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

@ wiredsailor10:

When I asked earlier, it felt awkward. If I hadn't asked, I'd just be ignoring the vox populi. Can you believe how everything the editorial staff produces can be twisted and given such a bad spin?

driftingdriver is an outstanding member here. He doesn't resort to insults, stays composed, remains calm, and is always ready to explain his reasoning. It’s precisely because of those qualities he was chosen as a moderator, only to decide to step down after less than four months in the role. My question to you is—how long should that trial period actually be? Do you really think someone can make a quality assessment in less than a few months? Honestly, I don't think 😉

@ Cheops: There was talk about the possibility of moderators not participating in discussions. But there's a catch: moderators are selected from among the HIGHEST QUALITY users on Reddit. It’s simply not practical to take the "best" user, give them a moderator title, and then strip away their right to join the conversation. That would, IMHO, significantly tank the quality of the debate 🤷

hollowtrucker77 said: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

I haven't really been following along, but I trust you've kept your edge. 😉

@Jerry Garcia
I get it. That’s just how it goes when you're working with people. Honestly, it's a big deal that you actually asked and were open about it.

It seems to me that you guys aren't exactly short on candidates, so why on earth aren't they being rotated more frequently on such challenging platforms like Politics?

What Cheops suggested isn't actually bad, mostly because of two things. First off, he pointed out that it would lead to much more objectivity.
And the second thing is this: we’ve basically concluded that just because someone is a great member of the community doesn't mean they're actually any good at being a moderator.

No, that probably isn't even being considered.

Maybe Sarah Wilson95 will have a suggestion.

Jerry Garcia said:@ wiredsailor10:

When I asked earlier, it felt awkward. If I hadn't asked, I'd just be ignoring the vox populi. Can you believe how everything the editorial staff produces can be twisted and given such a bad spin?

driftingdriver is an outstanding member here. He doesn't resort to insults, stays composed, remains calm, and is always ready to explain his reasoning. It’s precisely because of those qualities he was chosen as a moderator, only to decide to step down after less than four months in the role. My question to you is—how long should that trial period actually be? Do you really think someone can make a quality assessment in less than a few months? Honestly, I don't think 😉

@ Cheops: There was talk about the possibility of moderators not participating in discussions. But there's a catch: moderators are selected from among the HIGHEST QUALITY users on Reddit. It’s simply not practical to take the "best" user, give them a moderator title, and then strip away their right to join the conversation. That would, IMHO, significantly tank the quality of the debate 🤷

I get what you mean. This happens because moderators are picked specifically because they are top-tier users, even though being a great contributor doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a great moderator. I totally hear you, and I know exactly the dilemma you're facing—it's the same issue seen on all the major online communities. Back when I was an admin on another site, we handled this by implementing strict moderation guidelines. We laid out exactly what had to happen in specific scenarios to cut down on subjective judgment calls as much as possible. You know how it goes: after three off-topic posts, the moderator issues a warning, and if it keeps up, they get a strike, and so on.
But honestly, that isn't a perfect fix either, because then moderators end up being too afraid to actually moderate.
Maybe the best move is to keep appointing moderators the way you always have, but stop shielding them so much. Admins and mods shouldn't constantly bail them out, even when you know they messed up. I realize it's not ideal to undermine their authority, but it's the only fair way to handle things, and it might finally make this Politics of the Republic of America section actually useful. 🤷

hollowtrucker77 said: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

Maybe that kind of excuse is just a cop-out. If that's how you look at it, then yeah, you really become a Mark Twain...

Look, obviously people will always complain about moderation. But if the forum users' gripes don't get under your skin, then you've got a real problem—and maybe then you actually have a shot at being nothing but a Mark Twain...

Setting my own take aside here😁, there was always this issue in the Politics section where certain mods would target only "leftists" and vice versa. Sure, a stray warning here or there happens, but usually, it's just an attempt to dodge accusations...

The point is, in a society as split as ours—where it's strictly left vs. right with no middle ground—you can't realistically expect a mod to be perfectly unbiased and fair...

What you guys in the administration could actually do is set some baseline rules for Politics. Define exactly what counts as trolling. The biggest headache is that off-topic posts aren't always flagged as trolling, but they trigger the trolling, which leads to insults, and then the whole discussion goes straight to hell...

