I feel like any discussion on Politics is impossible under these current rules.

According to the guidelines for the Politics sub-forum, this space is intended to be an engaging and civilized arena for discussion.

It’s perfectly fine to have such standards, provided they actually facilitate debate and are applied with absolute consistency in every single instance.

The issue, however, is that if these rules were enforced strictly and uniformly, a significant portion of the posts in the Politics section wouldn't make the cut. From where I'm sitting, it looks like I get banned while others fly under the radar.

In fact, it seems to me that these regulations essentially grant permission for bans based on pure discretion. One has to wonder how many threads would simply vanish if the rules were applied rigorously in every case.

Inciting an argument—trolling—or responding to a provocation with another provocation is perhaps the clearest example of this ambiguity. When it comes to trolling, I find myself questioning not what constitutes trolling, but rather what *doesn't*.

CONCLUSION: The individual deciding on bans can effectively ban whomever they please, whenever they feel like it. Perhaps it would be wise to draft a new set of rules that specifies exactly what is meant by each particular guideline.

rapidgull14 said:According to the guidelines for the Politics sub-forum, this space is intended to be an engaging and civilized arena for discussion.

It’s perfectly fine to have such standards, provided they actually facilitate debate and are applied with absolute consistency in every single instance.

The issue, however, is that if these rules were enforced strictly and uniformly, a significant portion of the posts in the Politics section wouldn't make the cut. From where I'm sitting, it looks like I get banned while others fly under the radar.

In fact, it seems to me that these regulations essentially grant permission for bans based on pure discretion. One has to wonder how many threads would simply vanish if the rules were applied rigorously in every case.

Inciting an argument—trolling—or responding to a provocation with another provocation is perhaps the clearest example of this ambiguity. When it comes to trolling, I find myself questioning not what constitutes trolling, but rather what *doesn't*.

CONCLUSION: The individual deciding on bans can effectively ban whomever they please, whenever they feel like it. Perhaps it would be wise to draft a new set of rules that specifies exactly what is meant by each particular guideline.

I'm with you. Banning often feels like it lacks any real foundation. In my experience, a ban usually depends more on a moderator's current mood than on the actual rulebook.
Anyway, I’m just not a fan of this lack of transparency.

It’s true, it’s just impossible. You really have to steer clear of any topics involving Catholic deceptions, those "holy" fake defenders, Thompson, capitalism, or American politics. You aren't allowed to have an actual opinion on any of that stuff; you're just supposed to think exactly what the moderators tell you to (though I guess we'll see if anything changes now that one of them isn't a moderator anymore)

wiredsailor10 said:It’s true, it’s just impossible. You really have to steer clear of any topics involving Catholic deceptions, those "holy" fake defenders, Thompson, capitalism, or American politics. You aren't allowed to have an actual opinion on any of that stuff; you're just supposed to think exactly what the moderators tell you to (though I guess we'll see if anything changes now that one of them isn't a moderator anymore)

I agree. The only real fix is a complete overhaul of the moderation team.

Come on, Jeremy Wilson3, here's your chance: who would you actually want seeing as a moderator?

Look, we have a few ground rules: they can't be someone with a mountain of warnings, they shouldn't be getting banned constantly, they need a solid post count, and they should be long-time members of the community.

Even though I previously said I wouldn't do this, I'm giving the users of Politics a shot to suggest someone for the role themselves. Just remember, there’s no democracy here—it doesn't mean I'll just listen and install whoever you think I should pick. I'm simply curious about what kind of moderator profile would actually be welcomed with open arms by the community... especially since the current ones aren't cutting it.

Can I throw out a few points?

We definitely need someone who isn't one-sided. For instance, driftingdriver couldn't stand it when someone spoke out against the church (just a reminder to everyone that criticizing the church is totally normal everywhere else in the world), while Simba, for example, can't stand it when people talk about veterans. That’s what I’ve managed to notice so far. If a moderator does have a personal opinion, they really should know how to keep it in check and not voice it on the forum.

