Moderator and Super-mod requirements/criteria

Gerald Barrett25 said:Exactly what Gottcha was talking about. Now I just need to find somewhere to put this trophy—it’s officially the off-season of nothingness. ☕

Give it a rest, there's still hope. ☕

Personally, I'd be even more convinced if they retroactively punished Lyla for that whole meltdown she had a while back. 😳 ☕
Just sitting here waiting for something to actually happen. ☕

This is absolutely unbelievable.
Just when you start thinking things might actually be improving, they swoop in with this ridiculous annual plot twist.🙏
I really need to stop being such an optimist.

There was this unwritten rule that everyone on these forums had been following religiously for ages, but suddenly it’s been declared "official," all because a moderator
decided to ignore it themselves. 👏
Of course, if it had been any other user, this wouldn't have suddenly become an "official" policy used to justify manipulation, and that user would have been stuck on a forced month-long hiatus long ago.
😍

Now I'm just curious: how do the super-mods and admins plan to handle the inevitable chatter on Reddit triggered by the moderator's own actions?
I mean, there’s also that unspoken rule that chatting on the FBI boards is strictly
forbidden, so I wonder if that rule will also become "official"
just so the moderators can grant themselves an "amnesty" for all those warnings they racked up
for breaking their own rules?

My regards,🙏

p.s. You guys went a little too heavy on the April Fools' bit this year.☕

edit
This post poses a very clear question, so there’s absolutely no reason to censor it.

placidmarlin3 said:I honestly can't believe this. It's unreal.
Just when you start thinking things might actually be heading in the right direction, they swoop in with another massive spin cycle.🙏
God, I really hate how optimistic I am sometimes.

There was this unwritten rule that everyone on these forums had always followed without question, but suddenly, it’s become official policy. And honestly? It only happened because of the moderators.
Which rule did he actually break? 👏
Of course, if this were anyone else on this forum, nobody would even care enough to make a rule about it.
There isn’t even an official basis to manipulate anything here, yet this forum user has basically been on a forced month-long vacation for ages.😍

I’m just curious here—how exactly do the power players and admins plan on fixing the whole mess of moderator-driven trolling over on Reddit?
I honestly think there's this unwritten rule that reading stuff on the FBI is strictly off-limits.
It's banned now, so I'm wondering if they're actually going to make that rule official.
So they can basically give themselves a free pass to wipe away all those bans they racked up.
So, what happens when someone actually breaks the rules?

My respects.🙏

P.S. You guys really went overboard with the April Fools' jokes this year.☕

edit
The question in this post is crystal clear, so there's really no point in censoring it.

I honestly can’t stand people who are never satisfied. Seriously. We should have codified the PM rules a long time ago instead of just leaving them as some unwritten suggestion—that was a massive oversight from the start. And yeah, the whole mess between Stanley and Katie was finally the breaking point that forced everyone to actually fix it. It sucks that it took a disaster like that to get things moving, but let's be real: that's just how life works. Things rarely change until everything hits the fan. This is definitely an improvement, so all this complaining from people acting outraged is just noise for the sake of making noise.

And how exactly do you think that’s going to play out? It’s time to finally lay down some official rules. So, I’ve been sitting here thinking about how the mods could actually get themselves an amnesty. It's a weird thought, I know. Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I'm just looking for trouble. But seriously, how does one even go about getting a clean slate with the admin team? Is there even a way to make that happen without everything blowing up in their faces? Just some food for thought. 😕Look, if they actually pass an official rule like that, everyone’s going to get hit—including the moderators. As long as these unwritten rules are hanging around, people are just going to exploit them. They'll just claim, "Oh, this is an unwritten rule," and use that as an excuse to either enforce it or ignore it whenever it suits them. I haven't seen that Google chat, but honestly, if there was a written rule explicitly banning chats via some PDF, then anyone caught doing it would be getting punished, no matter who they are.
I honestly have no clue if they’re actually going to pass a rule like that or not. And look, I don't even know if the chat on the forums is truly such a massive disaster—I was just using your example to make a point. But at the end of the day, if a problem keeps happening over and over, it's always better to have some actual rules in place to handle it.

placidmarlin3 said:I’m honestly just sitting here wondering how the high-fashion elites and those power-tripping admins actually plan on tackling the whole mess of moderator-fueled chaos over on Reddit. It’s one thing to deal with trolls, but when the people running the show are the ones stirring the pot? That’s a whole different kind of headache.

By cardboarding it, obviously. 😬

I honestly feel like there’s this unwritten rule floating around that reading through the FBI is strictly off-limits, too—you know, like if you even glance at it, you're basically breaking some kind of sacred code.
So, since we’re officially banning that, I can't help but wonder if they're actually going to make it an official rule or if it's just one of those "unspoken" things that everyone pretends to follow until someone breaks it.
So, basically, it’s just a way for the mods to grant themselves some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card for all those bans they've been handing out like candy lately.
So, what happens when someone actually goes and breaks the rules? Are we talking about getting slapped with a warning, or is this one of those "get out of my sight" situations where you just get tossed out into the digital wilderness? I mean, honestly, it feels like every time someone steps even an inch outside the lines, the mods descend like they’re working for the FBI or something, ready to shut the whole operation down. It's always such a massive ordeal over something that probably could have been handled with a simple heads-up, right?

