Nice, where are you taking this forum?

rustydrifter10, I asked you once before about the direction you want to take this forum. Why did I ask? It’s for a simple reason: this is a private forum, and ultimately, the owner can steer it however they please. You can run your forum any way you see fit. That’s just common sense.
But since this happens to be the largest forum in America, I was curious whether your goal is to remain the biggest, most objective platform with a wide range of topics, or if you intend to move toward gathering a specific group of people, imposing a certain viewpoint (specifically the views of those running the forum), and eventually driving away anyone with an opposing opinion.

Anyway, to get to the point, you answered that the goal is for the forum to be as objective as possible.

However, I have to ask you that same question again, perhaps phrased slightly differently: Are you aware that the forum is becoming increasingly UNobjective every single day?

To support my claim, I’ll offer just one recent example that is so compelling I consider it sufficient for my argument.
Of course, this concerns the currently burning topic and question number one in America.
I'm talking, naturally, about the marriage referendum. In the poll on that topic, over 20 moderators cast their votes. I'm not talking about the general users and the results of that poll right now—we can discuss that later—but I am talking about the moderators, who are effectively the ones steering the ship. Out of them, 18 moderators voted for one option, while only 2 voted for the other. This means 90% of this forum's moderators are globally aligned with one side, which is all the more strange when we know that this particular worldview or "option" is actually in a heavy minority here in the US.
This is just one instance, which is why I don't want anyone to pin me down on this specific topic. My goal is to illustrate the lack of objectivity and the fact that the forum is being led and directed by people who share almost exclusively the same worldview and political leanings, which manifests itself across many threads and PDFs on this site.
How is someone supposed to correct an unobjective moderator if 90% of the moderators are just as biased on a given topic as they are? If the forum wants to be objective, it is necessary and essential that the ratio of different political opinions be (somewhat) equal. This raises several logical questions that I am essentially seeking answers to. Are you aware that a forum NECESSARILY moves in one direction if it is led by 90% of people with the same or similar worldview (even if that worldview were supported by the majority of the country, though in this case, it is in the minority)? Do you think it's possible for you to be objective enough not to let your own stance interfere when it comes to managing the forum? How is it possible that 90% of the chosen moderators hold one view in a country where the vast majority holds the opposite? If this were CNN or a similar site looking to gather a specific demographic, that would be fine, but not on a forum that, by your own words, aims to be objective. Why does your personal stance influence the selection of like-minded moderators?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to accidentally step into the debate over which political stance is good and which is bad. Nor am I trying to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong. I have no desire to represent any side. But the fact remains that one viewpoint prevails, regardless of what it is.
When the moderation line is like this, it inevitably leads to a situation where more and more people of that specific worldview congregate here, while those with other views gradually disappear. Even in that same poll, there was a 55%-37% lead for the moderators' majority view. I believe we can agree that such a result is, to say the least, contrary to reality.

To stop rambling: rustydrifter10, if you still believe—despite all the facts—and/or claim that the forum is moving in an objective, equal, and favorable direction for EVERYONE who wants to write here, then:
either a.) you are so unobjective that you cannot grasp the facts, or
b.) you are consciously leading the forum in a direction that suits you, regardless of your own bias.

If option B is the case, then we have nothing left to talk about, because you can run a private forum however you want.
If, in your response, you choose to dispute my claims regarding the forum's lack of objectivity and lament about how objective the forum is and whatnot, then it means we are dealing with either option A, or you are simply covering up the fact that it is option B.

If you can step back and acknowledge the reality that this forum is trending heavily in one direction—where having 90% of the moderators on the same side makes true objectivity almost impossible—then we can actually start talking about what’s happening. It might just be an unintentional bias, but once you recognize it, you can begin discussing how to fix it and turn this into a place that truly welcomes a diverse range of perspectives.

Hey there. 🙂

Patrick Bailey4 said:I’m only going to bring up one single, recent example to back up what I've been saying, because honestly, it’s so incredibly convincing that I think it speaks for itself.