If those rules were treated like the holy Bible in the Politics section, most of these issues would vanish. I remember trying to help you guys out with that "Declaration of Independence" thread; if you had just baked that into the rules, half the drama in Politics would be gone because everyone would know exactly what constitutes trolling regarding that topic...

But hey, I guess if you did that, you'd lose all the visitors who can't stand the very country this site is named after...🙂

Jerry Garcia said: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?

I assume there’s a certain level of disrespect involved, especially since that’s how a specific group of users here has been addressing me lately, but regardless of the tone, there is an unwritten rule on these types of boards about distorting someone else's handle. So, I thought I would mention it, just so you don't end up breaking your own rules.

As one of the institutions within the Politics sub-forum on Reddit.

😁 Is this some kind of joke about my post count? Well, I suppose after all these years, things just have a way of piling up. 🤣

I honestly find myself wondering if the current moderators possess any real understanding of politics at all. It seems to me that they are quite politically illiterate when it comes to navigating the complexities of the subject matter.

No, I don't quite see it that way. Take, for instance, those two individuals whom I simply cannot place within the same political spectrum—granitefox16 and the observer—though that alone isn't enough to make the point. From what I can gather, the observer spends most of his time fighting against windbags in the former American circles, and as for granitefox16? Well, I haven't run into him in a hundred years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

You’re suggesting that they're biased.

It really is just part of being human, isn't it? It’s simply "human nature," and honestly, I don't think it's worth trying to fight against that kind of fundamental reality.

The only way this works is if the moderator is someone completely detached from the fray—someone who doesn't belong to any of those established political factions. You need someone who is deeply politically literate, someone who truly understands the fine line between the democratic right to free speech and the blatant abuse of that very right. There has to be a distinction made when people hide behind the guise of freedom of expression just to spout various forms of idiocy that violate both legal standards and basic moral frameworks. That, quite frankly, is the core of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And that really just sums her up.

I honestly think this proposal isn't a bad idea—specifically regarding how the moderators on Politics shouldn't be getting directly involved in the debates. You might want to try approaching it that way, because the chaos is just getting too intense to not take a little bit of a risk. Then again, given how many people are visiting, it probably won't even be noticeable.

Oh, right, one more thing:

I honestly feel that we need to draw a clear line between two fundamental approaches to moderation—to put it in layman's terms:

The individual responsible for monitoring profanity, personal insults, flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and similar behaviors. It seems like you're referring to those little nuisances or those pesky troublemakers that always seem to pop up when you least expect them. How suffocating and exhausting certain things can be, both for the regular folks hanging out on Reddit and for the mods trying to keep everything running smoothly.

Taking a reasonable, politically informed, and legally sound approach to addressing violations of plurality means recognizing when the fundamental principles of democratic political culture are being undermined.

You’ve got a complete mess on your hands here. They go after people with cartoonish insults because they approach moderation like straight-A students following a rigid rulebook, yet those incredibly toxic, thinly veiled labels that are totally unacceptable get wrapped up in this convenient little package called "freedom of speech." When it comes to the PDF-politik, that’s usually just a fancy way of doing what I call crnalegija.com.

Since this Reddit community is so incredibly active, allowing things like this to slide isn't just an eyesore or a sign of a pathological environment; it’s a glaring demonstration of incompetence and a fundamental lack of understanding regarding legal boundaries, especially considering we are dealing with private property that is by no means Excluded Corp from following the law.

And naturally, within all of this, there should be absolutely no room for taboos or censorship. However, what truly matters is the standard of discourse being established. Based on what we have seen so far, the current level of conversation happening over there is such a mess that one could write entire treatises on it.

Sarah Wilson95 said:I assume there’s a certain level of disrespect involved, especially since that’s how a specific group of users here has been addressing me lately, but regardless of the tone, there is an unwritten rule on these types of boards about distorting someone else's handle. So, I thought I would mention it, just so you don't end up breaking your own rules.

As one of the institutions within the Politics sub-forum on Reddit.

😁 Is this some kind of joke about my post count? Well, I suppose after all these years, things just have a way of piling up. 🤣

I honestly find myself wondering if the current moderators possess any real understanding of politics at all. It seems to me that they are quite politically illiterate when it comes to navigating the complexities of the subject matter.