It’s not even unwritten. 😁 There’s absolutely no way I’m looking at some kind of amnesty deal, because honestly, there is just no way in hell I’m handing over my record. 😁 I earned it fair and square, and honestly, it’s mine and mine alone. 😍

John Hill As if we haven't heard this one before.
I have a certain fondness for people who are perpetually dissatisfied with everything. Honestly, the unwritten rules regarding PMs should have been formalized into official policy ages ago, and failing to do so was a massive oversight. It’s quite telling that it took the absolute chaos unfolding between Stanley and Katie to finally force a correction. While it is undeniably depressing that we had to wait for a situation like that to actually get things moving, it isn't exactly a novel phenomenon; in life, much like in business, systemic changes rarely happen until someone hits a wall. This shift is undoubtedly an improvement, and anyone complaining about it is really just making noise for the sake of hearing themselves speak.

And how exactly do you envision that playing out? It’s high time we actually implement an official rule regarding this matter. I’ve been sitting here wondering how the moderators could ever actually work toward an amnesty—if you can even call it that. It feels like we’re looking for a way to reset the board entirely, much like how a tech giant might try to scrub its reputation after a massive PR disaster. If they wanted to clear the slate, they wouldn't just issue a formal apology; they’d need to overhaul the entire system of governance, perhaps by introducing some kind of independent oversight committee, similar to how a major corporation might bring in a third-party firm to audit their internal policies. They’d have to address the grievances one by one, moving past the superficial fixes and actually tackling the structural issues that caused the friction in the first place, almost like a legal settlement in a high-stakes class action lawsuit where everyone walks away with a slightly different version of justice. It’s a complex maneuver, requiring a level of transparency that usually feels out of reach when people are more focused on maintaining control than building trust. 😕If they actually implement an official rule based on this, we’re looking at a situation where everyone gets penalized, including the moderators themselves. As long as these unwritten rules are hanging around, there’s always going to be room for someone to abuse the system by claiming, "Oh, that's just an unwritten rule," using it as a convenient excuse to either enforce or ignore whatever they feel like. I haven't seen that Google chat, but if there had been a formal, written policy explicitly banning chats via PDF, then anyone caught doing it would have faced consequences, regardless of who they were.
I honestly have no clue whether a rule like that will actually ever be implemented, and I’m not entirely certain if the chat on the forum is truly such a massive issue—I was really just using your example to make a point. That being said, when it comes to any recurring headache, having clear regulations in place to manage it is almost always the better way to go.

Look, I’m going to ask you nicely: let’s stop pretending you're being this incredibly considerate toward everyone here. You’re clearly capable of showing some actual decency if you actually put in the effort.🙄

Katie was banned, but that’s almost secondary to the fact that Stanley decided to leak her private messages right after she left, which got him booted instantly, along with some political guy who also caught a ban. It wasn't until various higher-ups and well-connected individuals started pulling strings through channels I won't even dignify with a mention that, suddenly, everyone developed a sudden interest in following what they call an "unwritten rule." Apparently, because the moderator in question was banned—and let's be clear, she wasn't just anyone—those bans were miraculously overturned, and this supposed rule was suddenly declared official policy. If Stanley hadn't been foolish enough to get himself banned, Katie would have likely walked away scot-free while the thread was simply locked.
In almost any other scenario—and I mean absolutely every single other scenario—that user would have been banned on sight, and if they had actually followed the moderators' lead, their suspension would have been extended even further. I’m talking about chatting on the CIA’s platform, which is strictly off-limits; I know this because I’ve personally witnessed similar threads being shut down and the participants being disciplined, though I can't say with absolute certainty, and that goes for Google too.
Look, if you’re going to insist on being this pedantic about debating every little point, you might as well put in the actual effort and head over to the CIA to get some real training; I assume you're capable of that much work if you're truly committed to being such an insufferable stickler for argumentation.
There are about a million unwritten rules floating around here, and frankly, I was never once briefed by upper management that every single moderator operates under their own personal set of principles when it comes to handing out warnings. So, please, let’s not insult my intelligence with this kind of nonsense.
Look, honey, just because I’ve been through the wringer doesn't mean I was out there sinking the Titanic.

So, you might want to show them a little grace, or better yet, do your own homework by digging through some CIA archives to see how they’ve handled similar situations in the past.

placidmarlin3 said:Look, let me ask you nicely—don't act like you're being all high and mighty here. You could actually show some consideration for the rest of us if you tried.🙄

Katie got banned, but only because after her, Stanley posted a private message and got banned immediately right after posting it, along with some guy from politics who also got banned. It was only after various higher-ups and certain connections got involved through channels I won't even get into that, suddenly—oh, suddenly—everyone started caring about this thing called an UNWRITTEN RULE. And just because the moderator who got banned wasn't just anyone, they lifted the bans, and now that rule is somehow "official." If Stanley hadn't been banned himself, Katie would have gotten away with it and the thread would’ve just been locked.
In any other situation—literally any other situation—that user would’ve been banned, and if they kept acting like the moderators were acting, their penalty would’ve been extended!!! (I’m talking about chatting on the CIA forums, which is strictly forbidden. I know this because I saw something similar shut down with my own eyes, though I can't say for sure, and Katie's
chat... well, you could probably start your own if you went over to the CIA site; surely you can manage that much effort if you're so intent on arguing your point.)
There are a million unwritten rules, yeah, and I've been told by higher levels more than once that every moderator has their own specific way of handling things and handing out warnings, so please, don't insult my intelligence with this nonsense.
Honey, if I was wrong about one thing, I wasn't smoking the Titanic.