Look, you can't just take one single poll as some definitive truth. On this specific thread, we’ve had 695 people weigh in on this particular option so far—with 384 voting for one choice, which technically makes it the majority, though there were 257 votes for the runner-up among the four choices offered. Out of those 695 voters, 24 of them are part of the site administration, and 21 of those went for the current frontrunner. Now, considering our total admin team consists of 183 members, I'm certainly not going to sit here and claim that those 21 votes represent 90% of the leadership, nor do I have any way of knowing how the rest of them would feel or vote if they had participated. Honestly, I don't even bother trying to figure that out because it doesn't matter to me. I'm not sitting here tallying up who is male or female, who leans left or right, whether someone is religious or an atheist, or what social group they belong to; none of that stuff is relevant when it comes to moderating this community.

I think you probably already have a pretty good idea of how the moderator selection process actually works around here. Right now, they pick a candidate, I weigh in with my approval or disapproval, but honestly? It’s incredibly rare—almost unheard of—for me to be the one stepping up to suggest someone. At the end of the day, the final call always rests with Anderson.

Patrick Bailey4 said:I think Primjer is trying to make a point about how biased this whole place can be. It feels like the mods basically curate the conversation to ensure almost everyone stays within the same ideological bubble, pushing a very specific worldview. You see it everywhere—it’s baked into the way discussions are steered and even in the specific types of PDFs being circulated around here. It just feels like there's a massive lack of objectivity when the people running the show are all pulling in the exact same political direction.

Look, if you’re going to complain about how this thread was handled, I need more than just a vague feeling—give me a link to the specific discussion and provide several actual examples to back up what you're saying, not just one isolated incident. Just because a few of the moderators happen to agree on this one particular point doesn't mean they’re a monolith. They aren't a hive mind; they don't all share the exact same worldview or political leanings on every single issue that comes our way. And most importantly, it absolutely does not follow that they are all sitting around consciously and subjectively rigging things just to screw over anyone who disagrees with them.

If you take a quick look at the rules for this subforum, you’ll spot a specific section that explicitly forbids throwing around accusations without backing them up with actual, concrete evidence. To be honest, looking through everything you've just laid out, I'm simply not seeing any proof to support those claims of yours.

Patrick Bailey4 said:How on earth is it even possible that 90% of the elected moderators hold one specific viewpoint in a country where the vast majority of people actually feel the exact opposite? It just doesn't add up, does it?

Look, we’ve already established that it isn't even close to being 90% moderators. To actually answer your question—if we set the specific numbers aside for a second—I'd say the odds of that happening are about the same as the chances of almost every single person on this forum holding the exact same opinion at the same time right here in the States.

Patrick Bailey4 said:Why on earth does your opinion carry weight when it comes to picking sub-moderators?

Look, honestly, almost all of these moderators joined the admin team way before this whole referendum debate even started, let alone this specific thread. For most of them, I didn't even know what their political leanings were, and frankly, it never really crossed my mind to care.

Patrick Bailey4 said:I’ll get straight to the point here: rustydrifter10, if you still—despite all the clear facts laid out right in front of us—truly believe or claim that this forum is heading in an objective, fair direction that serves absolutely everyone who wants to write here, then:
either a.) you're being so biased that you're completely blind to reality, or
b.) you're intentionally steering the forum toward your own agenda regardless of how one-sided it becomes.

You aren't exactly presenting me with many options here, so please, don't try to pin either of those labels on me! At the end of the day, forums are run by actual human beings, not some flawless computer algorithm; a little bit of subjectivity is perfectly normal and honestly expected. Problems only really arise when decisions are repeatedly and deliberately made to screw over one side, and I truly don't think any of the moderators who voted in that poll are doing anything of the sort.

Sorry, but what are you even talking about?