No, I don't quite see it that way. Take, for instance, those two individuals whom I simply cannot place within the same political spectrum—granitefox16 and the observer—though that alone isn't enough to make the point. From what I can gather, the observer spends most of his time fighting against windbags in the former American circles, and as for granitefox16? Well, I haven't run into him in a hundred years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

You’re suggesting that they're biased.

It really is just part of being human, isn't it? It’s simply "human nature," and honestly, I don't think it's worth trying to fight against that kind of fundamental reality.

The only way this works is if the moderator is someone completely detached from the fray—someone who doesn't belong to any of those established political factions. You need someone who is deeply politically literate, someone who truly understands the fine line between the democratic right to free speech and the blatant abuse of that very right. There has to be a distinction made when people hide behind the guise of freedom of expression just to spout various forms of idiocy that violate both legal standards and basic moral frameworks. That, quite frankly, is the core of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And that really just sums her up.

I honestly think this proposal isn't a bad idea—specifically regarding how the moderators on Politics shouldn't be getting directly involved in the debates. You might want to try approaching it that way, because the chaos is just getting too intense to not take a little bit of a risk. Then again, given how many people are visiting, it probably won't even be noticeable.

Oh, right, one more thing:

I honestly feel that we need to draw a clear line between two fundamental approaches to moderation—to put it in layman's terms:

The individual responsible for monitoring profanity, personal insults, flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and similar behaviors. It seems like you're referring to those little nuisances or those pesky troublemakers that always seem to pop up when you least expect them. How suffocating and exhausting certain things can be, both for the regular folks hanging out on Reddit and for the mods trying to keep everything running smoothly.

Taking a reasonable, politically informed, and legally sound approach to addressing violations of plurality means recognizing when the fundamental principles of democratic political culture are being undermined.

You’ve got a complete mess on your hands here. They go after people with cartoonish insults because they approach moderation like straight-A students following a rigid rulebook, yet those incredibly toxic, thinly veiled labels that are totally unacceptable get wrapped up in this convenient little package called "freedom of speech." When it comes to the PDF-politik, that’s usually just a fancy way of doing what I call crnalegija.com.

Since this Reddit community is so incredibly active, allowing things like this to slide isn't just an eyesore or a sign of a pathological environment; it’s a glaring demonstration of incompetence and a fundamental lack of understanding regarding legal boundaries, especially considering we are dealing with private property that is by no means Excluded Corp from following the law.

And naturally, within all of this, there should be absolutely no room for taboos or censorship. However, what truly matters is the standard of discourse being established. Based on what we have seen so far, the current level of conversation happening over there is such a mess that one could write entire treatises on it.

I don't buy it. If the goal is to have zero taboos, then this site has a great chance of turning into Index, where a bunch of trolls from all over the region gather to argue like they're reading YouTube comments about the old days in America.

granitefox16, that wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation
Look, we’re just human beings; we’re subjective, we have this desperate need to be right, and we harbor a deep-seated resentment toward authority—or what some people claim to be "authority"...
We also love to preach about setting boundaries, yet those very boundaries never seem to apply to ourselves because, in our own minds, we’re always technically correct, aren't we?
🙂
And so we wind up in this cycle where, no matter what a moderator decides to do or not do, there’s always someone standing in the corner ready to take issue with it.
It’s quite simple, really; it’s just a matter of large numbers, especially when you consider how heavily Politics influences things here.
Until we learn that having a debate doesn't mean we've become enemies or entered a state of total warfare, we’ll just keep seeing endless threads of nonsense and bans flying everywhere, leaving moderators with neither the time nor the actual capacity to step in and steer the conversation back on track.
I’ll admit, it isn't pleasant to witness, but unfortunately, this is our reality and it represents our true level of pluralism, democracy, and willingness to actually engage in dialogue.

We all know that moderators aren't just appointed by decree; they’re supposed to be chosen from among the users, specifically from the better ones.
So how is it that all these users suddenly turn sour the moment they get a moderator badge, becoming overnight legends of being bad and dishonest?
It’s a bit hard to swallow the idea that some vague, virtual power somehow corrupts them all, without exception.
🙂

Sarah Wilson95 said:I assume there’s a certain level of disrespect involved, especially since that’s how a specific group of users here has been addressing me lately, but regardless of the tone, there is an unwritten rule on these types of boards about distorting someone else's handle. So, I thought I would mention it, just so you don't end up breaking your own rules.

