Nice, where are you taking this forum?

Patrick Bailey4 said:I honestly feel that when we're talking about such heavy, sensitive topics in the final stages, we really need to be incredibly careful about who we choose for moderation.

See, the thing is, moderators aren't picked based on specific subject matter; they're chosen to oversee an entire sub-forum. And any given sub-forum can host topics that are sensitive to all sorts of different groups, often involving wildly conflicting worldviews. We simply can't have enough moderators to cover every single possible perspective, which is why we look for high-quality community members—people we trust to maintain a clear line between their own personal opinions and their duties as moderators, ensuring they don't compromise the integrity of the threads or the board itself.

Patrick Bailey4 said:rustydrifter10 doesn't get to dictate what a moderator thinks, obviously, but they can certainly take those viewpoints into account during the selection and confirmation process. They can also provide guidance to the mods on what to watch out for and describe the specific kind of personality profile the board needs...

Look, I can definitely take into account the people I know and consider essential, but I can't possibly know everyone, and frankly, not every single opinion carries weight here.

Patrick Bailey4, the first flawed assumption here is that our Forum user base is a perfect mirror of the American population—which, frankly, it isn't. Most people here fall into the younger, working-age demographic or student crowd. One has to wonder what the statistical results would look like if we ran a nationwide poll targeting that specific group 😉. You can't pin that on the Forum leadership, nor on rustydrifter10; it’s simply a matter of digital literacy and how much people actually care about this kind of medium.

The second fallacy is the claim that most mods are against us. First off, there are roughly 190 moderators, yet only about 20 cast a vote—so what exactly constitutes a "majority" here? A majority of what? Based on those numbers, it implies the entire moderation team is just indifferent toward the referendum 🤷

Thirdly—and this is the kicker—you want the admin to poll candidates on controversial topics during the mod selection process? Who gets to curate that list of questions? Would you want an employer in the States to grill you on hot-button issues before hiring you—deciding your fate based on whether they like your takes—or would you be screaming about discrimination then?

Anthony Jackson2 said:You completely missed the mark on this one. Look, it isn't like rustydrifter10 is out there hand-picking the mods. It’s more like the existing moderators essentially dictate the direction. And honestly? I highly doubt rustydrifter10 is running around asking everyone for their take on "hot-button issues" before making any moves. 🙄

Wait, didn't you get that questionnaire before the appointments were finalized?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Hold on, didn't you get that questionnaire before the appointments were made?

I didn't get one either, which is exactly why I stepped down from the mod team.
I have zero interest in being recruited by some ultra-progressive leftist types looking to push their dark agenda for total dominance over the Forum.

It’s clearly Bell and Chicago Sash. And we all know who the biggest progressive leftist of the two is (Chicago Sash).

It looks like even some of the former mods voted against this. Honestly, what a shame...

Patrick Bailey4 said:I honestly don't know how to break this down for you. If a company goes under because the employees are incompetent—you aren't going to claim the CEO bears zero responsibility, right?
rustydrifter10 doesn't get to dictate what moderators think—though they can certainly factor those opinions in when selecting or confirming mods, or suggest specific traits they're looking for in a candidate...

What does my political leaning have to do with moderating the Football PDF I'm responsible for? Or take Tomislav with the MIT section—or anyone else, really, even if we're talking about policy mods at the end of the day.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Hold on, you didn't receive that questionnaire before being appointed?

I got something else entirely😳 ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Straight to the bottom.

I honestly thought leaking moderator business was against the rules.☕

Patrick Bailey4 said:A forum doesn't necessarily have to be an objective space. But then again, rustydrifter10 claims that's exactly what she wants. I can only point out that she’s either being dishonest with herself or she's fundamentally mismanaging her approach to achieving that supposed objectivity.
As for the other examples you’ve brought up, I think you're trivializing the core issue. We are dealing with a fundamental societal question here—one that carries actual weight. I am talking about these broader geopolitical and political matters because they matter to our society at large. I wouldn't dream of demanding that the moderators of Formula 1 be die-hard Alonso fans simply because his following outweighs Vettel's. That is a triviality, a distraction from the larger social concerns that actually deserve our attention.
Besides, that isn't even what I'm looking for here. I'm not exactly seeking a specific kind of relationship with the moderators. Copy. The current state of affairs in our society is telling. It really comes down to how leadership manages the environment. If the moderators set things up so that everyone feels equally heard and satisfied with the Forum, then we have a healthy community. Even if all 183 moderators were fundamentally opposed to this referendum, if they actually performed their duties objectively and followed the rules, the engagement levels and poll results would still mirror the general consensus of the American public. Isn't that how a fair system should work?

Am I trivializing this? 🤣
Of all the possible ways to divide society, you’ve managed to zero in on the one specific distinction that interests you, declaring it paramount while dismissing everything else as irrelevant. But really, what does it matter whether Pangloss votes for this or that in a referendum? Does it truly change anything whether he’s a staunchly conservative watchdog or a staunch liberal? Neither label makes him any better or worse at his job as a music moderator. 🤷
You aren't seeing the full picture through your narrow lens. You suggest that a moderator should strive to ensure everyone finds equal satisfaction within the Forum, but tell me—do you truly believe such a feat is possible for any human being, let alone a moderator? Could even a higher power achieve that level of perfect equilibrium? Take our community at Formula, for instance. We have two trolls who spend their entire existence whining about how they're being oppressed and claiming they are victims of unfair repression. At the exact same time, we have at least five or six regular members insisting that these very same individuals are terrorizing the community, pleading for them to be banned permanently. And we haven't even begun to touch upon the larger global issues yet, and the bickering is already this intense.