First off, I have no clue which topic you're referring to. And where on earth did you get the idea that you know what the majority of Americans think? For all I know, you've got it completely backwards regarding who's actually the majority here. 😵

Second, where did this notion come from that a handful of twenty moderators makes up the majority of this forum? 😵
As far as I can tell, there are over a hundred, maybe even several hundred people in charge, so I'm definitely not seeing how eighteen mods could possibly constitute a majority. 🤷

rustydrifter10 said:One single example can't serve as a reliable indicator. On this specific topic, 695 forum members have voted so far—384 of them (the majority, with 257 going to the runner-up) chose one of the four options. Out of those 695 voters, 24 are part of the administration, and 21 of them voted for the current leading option. Given that our administration consists of 183 members, I certainly don't think those 21 people represent 90% of them, and I have no way of knowing how anyone else would feel or vote. Not that I’m trying to find out; it’s just not important to me. I don't sit here counting gender, political leanings, religious beliefs, or any other group affiliation that has nothing to do with moderation.

I think you know how the moderator selection process works. The current ones are chosen, I either approve or I don't, but I very rarely, almost never, actually propose someone. The final call rests with Anderson.

If you're complaining about how a specific thread is being moderated, then please provide a link to the thread or a few examples (not just one) that support your claim. Just because a segment of the moderators agrees on this one specific issue doesn't mean they hold the same views on everything else, nor does it mean they share identical worldviews or political stances. And it certainly doesn't mean they are all systematically and intentionally moderating to suppress dissenters.

If you take a look at the rules for this subforum, you'll see a clause stating that making accusations without providing concrete evidence is not allowed. I don't see any such evidence in your arguments.

We've already established that this isn't 90% of the moderators, and the answer to your question (setting aside the raw numbers) would be roughly as likely as most Americans holding the exact same opinion in this country.

All of these moderators became members of the administration long before this referendum or this discussion came up. For most of them, I didn't even know their political affiliations, nor was it ever my concern.

Don't try to attribute any specific political leaning to me; I'm not looking for that. This forum is run by people, not a computer program. Occasional subjectivity is both normal and expected. Problems only arise when decisions are repeatedly and deliberately made to disadvantage one side, and I don't believe anyone among the moderators who voted in this poll is doing that.

I'll be as direct as I can. In the upcoming referendum, the majority of American citizens will vote "Yes." That is my stance, and I stand by it 100%. All recent relevant polls suggest the same thing (and no, a poll on this forum isn't a relevant metric). When I tell you that a certain Facebook group shows a 54-42 lead for the "Yes" option, I truly believe I am demonstrating that the referendum results are obvious.
So, if you are convinced of an outcome different from what I am predicting, I'd suggest we just wait until December 1st to continue this conversation.
If you agree with me and my projections, we can keep talking.
It might sound a bit silly for me to claim this in advance, but honestly, it seems quite clear. The 750,000 signatures collected should be more than enough to pass the referendum.
But again, if you disagree, stop me right now in your next reply, and we can pick this back up on December 2nd.

In the rest of my argument, I am sticking to my thesis (which, at this moment, is a prediction rather than a fact). I used this example because it's current and because I happened to notice a massive discrepancy in how the moderators voted (even though I already knew their general stances). If this example isn't sufficient for you, I'll try to find others, but: out of your 24 moderator votes, 21 were "Against" (at the time I wrote my first post, it was 18, so three more arrived, while the second option stayed at two). Among your 183 administration members, that represents 13.1% of the moderators. That is a perfectly valid sample size, considering many relevant polls in America are conducted with a sample size of less than 1%. We've even seen entire elections decided by a turnout of only 20% of the population.
Furthermore, those moderators who actually cast a vote—representing about 13.1% of the group—are the exact people this topic impacts most directly. They include the mods over in Politics and the other sub-forums central to this discussion. So, when I mentioned 90%, I was speaking based on a specific sample size: the individuals who actually hold a stance and consider this issue vital.
But regardless, I’ll try to dig up some more examples for you. Even without doing that, or even without looking at this poll, I already know what the majority of the moderation team thinks just from reading the boards and seeing how they communicate. If you’re claiming you don't know, then
either you're lying under a.)
or under b.)
you aren't paying attention to the forum. I’m not trying to accuse you of being dishonest, but there really isn't a third option here.