Why? Because it gets awkward—they end up siding with people who think just like them, making the same mistakes, but only punishing those with opposing views.

I don't think we can take into account how many warnings someone has received if they were handed them by a moderator like that in the first place.

Also, I’ve noticed that everything just feels like trolling (aimed at the moderators). You can't expect a real discussion if comments have to be this rigid.

There's a massive difference between a thread veering off into a completely different direction and just someone bringing up examples that are slightly off-topic.

A few stray comments doesn't mean the whole debate is pivoting elsewhere. Besides, moderators aren't just there to hand out bans and delete stuff (at least that's how it works on other foreign Reddits); they're also supposed to help steer the conversation back on track.

I've often seen that people participating in a debate will stick to the point if someone just reminds them they've drifted. There's no need to go around handing out warnings to everyone; people are human, not computers.

Jerry Garcia said:Come on, Jeremy Wilson3, here's your chance: who would you actually want seeing as a moderator?

Look, we have a few ground rules: they can't be someone with a mountain of warnings, they shouldn't be getting banned constantly, they need a solid post count, and they should be long-time members of the community.

Even though I previously said I wouldn't do this, I'm giving the users of Politics a shot to suggest someone for the role themselves. Just remember, there’s no democracy here—it doesn't mean I'll just listen and install whoever you think I should pick. I'm simply curious about what kind of moderator profile would actually be welcomed with open arms by the community... especially since the current ones aren't cutting it.

😁 and why shouldn't you install them—just like you have up until now? I'll only mention a few acquisitions: the Inquisitor (does that really need a comment?), then Mark Twain (wasn't that someone's clone?), and honestly, you haven't exactly made a name for yourselves with the others either. On top of that, the PDF-politik sank notoriously into a living swamp

besides, isn't that exactly what the forum administration should care about? Making sure its most visited, yet simultaneously most turbulent sub-forum, doesn't end up looking like a neurotic mashup of some conspiracy site and www.crazy-outrage-sites.com

of course it does

I'm just curious about what kind of moderator profile the forum members would actually welcome with open arms (since the current ones aren't doing a great job).

Jerry Garcia☕ just so we can gauge exactly how much political literacy you actually possess

it's a bit awkward like this, where the users are expected to show Submissiveness Inc., yet we have absolutely no clue—toward what kind of profile we are supposed to be submissive.

Come on, find someone who only has bans from a single moderator; we aren't going to take those into account.

And yeah, wiredsailor10, by saying a moderator needs to be "objective," you really went a bit far...🙄 do you honestly think moderators are chosen specifically to be one-sided and narrow-minded?

But look, keep in mind that every high-quality forum user HAS an opinion, and being granted moderator powers doesn't mean they have to drop that opinion...😉 you can't expect a moderator to act like a bot.

@ Sarah Wilson95: Being an admin is more than enough work for one person, I don't need you handling Politics too 😉
Some of the past Politics moderators turned out to be poor choices, true, but many others were actually quite good 😉 though, of course, I wouldn't expect you to admit that.

And no, I'm not expecting any Submissiveness Inc. from you or anyone else, for heaven's sake 😁

wiredsailor10 said:Can I throw out a few points?

We definitely need someone who isn't one-sided. For instance, driftingdriver couldn't stand it when someone spoke out against the church (just a reminder to everyone that criticizing the church is totally normal everywhere else in the world), while Simba, for example, can't stand it when people talk about veterans. That’s what I’ve managed to notice so far. If a moderator does have a personal opinion, they really should know how to keep it in check and not voice it on the forum.

Why? Because it gets awkward—they end up siding with people who think just like them, making the same mistakes, but only punishing those with opposing views.

I don't think we can take into account how many warnings someone has received if they were handed them by a moderator like that in the first place.

Also, I’ve noticed that everything just feels like trolling (aimed at the moderators). You can't expect a real discussion if comments have to be this rigid.