As one of the institutions within the Politics sub-forum on Reddit.

😁 Is this some kind of joke about my post count? Well, I suppose after all these years, things just have a way of piling up. 🤣

I honestly find myself wondering if the current moderators possess any real understanding of politics at all. It seems to me that they are quite politically illiterate when it comes to navigating the complexities of the subject matter.

No, I don't quite see it that way. Take, for instance, those two individuals whom I simply cannot place within the same political spectrum—granitefox16 and the observer—though that alone isn't enough to make the point. From what I can gather, the observer spends most of his time fighting against windbags in the former American circles, and as for granitefox16? Well, I haven't run into him in a hundred years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

You’re suggesting that they're biased.

It really is just part of being human, isn't it? It’s simply "human nature," and honestly, I don't think it's worth trying to fight against that kind of fundamental reality.

The only way this works is if the moderator is someone completely detached from the fray—someone who doesn't belong to any of those established political factions. You need someone who is deeply politically literate, someone who truly understands the fine line between the democratic right to free speech and the blatant abuse of that very right. There has to be a distinction made when people hide behind the guise of freedom of expression just to spout various forms of idiocy that violate both legal standards and basic moral frameworks. That, quite frankly, is the core of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And that really just sums her up.

I honestly think this proposal isn't a bad idea—specifically regarding how the moderators on Politics shouldn't be getting directly involved in the debates. You might want to try approaching it that way, because the chaos is just getting too intense to not take a little bit of a risk. Then again, given how many people are visiting, it probably won't even be noticeable.

Oh, right, one more thing:

I honestly feel that we need to draw a clear line between two fundamental approaches to moderation—to put it in layman's terms:

The individual responsible for monitoring profanity, personal insults, flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and similar behaviors. It seems like you're referring to those little nuisances or those pesky troublemakers that always seem to pop up when you least expect them. How suffocating and exhausting certain things can be, both for the regular folks hanging out on Reddit and for the mods trying to keep everything running smoothly.

Taking a reasonable, politically informed, and legally sound approach to addressing violations of plurality means recognizing when the fundamental principles of democratic political culture are being undermined.

You’ve got a complete mess on your hands here. They go after people with cartoonish insults because they approach moderation like straight-A students following a rigid rulebook, yet those incredibly toxic, thinly veiled labels that are totally unacceptable get wrapped up in this convenient little package called "freedom of speech." When it comes to the PDF-politik, that’s usually just a fancy way of doing what I call crnalegija.com.

Since this Reddit community is so incredibly active, allowing things like this to slide isn't just an eyesore or a sign of a pathological environment; it’s a glaring demonstration of incompetence and a fundamental lack of understanding regarding legal boundaries, especially considering we are dealing with private property that is by no means Excluded Corp from following the law.

And naturally, within all of this, there should be absolutely no room for taboos or censorship. However, what truly matters is the standard of discourse being established. Based on what we have seen so far, the current level of conversation happening over there is such a mess that one could write entire treatises on it.

I don't know about any such rule 😁 they call me Bell, so I'm not upset, but again, sorry 🙂

😁 Is this what, making fun of my post count? Well, it's definitely piled up over all these years. 🤣

No, it isn't. Just a reflection on the fact that you've been here a long time, that you've seen many moderators, admins, and leaders come and go, that you stick to your views and always have something to say 😁 😁 😁

No, I don't think so. Take two people, for instance, whom I couldn't put in the same political spectrum (granitefox16 and the observer) — but that's not enough. The observer, from what I understand, fights against windbags in the old territory, and granitefox16? Well, I haven't seen him in 100 years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

Great, so we agree those two are very high-quality moderators. Let's assume there are more like them on the Politics subforum (there must be, statistically speaking): WHERE ARE THEY?