Now, let me move on to my next point. I want to emphasize that we are talking about the largest forum in America. If this were some niche LGBTQ+ site, it wouldn't be surprising at all if 90% of the users voted "against" during a referendum. But since this is the massive flagship American forum that, by your own admission, strives for objectivity, we have to ask why the majority of users and mods are voting in direct opposition to the consensus of the American public. If the forum truly wants to be objective, shouldn't it reflect reality somewhat accurately? As it stands, the forum is disconnected from reality, and since you want it to be objective, it’s your job to figure out why. I’ll give you my take.
I’ll start with the moderators, and then I’ll address the users themselves.
If over 90% of the moderators (based on my sample of those who voted, those with clear opinions, and those running the key sub-forums) are on one side, do you honestly think they can steer a debate in a fair direction, no matter how well-intentioned they might be? Think about it: if you put 25 people in a room and 23 of them hold one view while only two hold another, can that group of 25 ever truly grasp what is objectively true?

Moving on to your claim that you don't know anything about your moderators' views when you select them. I’ll say it again: that simply isn't true. If you’ve appointed or confirmed someone as a moderator, you inherently know their activity, what they write, where they post, and how they engage. Otherwise, you're just approving moderators blindly.
Even if we assume you don't know—which many would argue isn't even relevant for certain sub-forums—don't you think it’s crucial for a section like Politics? In fact, shouldn't those tendencies be a deciding factor when choosing mods for a political board? Wouldn't it be disastrous if the Politics section was run exclusively by five hardcore socialists or five far-right extremists?

Let's circle back to the users. If this is the biggest forum in America, if it aims to be objective, and if you insist the mods are impartial, then why does the user poll contradict reality so sharply?
Here is my answer, and feel free to offer a different one if you have it. Every forum attracts the kind of crowd that its moderation allows. People who don't fit in go elsewhere. On sites like Reddit or Yahoo, people get insulted, harassed, or driven away because there isn't enough oversight to stop it.
What gathers here is a majority that reflects the support they receive from the moderation team. We don't see the kind of overt terror that would immediately drive away anyone with an opposing view, but there is an indirect support for one specific side. Logically, this results in that supported side becoming the dominant voice on the forum. Therefore, the moderators aren't objective, and the forum isn't being guided toward objectivity.

@stormybadger8 - you'll find the answers to your questions in my post.

Patrick Bailey4 said:I shall endeavor to be as direct as my nature allows. It is my firm conviction—one that I hold with absolute certainty—that when the next national referendum arrives, the majority of Americans will cast their votes in the "Yes" column. This isn't merely a passing whim of mine, either; if one looks at any legitimate polling data currently available in the country, the trend remains undeniably consistent (and please, let us be clear, the various polls conducted here on this particular forum carry no weight in such a serious matter). When I observe a digital space, such as a Facebook group, where the sentiment leans so heavily toward "Yes"—say, a margin of fifty-four to forty-two—does that not serve as tangible evidence? Can we not see that the eventual outcome of the referendum is already written in the stars?
So, if you are truly convinced that the outcome of this referendum will be the exact opposite of what I am asserting, then perhaps it would be most prudent for us to simply suspend this entire discussion and wait until December 1st?
If you find yourself in agreement with my perspective and the projections I have laid out before you, then perhaps we might find it worthwhile to proceed further with this discussion.
Perhaps it might seem somewhat foolish of me to be making such definitive assertions here before all the dust has even settled, but if one pauses to consider the sheer weight of the evidence, isn't the conclusion actually quite self-evident? When you look at the numbers, specifically those 750,000 signatures already collected from those who have pledged their support, does it not become increasingly apparent that such a significant margin would likely be more than sufficient to ensure the referendum passes?
But, I really must insist, if you find yourself disagreeing with my perspective, please, do stop me right here in your very next response; otherwise, we shall simply pick up this thread again on December 2nd.