There's a massive difference between a thread veering off into a completely different direction and just someone bringing up examples that are slightly off-topic.

A few stray comments doesn't mean the whole debate is pivoting elsewhere. Besides, moderators aren't just there to hand out bans and delete stuff (at least that's how it works on other foreign Reddits); they're also supposed to help steer the conversation back on track.

I've often seen that people participating in a debate will stick to the point if someone just reminds them they've drifted. There's no need to go around handing out warnings to everyone; people are human, not computers.

- That is simply not true. If there is anyone on this Reddit who actually identifies as a liberal or a defender of free speech—even when dealing with the most intense taboos—it’s me, which arguably makes any accusations leveled against my character all the more stinging.

I honestly think it’s a mistake to only pick moderators based on who has the most posts on a Reddit-style board. Why? Because those users have already built up certain biases toward other members, making it really tough for them to stay objective when they have to hand out penalties to people they don't know or just don't particularly like.
As for me, I’m throwing my hat in the ring for a moderator position. I actually have hands-on experience with vBulletin since I served as an admin on a similar forum before, so I know the ropes when it comes to moderation. Just because my post count is low doesn't mean I haven't been lurking here for a long time or that I don't fully understand how things work around here.

Alright, I hope it’s clear that any suggestions saying "pick me" won't be taken seriously 🙂

Jerry Garcia said:Come on, find someone who only has bans from a single moderator; we aren't going to take those into account.

And yeah, wiredsailor10, by saying a moderator needs to be "objective," you really went a bit far...🙄 do you honestly think moderators are chosen specifically to be one-sided and narrow-minded?

But look, keep in mind that every high-quality forum user HAS an opinion, and being granted moderator powers doesn't mean they have to drop that opinion...😉 you can't expect a moderator to act like a bot.

Everyone has an opinion, but there has to be some self-control.
Maybe we should look at who actually stays open to criticism and new ideas.
On the flip side, the person claiming they're the absolute best and the most liberal person on the forum is probably the exact opposite.

wiredsailor10 said:Everyone has an opinion, but there has to be some self-control.
Maybe we should look at who actually stays open to criticism and new ideas.
On the flip side, the person claiming they're the absolute best and the most liberal person on the forum is probably the exact opposite.

Go ahead, shoot. 🙂 I'm here. I started this discussion, but I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just listening to what people think about who would make a good mod.

wow, Jerry Garcia

And I, by the way, fully expect the administrator (or whoever you happen to be) to address me by my handle, just as it says here: Sarah Wilson95

well, naturally, I don't even expect you to admit that.

why?😕

For me, Athena always stood as the very "concept" of a moderator. And it wasn't that I agreed with her—say, regarding political views—but she possessed authority without being an unfair tyrant. To put it mildly.

and, no, I absolutely do not expect any kind of Submissiveness Inc. nor from you or from anyone else, for heaven's sake.😁

oh, please...

Look... a forum (in general) inherently—meaning the act of entering, registering, and creating the situation where you might receive reprimands, warnings, infractions, or bans—implies SUBMISSIVENESS.

And that’s perfectly fine; we all accepted that the moment we registered. I am fully aware of that, and it’s all for the sake of some semblance of order that actually functions.

But the real issue arises when that submissiveness means I MUST CONSCIOUSLY ACCEPT a penalty, in the forum sense, from someone who is politically illiterate, biased, incompetent, and so on.

For instance, back when the moderator was someone who became famous on this forum (and continues to be) for comments regarding specific Muslim casualties and the stench of woodsmoke, and I, such a person, get slapped with a 10-day ban.

Or this past summer, I start a thread (while watching a show on CBS), and the thread is promptly moved to L.K., and I receive a two-month warning for its opening post—"insulting forum members." It was a sensitive topic; in the discussion, Hrvoje Šarinić stated on camera how, during the talks and negotiations—amidst heavy wartime themes—they were, well, eating, drinking, and sometimes even singing along with the representatives from the Mexican side.

