve had the displeasure of witnessing since I joined these forums.

So, here’s my suggestion—the mods could actually ask the community who they’d recommend for a moderator position. I say "could"—it's not like it's mandatory, though some people do go about this via private message—but it would be a much better way to handle things.

If we want to actually curb this moderator overreach—and I mean really stop the arbitrary whims of the staff—one solution seems obvious: Anderlon needs to strip the admins of their power to install or remove mods whenever they feel like it based on "forum needs." This assumes, of course, that nothing can be changed without his personal blessing—which is exactly what I gathered from reading through this thread.

With three admins on board, you’d think—given that power isn't concentrated in just one person's hands—that we could actually expect the most objectively qualified candidate to come out on top. It's not exactly rocket science.
A suggestion for the admins—just because it’s easier to grab a former moderator since they already know how the tools work doesn't mean it's actually the smartest move. Chill out a little and take a risk; you might just stumble upon an excellent new mod. Look, if they turn out to be a disaster, we can always strip them of the title—but that just lands us right back at Anderlon.

Can we please just drop that idiotic rule about how a Mod 58 PDF can block a mod installation? The whole point of having home-base PDFs is to handle exactly that—otherwise, there’s zero incentive for me to ever step up and become an archive mod. 😢 🤣