To continue my previous line of reasoning—and I should clarify that I am presenting this as a contention rather than an absolute fact at this particular juncture—I have chosen to highlight this specific example. It feels particularly pertinent right now, and I happened to notice, quite by chance, a staggering disparity in the moderator votes. While I was already aware of the moderators' general stances, seeing the numbers laid out like this is striking. If this single instance doesn't suffice to prove my point, I shall certainly endeavor to pull more examples from the ether, but let us look at the data: out of your 183 administrative members, there are 24 moderator votes, with 21 casting a "No" vote. At the moment I was composing my initial post, that number sat at 18—meaning three more arrived while I was typing—leaving the alternative option with a mere two votes. This represents 13.1% of your moderator body. Is that not a perfectly sufficient sample size? We must remember that in America, many of the most significant polls are conducted using samples that represent less than 1% of the population. In fact, we have seen entire elections decided by a turnout of only 20% of the electorate. Does that not suggest that even a small slice of the pie can carry immense weight?
Furthermore, one must consider that the 13.1% of moderators who cast their votes represent precisely the demographic most invested in this subject matter; this group encompasses the moderators of the Politics section along with those overseeing the various other sub-forums most directly impacted by these developments. When I previously suggested a figure of 90%, was I not speaking specifically in relation to a particular sample size? Indeed, my estimation was predicated upon that specific subset—those individuals who actually hold a definitive stance on the issue and who perceive this question to be of fundamental importance.
Well, despite all that, I shall endeavor to unearth a few more examples for us to consider. But even before I go through the trouble of doing so—even without the need for this poll—I am already quite certain of what the majority of the moderators believe, simply by observing the general atmosphere of the forums and the nature of our ongoing communications. If you truly maintain that you are unaware of their position, then...
Are you being untruthful under point A, or am I perhaps misinterpreting the situation?
Regarding point B... have you perhaps neglected to read the forum?
I certainly do not wish to cast any aspersions upon your integrity or suggest that you are being untruthful, but one must wonder, is there truly a third option to be found here? It seems to me, quite simply, that such a path does not exist.

Now that I have concluded that point, I suppose I can move on to the next matter at hand. What I truly wish to emphasize here is the sheer scale of this platform; we are discussing the largest forum in all of America. If we were instead congregating on some obscure, niche LGBTQ+ blog, would it not be entirely expected if over ninety percent of the users there voted "no" during a national referendum? Of course it would. However, when dealing with what is ostensibly the premier American forum—one which, according to your own assertions, strives for a sense of objectivity—is it not only logical to pause and wonder why the vast majority of its contributors and moderators find themselves voting in direct opposition to the consensus of the American citizenry? If a forum truly aims to be an objective reflection of reality, should it not, at the very least, provide a reasonably faithful representation of the national mood? If the forum remains fundamentally disconnected from the public pulse, then it becomes irrelevant; and if it claims to be objective while remaining so detached, then the burden falls upon you to ask yourself why such a discrepancy exists. I shall, however, offer my own conclusions on the matter.
I suppose I shall begin my observations by addressing the moderators, before eventually turning my attention toward the forum members themselves.
If more than 90% of the moderators—and I am speaking here about a representative sample, including those who cast votes, those with firm convictions, and those who manage the essential documentation central to this entire debate—find themselves aligned on a single side, does one truly believe it is possible for them to steer the conversation toward an objective truth, regardless of how noble their intentions might be? It is a question that weighs heavily on my mind. If we were to gather twenty-five individuals in a room, and twenty-three of them held an identical viewpoint while only two stood apart, could that group of twenty-five ever truly grasp what is objectively real? Is objectivity even attainable when the scales are so fundamentally unbalanced?