So, either show some respect or go check the CIA archives yourself to see how similar cases were handled.

I'm not being inconsiderate, I'm being realistic. Individual cases that happened UP UNTIL NOW are completely irrelevant to what I'm saying (though I did catch a glimpse of that chat in the meantime). It became clear that unwritten rules aren't enough for certain things, so a real, written, valid rule was introduced. That’s exactly why they changed things—to prevent the exact stuff I highlighted from happening when more important matters are at stake. (A bit of personal judgment during moderation is always going to be part of it, and that's fine, but for anything leading to major sanctions, there needs to be a set regulation to follow).
It's obvious things are moving toward being better, and it's totally pointless to bring up past mistakes now. Yeah, there were mistakes, and that's exactly why things were changed—to minimize them. React if you see things still going wrong despite the new rules. React if you think one of those unwritten rules you mentioned is important enough to warrant a formal rule to reduce errors. But bringing up old sins? It makes no sense.

I think we might be setting expectations for private messages a bit too high, especially when it comes to punishing people for them.
The reality is that PMs can be edited, and without having direct access to someone's account, there’s simply no way to verify what was actually sent versus what someone claims was received.
Because of that uncertainty, banning users over PM disputes shouldn't become a common practice—in fact, it really shouldn't happen at all.
The only exceptions should be clear-cut cases of spam or blatant advertising, though even then, it’s a difficult call to make when you're trying to judge if a message is genuinely deceptive or just an opinion.

Kate Jackson68 said:It isn't about being reckless; it's about being realistic. The individual instances that happened prior to this—though I did catch up on that chat in the meantime—are essentially irrelevant to my point. It turns out that relying on unwritten rules just doesn't cut it for certain matters, so official, written, and binding regulations were introduced. This was done specifically to prevent those bolded issues from recurring, especially when more significant matters are at stake. While a moderator's personal judgment will always play a role—which is perfectly normal—anything leading to heavier sanctions needs a concrete regulatory framework to follow.
It’s clear they are moving toward improvement, so bringing up past procedural errors now feels entirely pointless. Yes, mistakes were made, which is exactly why the changes were implemented to minimize them. If you see things still going sideways despite the new rules, speak up; if you feel one of those unwritten rules you mentioned is important enough to warrant formalizing to reduce error, then say so. But dwelling on old grievances serves no purpose.

Oh, absolutely.
Everything is just wonderful and perfect now. Sure, we aren't holding grudges; we're turning a new leaf—at least, that's how I see it, though I can't speak for everyone else, even if I suspect they feel the same. However, I’m also hoping that from this experience, we might extract at least a shred more tolerance toward users and their specific issues or bans. I hope that the next person facing a ban receives at least a modicum of the attention some people have been getting lately. I realize finding a middle ground is difficult, but a little kindness goes a long way; perhaps if we moved away from this mutual arrogance, things might actually improve.🤷

To be honest, I actually appreciate the level of communication shown by the new admins over the last few days, as well as the super-moderators who effectively shut down the chat on Reddit. In a way, they've signaled that despite certain convictions, there is an actual attempt to make things better. I hope other moderators follow suit in their approach, and that we won't see these kinds of situations repeated. Ideally, this corner of the forum could transition from feeling like a war zone into something resembling a civilized space for discussion and getting answers.👍

👋

hm.. yeah

so, looking at everything that’s been going down lately, I had this realization. It’s actually pretty hilarious how those once uncompromising, fearless commandos have somehow devolved into a bunch of garden gnomes. They went from dropping heavy-hitting manifestos to just posting the occasional weird little tantrum or trying to intimidate people through text. Now it’s just the same repetitive proclamations on a weekly schedule. Isn't that just charming? :kuljis:

Andnderlon isn't even that much of an idiot 🙂

Batman is dead, long live Vedmen

placidmarlin3 said:Do people actually land these roles through family connections, dating, or just knowing the right crowd? Or is there an actual requirement for things like objective judgment, mental stability, or basic tech literacy?

Nah. They give the jobs to the people who don't even know their own damn rules.☕

Just wanted to follow up on my previous post here ☕

I actually just got flagged in that thread about whether actual players are taking over these forums, specifically when I mentioned that having insider knowledge is basically a requirement if you want to participate 🤷 Since we're already discussing what "real" players look like and how this community functions 🤷
That’s just my take 🤷 and yet, I still get hit with a warning 🤷

Honestly? It’s pretty ridiculous, but whatever 🤷

🤣