What I find most amusing is your suggestion that "objectivity" should somehow force the collective views of this community to align perfectly with those of the general public. That is where you’re missing the point entirely. This whole senseless debate boils down to one thing: you’re just bothered by how the moderators voted, and you're frustrated by how everyone else here responded. But let’s be realistic for a second—this community isn't exactly a perfect cross-section of the American population, is it? It can't possibly serve as a reliable proxy for the country at large. The internet, and any niche community within it, naturally attracts a demographic that trends younger, more driven, more open-minded, and more literate than the average person on the street. It is only natural that when we tackle issues like this, a clear divide emerges between us and the rest of the nation.

Let’s circle back to your concept of objectivity for a moment. Looking at the poll results from our F1 enthusiasts regarding the referendum, we currently have two votes "for" and six votes "against." This means the gap between this group and the general population is actually even wider than the typical deviation seen across the rest of the Forum. I’m not sure if you’ve come across the research on this, but there are studies suggesting that Formula 1 fans tend to be socially distinct from the average sports fan. On average, they occupy higher socioeconomic tiers, typically boasting higher levels of education and greater household incomes. One could argue that this litmus test—using a global issue as the metric—has actually demonstrated that the voting structure of the F1 crowd is perfectly objective. In other words, it confirms that specific demographic divergence pointed out by those studies. And I won't even get started on one of those two "for" voters. He’s currently over at Chase Bank, fighting for the freedom to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because he believes God grants him that right. Think about that: God. His particular line of reasoning immediately brought to mind the infamous serial killer David Berkowitz, who murdered women based on instructions he claimed God gave him through the barking of a neighbor's dog.

And finally, one has to wonder: why should objectivity be defined by balancing things out against the consensus of the public or the nation? Someone a bit more radical than I am might even argue that we ought to find ways to shift the weight of the Forum's collective opinion toward the mainstream, rather than the other way around. After all, the majority here seems to be fundamentally mistaken regarding the nuances of civil rights.

Therefore, I would suggest you stop trying to force the Forum's demographic to mirror the general public. It isn't necessary, it isn't feasible, and if we are being perfectly honest, it certainly isn't a good idea.

If the Forum management actually wanted to do their job properly, they’d be intentionally biased whenever the majority starts pushing regressive views. They should be actively promoting the opposite side to help educate people.

Think about it—should the police stay "objective" at a game in, say, New York City? If most locals decide to jump a few visiting fans, does being objective mean the cops should just join in on the beating because that's what the majority at the stadium wants?
The idea of a majority versus a minority has nothing to do with objectivity.

When it comes to social issues, the majority is rarely on the right side of history.☕.

Kate Bishop76 said:I see even some former mods voted against this. Honestly, how embarrassing!

Out of 406,073 members, only 751 people actually participated in the poll.
That brings us to a pathetic turnout of roughly 0.54%. Is this really what we've come to? Absolutely legendary! 😲

Honestly, I can't even deal. Every time I read Patrick Bailey4's posts, I feel like I should just change my username to "totally unreliable."

But seriously though... I am 100% behind whatever security proposals, suggestions, or little critiques Patrick Bailey4 throws our way, because we really need to respect the results of the referendum to protect the family unit—especially if a referendum actually happens, which it probably will, unless they try to force that specific provision into the Constitution, which isn't even a guarantee yet...
..and what that looks like is..

1. anyone caught posting in support of same-sex marriage gets hit with penalties..
a) first offense is a massive 100-point penalty card
b) second offense earns you a seven-day ban
c) third offense? You get a massive permanent ban along with a formal report sent straight to the FBI, DHS, all the major media outlets, the Supreme Court, European courts, and honestly, probably even UNESCO too.. at the very least.//

2. we should establish an official Users' Association right here on this Forum, acting in the interest of the community, launched by some big grassroots initiative alongside media pros and experts... maybe even some ornithology nerds for good measure..

3. and let's make someone like a high-profile figure—let's say a famous CEO type—our honorary Chairman for the time being.

4. then, based on the referendum results, we distribute moderator roles accordingly.. there are so many unemployed theologians out there (some of them literally have to work in secular social studies departments just to teach "post-industrial society" to survive), so they might as well get some engagement here or find a little paid gig, and we can tie the number of moderators directly to the number of users joining the official initiative.. on behalf of the Forum.

5. after that, we hold a grand Forum Referendum organized by this new initiative and the "SRA(S)T Party," where we vote to officially implement points 1 through 4, plus point 6 and anything else we deem necessary.. assuming the referendum passes, and let's face it, it'll pass with 100% of the vote.