Only if someone completely outside is appointed as a moderator—someone with no ties to Politics or its various "factions," who is simultaneously politically literate enough to KNOW the difference between the democratic right to free speech and the abuse of it, when people use the guise of opinion to spout idiocy that breaks both legal and moral boundaries. That is the essence of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And where would we find someone from the outside? And why do you think one or two people "from the outside" would be the solution to the problem? Personally, I don't think so. I think it would be ideal to find 3 or 4 people from within, who would be willing to maintain objectivity and a cool head. It's just that, unfortunately, I don't see them right now...

I think this proposal isn't bad—how the mods on Politics should stay out of the arguments. Try it that way; the chaos is just too much to not take a little risk... And on the other hand, there's so much traffic that you won't even notice it.

Are you saying quantity will make up for the lack of quality? Hmm, I'm not sure I'm ready to go down that road.

Seriously though, Mark Twain was picked from among the regular users, I’m asking for real here...😕

He only had like 500 posts when he became a mod...🤷

Yeah, 500 posts that actually made sense—composed, analytical, polite, and respectful. Posts that weren't just a single smiley face, but usually long stretches of text explaining a point of view.

I remember starting a thread once about some guy from the Politics section who wandered over to a discussion about the war in Georgia and just started rambling.
His opening line was something along the lines of, "Back when we were marching in '45..."
I opened the topic and basically asked what on earth Georgia had to do with the Nationalists or the Partisans, and he just went straight for the throat and insulted me (though, honestly, I guess Sasha was just rewarding him for it).
What I’m trying to say is that moderation there is pretty much impossible. As long as you have people who are essentially unbannable (and trust me, they exist), the kind of people who drag every single topic back to the late 40s, and those who can't hold a conversation without slipping into nationalism, insults, or constant trolling—well, I don't think a real discussion can ever happen there.

I don't really post in Politics anymore (or at least, rarely) since my old handle. It’s just two armies dug into trenches there, one on the right and one on the left.
And all they know how to do is hurl grenades at each other.
The only question is when one of them is going to land right on your head while you're just walking through the middle of it.

Choosing Tyndall and Scotsman for the PDF-politik is a really solid move. I doubt they'll care much about any of the internal power games.
Just don't burn them out too fast, or they might crack under the pressure, because they're actually doing a great job over there (for instance, they banned topics about the Nationalists and Partisans because once that stuff starts, it's impossible to control).

You don't need someone from the Politics section.
You need an outsider—someone who couldn't care less if someone else is being an Inquisitor, a diletant, or Sarah Wilson95. As long as there are people there who wouldn't last seven days by the book, there's just no peace...

hollowtrucker77 said:granitefox16, that wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation
Look, we’re just human beings; we’re subjective, we have this desperate need to be right, and we harbor a deep-seated resentment toward authority—or what some people claim to be "authority"...
We also love to preach about setting boundaries, yet those very boundaries never seem to apply to ourselves because, in our own minds, we’re always technically correct, aren't we?
🙂
And so we wind up in this cycle where, no matter what a moderator decides to do or not do, there’s always someone standing in the corner ready to take issue with it.
It’s quite simple, really; it’s just a matter of large numbers, especially when you consider how heavily Politics influences things here.
Until we learn that having a debate doesn't mean we've become enemies or entered a state of total warfare, we’ll just keep seeing endless threads of nonsense and bans flying everywhere, leaving moderators with neither the time nor the actual capacity to step in and steer the conversation back on track.
I’ll admit, it isn't pleasant to witness, but unfortunately, this is our reality and it represents our true level of pluralism, democracy, and willingness to actually engage in dialogue.

We all know that moderators aren't just appointed by decree; they’re supposed to be chosen from among the users, specifically from the better ones.
So how is it that all these users suddenly turn sour the moment they get a moderator badge, becoming overnight legends of being bad and dishonest?
It’s a bit hard to swallow the idea that some vague, virtual power somehow corrupts them all, without exception.
🙂

Oh, please... isn't this just another one of those classic forum myths?😁

If we’re being completely honest here, I don't think I ever even noticed driftingdriver before—though, honestly, maybe that's just his quality; he's so calm and steady that you barely even register him presence.

Then there's Simba, now him I remember; he loves to stubbornly stick to his own pace, popping into a thread after six days just to give a measured response, only to find the conversation has already moved miles away😁 while he stays tucked away in his own little universe, rehashing old posts and trying to drag the discussion back to where it started.