There are heaps of examples; I'm just having my first coffee right now, but if I think of more throughout the day, I'll write them down.☕😁

But you see my point, don't you?

Jerry Garcia said:Alright, I hope it’s clear that any suggestions saying "pick me" won't be taken seriously 🙂

I get it. Self-promotion is a no-go.

Look, here's my idea: I suggest implementing a new system on this Reddit that's already standard on major global forums. Basically, the moderator in charge of a specific PDF shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussions within any thread belonging to that PDF. They need to handle the job professionally and remain objective.
It’s just plain stupid when a moderator starts handing out punishments to users simply because they engaged in a debate with them.
To start with, you could roll this out in the Politics section, since objectivity is absolutely critical there.

Jerry Garcia said:Come on, find someone who only has bans from a single moderator; we aren't going to take those into account.

And yeah, wiredsailor10, by saying a moderator needs to be "objective," you really went a bit far...🙄 do you honestly think moderators are chosen specifically to be one-sided and narrow-minded?

But look, keep in mind that every high-quality forum user HAS an opinion, and being granted moderator powers doesn't mean they have to drop that opinion...😉 you can't expect a moderator to act like a bot.

Mark Twain?🤷

🤣

Sorry, Sarah Wilson95. I didn't realize that was offensive or that you minded being called by that nickname . I won't do it again, sorry 🙂.

I agree with you that Athena was an amazing moderator, but they're gone now. Neither you nor I can force them to come back. At least I can't, and I don't know about you. What I do know is that this Reddit is significantly different today than it was when Athena was a mod: there are ten times more users, and people jump into discussions much easier. Many of the old forum regulars mention that back in the day, when they first arrived, they wouldn't reply right away because they were intimidated. It took them some time to find the courage to write. Today, those boundaries don't exist; everyone just posts. We've been overtaken by this instant-access generation. Look, I moderated a thread over on Politics once because things were getting messy—you wouldn't believe the garbage I had to delete there, all the mindless insults and attempts to start totally off-topic fights. Believe me, the level of discourse you actually see is about 30 steps above what stays hidden.

And that’s why I’m telling you again, as one of the pillars of the Politics subforum, suggest someone. You think the current moderators are politically illiterate—then suggest someone who is literate enough. You say they're biased—then suggest someone you think will be impartial.

Why is there always talk about a lack of transparency, yet when given the chance to make suggestions, everyone just talks about general positions? Why haven't I seen three quality suggestions from you yet?

Jerry Garcia said:Go ahead, shoot. 🙂 I'm here. I started this discussion, but I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just listening to what people think about who would make a good mod.

That’s great. Honestly, those are exactly the kind of people who should be moderators.

Furthermore, I think your question is a little tricky. People who are actually being objective will probably hold back from naming anyone, while the ones who do nominate someone will likely just pick their personal favorite.

I can't even suggest anyone myself. I'm new here—well, I mean, I haven't been around for years. So much has changed since I was last active, and I barely remember any of the old handles.

What has the experience been like? Who usually turns out better: the person who rarely posts in a specific sub-forum but then gets appointed moderator, or the person who volunteers themselves? Is it the power user with thousands of posts, or the quiet type who stays out of the fray?

Why don't you implement some kind of trial period for moderation in sections like Politics? It causes so much unnecessary drama when someone isn't a good fit. It ends up being awkward for both the moderators and the people who end up getting penalized. I've noticed that driftingdriver is actually a way better forum member than he is a moderator. There's really no reason to drag him through the mud just because of that one thing.

wiredsailor10, once you step into the role of a moderator, you simply can't win by being reasonable
😉
it’s always the same story, honestly—you’ll inevitably find someone ready to call you biased, illiterate, or just plain arrogant...
it’s a basic human instinct, I suppose, which is easy to understand, but you eventually realize that this constant scrutiny also strips away a certain level of professional gravity