We eventually arrive at your assertion—that you somehow remain unaware of your moderators' actual stances when you appoint them. I shall reiterate my previous point, for it is quite simply untrue; just because you have selected or confirmed certain individuals to hold moderator positions does not mean you are inherently ignorant of their activity on this forum, what they write, where they post, or the tone they adopt. Either you are confirming them without due diligence, or you truly do not know.
Even if we were to concede that you lack this knowledge—which, granted, might be considered trivial for many other subforums—do you not feel that in a space such as Politics, such information becomes paramount? Should one not consider these factors vital when selecting leadership for a political discussion board? Furthermore, would it not be a catastrophic failure if a forum dedicated to politics were governed exclusively by five staunch Marxists or, conversely, five far-right extremists?

At this juncture, I find myself turning my attention back to the users themselves. If this is meant to be the largest forum in America, and if its goal is to maintain objectivity, and if you claim that your moderators are indeed impartial, then why does the forum poll present such a starkly different reality from what we see here?
I shall offer you my own conclusion, though I invite you to provide an alternative should one exist. On any given forum, the community that gathers is precisely the type of crowd that the moderation allows to flourish; those who do not fit the mold simply migrate elsewhere. One sees this on sites like Reddit, where people are insulted, reviled, and harassed because there is no oversight to prevent it.
What we see here is a majority formed by the specific kind of support provided by the moderators. While we may not witness the overt terror that would immediately drive away anyone with a dissenting view, there is an indirect endorsement of a particular side. Logically, this leads to a situation where the favored faction becomes the dominant majority on the forum. Therefore, I submit that your moderators are not objective, nor is this forum being steered in an impartial direction.

@stormybadger8 - you will find the answers to your own inquiries within my post.

What absolute nonsense! You are claiming that the moderators lack objectivity simply because they do not vote in the exact manner you desire! Every individual possesses the right to their own opinion, and that includes the moderators. What you are attempting to propagate here is nothing more than narrow-mindedness. The issue of same-sex marriage is an exceptionally complex matter, and one cannot possibly accuse someone of being biased simply because they refuse to align with the homophobic undertones of certain initiatives.

@Patrick Bailey4/">@@Patrick Bailey4

Should a forum be objective? A forum?
Objective according to what? According to the views held by Americans? And you're suggesting the forum's moderator structure should essentially mirror the demographics of the people heading to the polls in a few weeks? Look, are you aware that we actually had to pass laws regarding gender quotas on ballot lists just to ensure "objectivity" in that regard? Yet here you are, arguing that a forum needs a corrective mechanism that would force the selection of moderators to balance out every ideological swing from left to right and back again.

But why stop at the forum as a whole? Why aren't you demanding that moderators for specific sub-forums also be chosen based on how perfectly they reflect the opinions of the users in those sections on "important" issues? For instance, we all know a huge portion of the American population listens to country music. Why aren't you calling for the removal of those disproportionately numerous music mods who prefer indie or rock, and demanding they be replaced by someone who lives for country?

Since you’ve brought up the LGBTQ+ community, shouldn't we also ensure they are represented among the moderators at a rate of about 7-8%, mirroring their presence in the general population? And what about the representation of atheists, retirees, drug addicts, the unemployed, the uneducated, or any other societal classification whose proportions aren't proportionally reflected in the moderator pool? Why is this specific issue the only one you consider a criterion for objectivity? (All these questions are rhetorical; they exist solely to highlight the absurdity of such a selective and narrow view regarding the distribution of moderators into two camps.)

Patrick Bailey4 said:So, if you're absolutely certain the referendum is going to swing the other way...

Look, I’m not "certain" about anything, and honestly, I really don't want to sit here and argue based on nothing but guesses about what might happen.

Patrick Bailey4 said:But even without me doing all that—even without this poll—I can tell just by reading through the threads and seeing how people interact what the majority of the moderation team stands for. If you're claiming you don't know that, then either
you're lying or
or
you aren't actually reading the forum.