6. also, moderators shouldn't be called moderators anymore; they should be called vigilantes, and the "moderator corps" should be rebranded as the "moderator clergy," the "cleric," or "frozd"—whatever the democratic majority decides once we're sure that majority exists, which should happen right about the time 700,000 new users register.

7. and finally, we rename this whole Forum to something like "The Porum" or "Grak.us."

8. everyone would have access to Grak.us, but instead of calling ourselves "Graktalans" or "Porumites," we'd all be treated as equal internet citizens with full rights, except for those specific things outlined in the Constitution and the rules of... well, Grak.us.
basically, some people will call this a Forum, while the referendum majority and everyone else will just find some other way to refer to themselves..

9. otherwise, any activity on this site will be considered unconstitutional, unnatural, and totally sick, leading to immediate calls for its total shutdown and banning.

10. So yeah, that's definitely not how it works.

☕

🍿

🎉

I’d like to ask everyone to hold off on replying for now, as I won’t be jumping back into this discussion until December 1st.

And to the moderators, could you please clear out the comments from those who are just making fun of the topic?

Jacob Allen, man, what kind of guy have you turned out to be 🙂

Regardless of how the referendum turns out, nothing about this discussion is going to change, because your arguments are fundamentally flawed, biased, and frankly, nonsensical. Rather than re-reading my posts, or those of Jacob Allen and the rest of us, I suggest you take a moment to actually read what mellowlynx68 wrote instead.

Patrick Bailey4 said:I’d appreciate it if everyone would hold their comments for now—I won't be resuming this discussion until December 1st.

Moderators—please clean up this thread and remove those who are simply derailing the topic with their nonsense.

It seems you’re having some trouble grasping the nuances of Forum culture—it’s clearly a bit out of your depth. 😍
So, you start a thread, get absolutely shredded by counterarguments, and then decide—with all the grace of a retreating general—to just go silent for twenty days. 🤣 🤣
The idea that most Americans should vote for a specific option—and the subsequent argument that moderators on an online Forum must follow suit—is fundamentally flawed. An online community is not a microcosm of civil society—it isn't, and frankly, it never could be.

mellowlynx68 said:If the Forum management actually wanted to do their "real job," they should probably be biased whenever it turns out most people are pushing regressive views. They ought to work on promoting the opposite side and educating folks instead.

I guess you could ask if the police should be "objective" at a game in, say, New York City (assuming they don't get jumped by local fans), where the majority of New Yorkers start beating up a handful of visiting fans. If they follow that logic of "objectivity," would they just join in on beating the visitors because the majority at the stadium thinks that's what should happen?
The concept of a majority versus a minority has nothing to do with being objective, I suppose.

When it comes to minorities in society, it’s rare that the majority is actually right☕.

Democracy doesn't imply that the majority gets to decide on the rights of any minority. Making decisions purely by majority vote isn't really democracy, and it certainly isn't everyone's opinion or the will of the people. I guess I'm hoping that this time—even though it's hard to believe—that Americans will stand up and show they want a modern America rather than a conservative one, where freedoms aren't restricted.

It's nice, I guess, that most moderators said they'd vote against it. Even though, based on how they moderate the one thread where I was banned from posting, I had the impression they were quite conservative and didn't have much empathy for minorities. So, this is a pleasant surprise for me, maybe.

I'd like to see the mods act according to how they voted—you know, by not allowing certain things, or perhaps turning a blind eye when specific rights are violated. Primarily, I mean women's rights. It wouldn't take much before someone decides to hold a referendum asking if women should even be allowed to vote or something similar. I might be exaggerating a bit, but given the direction we're heading, nothing can really surprise me anymore.

Patrick Bailey4 said:I’d appreciate it if everyone stopped replying for now; I won't be picking this discussion back up until December 1st.

And I’m asking the moderators to please scrub the posts from those who are just here to mock the thread.

What kind of impact is that referendum actually going to have on this specific issue?
😲

Patrick Bailey4 said:I would kindly ask everyone to refrain from responding for the time being, as I intend to resume this discussion on December 1st.

And I would ask the moderators to please remove those who are merely mocking the topic.

...for truth and logic do not always hold weight; rather, they seem to carry value only during certain windows of time...

Jack Moore90 said:Jacob Allen, man, what kind of guy have you actually been all this time? 🙂

Well, I guess I am! 🤦 :triturbo meakulparenje:

But seriously... I was just asking the same thing Edward Fisher86 asked, just from a different angle... like, what’s actually going to happen after January 12th in terms of repercussions, not just for this specific thread, but for the whole Forum?

I mean, I really don't want us to be caught off guard later, where I post something about a marriage or whatever, and then people start acting like it's some legal violation, leading to everyone flooding the place with those super annoying, robotic posts that just drone on and on about "justice" or whatever they call that loud, repetitive noise people make in those situations.. 🍿

Patrick Bailey4 said:I’d really appreciate it if everyone could just hold off on replying for now, because I won't be picking this discussion back up until December 1st.

And mods, please, can we get rid of these people who are just here to mock the topic?

Look, don't show up to the FBI unless you actually have a legitimate reason to be there—like bringing a specific complaint backed up with links proving exactly where the mods messed up or missed something.