ARE THESE REALLY THE "GOOD" USERS? I mean, does that actually imply they'll make good mods?

And that's assuming we're talking about the sub-forum where sparks are constantly flying, where virtual blood is practically flowing in rivers, and toxic arrows are whistling through the air constantly. Hello? The Politics section is basically a VIRTUAL SLAUGHTERHOUSE, yet you guys are out here sending in:

a) some bloodthirsty Inquisitor who would rather gouge eyes out and throw insults than have a civil chat

b) a manic Mark Twain-style robot, though it's a miracle he didn't end up beating himself senseless in a digital trance

c) the invisible, shadow-like driftingdriver, who was apparently cruising way above the atmosphere until he became a mod and cruelly realized it's much better to fly high up there.

d) the bookworm Simba.

😕

😂

Sarah Wilson95, I’m telling you for the fifth time... instead of just tearing down the current moderators, constructively suggest someone new. Why is that so hard?...

- I treated this just like any other job.
- My sense is that I did the work well; I managed to settle the passions there, and many users who used to steer clear of the Reddit community actually started showing up and becoming part of it. That was my primary goal.
- Unfortunately, within four months—especially considering one of those months was spent being inactive due to home renovations—it’s impossible to completely transform a community. It would have taken more time for others to catch on.
- There is a fundamental rule here: A community is a mirror reflecting its moderator. And there are no exceptions to that. Because if a moderator is politically biased, they will unconsciously hunt down anyone with a different opinion, and eventually, those people will simply stop appearing.
- So, if the mod is a spammer, you end up with a spammer's forum. If the mod is a troll, you get a trolling forum. If the mod is just some immature kid, then most of the users will be exactly like that too.
- On the other hand, if the mod is a family man, someone who prioritizes his family and his career while possessing other solid qualities, then over time, the majority of the people on that forum will be exactly those kinds of people.
- My only regret is that I didn't stick it out for at least six months or a full year; only then could people truly debate my performance and the quality of the Politics of the Republic of America as a platform.

PS: Even governments are given a hundred-day probationary period where they are left alone to form a strategy, find their footing, and actually grab the reins.

Jerry Garcia said:Sarah Wilson95, I’m telling you for the fifth time... instead of just tearing down the current moderators, constructively suggest someone new. Why is that so hard?...

It’s because it is difficult, and honestly, I have no intention of throwing out specific names; that simply isn't my job nor my responsibility.

Everything I have been pointing out for years, as you call it, is purely a matter of my own goodwill🤣 and, occasionally, having too much time on my hands and being a bit too outspoken.

Alright?

And I am not being destructive; I am merely stating things as they are, providing what might be an uncomfortable reminder to the administration, but let's not lie to ourselves, shall we?☕

Furthermore, please, make sure that Politics IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE FURTHER diluted.

That section needs to remain a bit of a fiery arena—there needs to be some actual passion in the exchange of ideas—but there also needs to be a certain level of decorum, rather than just some mindless, bottom-tier sludge.

Sarah Wilson95 said:Oh, please... isn't this just another one of those classic forum myths?😁

If we’re being completely honest here, I don't think I ever even noticed driftingdriver before—though, honestly, maybe that's just his quality; he's so calm and steady that you barely even register him presence.

Then there's Simba, now him I remember; he loves to stubbornly stick to his own pace, popping into a thread after six days just to give a measured response, only to find the conversation has already moved miles away😁 while he stays tucked away in his own little universe, rehashing old posts and trying to drag the discussion back to where it started.

ARE THESE REALLY THE "GOOD" USERS? I mean, does that actually imply they'll make good mods?

And that's assuming we're talking about the sub-forum where sparks are constantly flying, where virtual blood is practically flowing in rivers, and toxic arrows are whistling through the air constantly. Hello? The Politics section is basically a VIRTUAL SLAUGHTERHOUSE, yet you guys are out here sending in:

a) some bloodthirsty Inquisitor who would rather gouge eyes out and throw insults than have a civil chat

b) a manic Mark Twain-style robot, though it's a miracle he didn't end up beating himself senseless in a digital trance

c) the invisible, shadow-like driftingdriver, who was apparently cruising way above the atmosphere until he became a mod and cruelly realized it's much better to fly high up there.

d) the bookworm Simba.