You keep trying to pin things on me, and I’ve already asked you to stop! It is totally impossible for me to know the specific political leanings of every single moderator. I don't spend my life dissecting every single post from everyone who applied for a mod position; I mostly just focus on the official applications they submitted. Sure, I glance at other stuff, but it's just not realistic to expect me to be an expert on everyone's private opinions, especially since not everyone posts everywhere. I can't just jump to conclusions about what every single person thinks about every single issue.

Patrick Bailey4 said:Every online community eventually becomes a reflection of the types of people the moderators allow to stay.

In my opinion, the margin in the vote was way too slim to claim that anyone with opposing views was kicked out. Besides, you're still throwing around these heavy accusations without providing a shred of evidence, even after I pointed out that we have rules against doing exactly that. Please, if we're going to keep this conversation going, could you actually bring something concrete to the table? Otherwise, there isn't much point in talking.

graniteharbor502 said:What a load of nonsense! You’re basically claiming the mods aren't being objective just because they aren't voting exactly how you want them to. Look, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that goes for the moderators too. What you're pushing here is just narrow-mindedness. The whole debate over same-sex marriage is incredibly complex, so you can't just label someone as "unbiased" just because they don't agree with an initiative that feels pretty homophobic to them.

Exactly this.

It’s pretty obvious the OP is just salty about the poll results and can't handle them, so now they're trying to force their own views onto everyone else, acting like most people on this forum should just fall in line with them.
On top of that, they start dragging in stats from other major news sites and claiming those aren't relevant either? I mean, I guess it seems like the only person having a meltdown over percentages and polling data is you, yet somehow you're lumping all the other users in with you.

Patrick Bailey4 said:rustydrifter10, I actually asked you once about your long-term vision for this forum.

Straight to the core.

graniteharbor502 said:What an absolute load of nonsense. You’re basically claiming the moderators aren't being objective just because they aren't voting exactly the way you want them to. Look, everyone is entitled to their own perspective, and that includes the moderation team. What you’re pushing here is nothing more than one-sided thinking. The whole debate surrounding same-sex marriage is incredibly nuanced and complex; you can't simply label someone as "biased" just because they refuse to support an initiative that carries such overtly homophobic undertones.

I think you either missed my point entirely or you're just choosing not to see it. Please don't lay this at my door—I’m not taking a side here. How could you possibly claim I'm pushing a one-sided agenda? If anything, I'm advocating for the exact opposite. Honestly, if the roles were reversed, you'd be reacting in the exact same way.
Anyone who disagrees with the idea that this initiative has a homophobic undertone—and look, calling it homophobic is still just your personal take, so I’m not going to get dragged into an argument about that—is likely struggling with objectivity. When you hold such a strong subjective stance, it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain a balanced perspective. It works both ways; the same logic applies to those on the opposite side of the debate.

northernpilot2 said:Exactly this.

It’s pretty obvious that the person who started this thread is just unhappy with the poll results. Instead of accepting how things actually shook out, they're using this entire discussion as a way to push their own agenda and force their perspective on everyone else—as if most people on this forum are somehow obligated to agree with them.
On’s going beyond just this one poll, too. He’s pulling data from various news outlets and sites, then claiming they aren't actually relevant. Honestly, Patrick Bailey4, I think you’re the only one here getting hung up on these percentages and the specifics of the poll. It feels like you're lumping everyone else's perspective into the same bucket as yours, even though the rest of us don't see the problem the same way.

More accusations. Honestly, what exactly am I using to support my position here? What even is my position? Where on earth are you getting the idea that I believe everyone else should automatically agree with me, or that there's some consensus I'm trying to force?