😕

😂

What kind of users are we even talking about for a sub-forum like this? I don't even know what to choose from. Is it between choosing cattle or butchers? 😕

Any comparison to a butcher shop was just used to make your point and was totally intentional. 😁 Edit, I sounded pretty retarded there. 😁

Anyway, tell me, do you honestly think you'd be a good moderator for Politics? Be real. 🙂

Are the people who are already moderators elsewhere totally burnt out? 😉

Give Sarah Wilson95 a chance to show what she can do 🙂

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.

If those bolded points are truly meant to be deciding factors, then I suppose I'm a bit worried that finding someone who posts regularly in the Politics section without a stack of warnings might be an impossible task. Given all the rules currently governing Politics, it seems almost impossible to be a regular "poster" there without having a bit of a file on you—especially those who were active back during the dictatorship of Mr. Mark Twain...😁😁

Richard Perez3 said:What kind of users are we even talking about for a sub-forum like this? I don't even know what to choose from. Is it between choosing cattle or butchers? 😕

Any comparison to a butcher shop was just used to make your point and was totally intentional. 😁 Edit, I sounded pretty retarded there. 😁

Anyway, tell me, do you honestly think you'd be a good moderator for Politics? Be real. 🙂

To be perfectly honest—no.

The reason is simple: I have no desire for power, even the slightest bit 😁, I tend to be lazy, and when I’m not feeling lazy, I can get rather aggressive.😍

On the other hand, I have fully embraced capitalism at its core, and I absolutely do not perform any tasks for others without compensation.☕🤣

----------------
What people seem to struggle to grasp here is that a Reddit community, despite everything else, carries a certain level of social responsibility.
Believe me or not, but that is simply how it works.
Especially a platform with this much traffic—one that gets read extensively, as evidenced by the various "talking points" or topics I see popping up in the mainstream media that I know for a fact originated right here (I am specifically referring to Politics; the rest of the forum is in a different league entirely).

All of this moved past being mere trolling or a way for someone to profit from banner ads a long time ago. Jerry Garcia claims this is just a generation that "demands the internet," but my take is different: this is quite simply the future and an inevitability.

Whether we choose to use the blessings of the internet—its speed, the accessibility of information, and the depth of forum debates—as a positive force depends entirely on us, or whether we will continue to extract the absolute worst from it, much like we do from ourselves through the anonymity of the web.

Jerry Garcia said:Yeah, 500 posts that actually made sense—composed, analytical, polite, and respectful. Posts that weren't just a single smiley face, but usually long stretches of text explaining a point of view.

And what happened once he became a mod?

Never seen anything like it... all those deletions, stupid bans, zero understanding of context.

Is this that old story about a guy getting power and immediately losing his mind?

I'll give him this: his posts used to be constructive, but it's a shame his only obsession was the USA and the war on terror...☕

Sarah Wilson95 said:Oh, please... isn't this just another one of those classic forum myths?😁

If we’re being completely honest here, I don't think I ever even noticed driftingdriver before—though, honestly, maybe that's just his quality; he's so calm and steady that you barely even register him presence.

Then there's Simba, now him I remember; he loves to stubbornly stick to his own pace, popping into a thread after six days just to give a measured response, only to find the conversation has already moved miles away😁 while he stays tucked away in his own little universe, rehashing old posts and trying to drag the discussion back to where it started.

ARE THESE REALLY THE "GOOD" USERS? I mean, does that actually imply they'll make good mods?

And that's assuming we're talking about the sub-forum where sparks are constantly flying, where virtual blood is practically flowing in rivers, and toxic arrows are whistling through the air constantly. Hello? The Politics section is basically a VIRTUAL SLAUGHTERHOUSE, yet you guys are out here sending in:

a) some bloodthirsty Inquisitor who would rather gouge eyes out and throw insults than have a civil chat

b) a manic Mark Twain-style robot, though it's a miracle he didn't end up beating himself senseless in a digital trance

c) the invisible, shadow-like driftingdriver, who was apparently cruising way above the atmosphere until he became a mod and cruelly realized it's much better to fly high up there.

d) the bookworm Simba.

😕

😂

🤣