William Bennett53 said:Patrick Bailey4

Should a forum be objective? It’s an interesting question to pose. When we talk about online communities, there is often this idealistic expectation that they should serve as unbiased hubs of information, but reality usually tells a different story. In my view, a forum is fundamentally a collection of individual perspectives. By its very nature, it is a gathering of people with their own unique backgrounds, biases, and lived experiences. If you strip away all subjectivity, you aren't really left with a "community" anymore; you're just left with a database or a textbook. People join forums precisely because they want to hear how others feel, how they interpret events, or how they navigate their own lives. That human element—the opinions, the heated debates, and even the personal leanings—is what gives a forum its pulse. Of course, there is a distinction between "subjective opinion" and "misinformation." While I don't think a forum needs to be a bastion of clinical objectivity, it does benefit from a certain level of intellectual honesty. A healthy community thrives when users can disagree without resorting to bad faith or blatant falsehoods. You want a space where someone can say, "I personally believe X," rather than stating "X is an absolute fact," unless it truly is. Ultimately, I see a forum as a mirror of the people within it. It shouldn't be a sterile environment of pure objectivity, but it should ideally be a place where diverse viewpoints can coexist through civil discourse. It’s less about being "objective" and more about being authentic and respectful of the truth.
Objective based on what exactly? Based on the views of Americans? And you're suggesting that our forum's moderator structure should essentially act as a mirror for the demographic makeup of the people heading to the polls in a few weeks? Look, man, do you realize we actually had to pass federal laws to mandate gender quotas on election ballots just to achieve some semblance of "objectivity"? And here you are, arguing that this forum needs a corrective mechanism that would essentially force us to bake every single political swing—from the far left to the far right—directly into the selection process for moderators.

But wait, why stop at just the general forum? Why not demand that moderators for specific sub-forums also be elected based on how closely their views align with the majority of the users in those sections regarding "important" issues? Take music, for example. We all know a huge chunk of Americans are big fans of country music. So, shouldn't we be asking why certain music mods—who clearly prefer indie rock or jazz—still hold their positions? Wouldn't it make more sense to replace some of those disproportionately numerous genre enthusiasts with someone who actually lives and breathes country music?

Since you're bringing up the LGBTQ+ community, shouldn't we also consider whether the moderator team should reflect their roughly 7-8% share of the general population? And what about the representation of atheists, retirees, those struggling with addiction, the unemployed, the uneducated, or any other demographic group whose proportions aren't proportionally mirrored within the mod team? Why is this specific question the sole metric for objectivity you're interested in? (All these questions are rhetorical; I'm just pointing out how absurd it is to look at moderator demographics through such a selective and narrow lens.)

A forum doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect mirror of society. However, rustydrifter10 claims that's what she wants. My point is that she’s either being dishonest or she’s failing in her pursuit of forum objectivity.
As for your other examples, you're trivializing the issue. This is a significant societal question involving various worldviews and political stances, which I believe matters to the community at large. I’m not going to demand that Formula 1 moderators consist mostly of Lewis Hamilton fans just because they outnumber Sebastian Vettel fans. I find that a much less relevant topic and socially insignificant.
Besides, that isn't even my goal here. I’m not asking for the moderator ratio to be a literal replica of the American landscape. Rather, I want the moderator balance to be such that everyone feels equally satisfied with the forum. Even if all 183 moderators were against this referendum, as long as they act objectively and follow the rules, the forum engagement and poll results will likely align closely with what we see in the rest of the country.

rustydrifter10 said:I’m not certain about anything, and I don’t want to argue based on what might happen.

You're attributing motives to me again, even though I told you I wasn't doing that. It’s impossible for me to know the political leanings of every single moderator candidate. I don't read every single post from everyone applying for moderation; I mainly focus on the posts they've made within the specific PDF threads they would be managing. I glance at others, but it's unrealistic to expect me to know everything about everyone or assume they've voiced an opinion on every single topic across every thread.

In my view, the margin in the vote is far too slim to claim that people with differing opinions are being pushed out. Furthermore, you keep throwing out assertions without providing proof, despite me reminding you that's against the rules. Please provide some concrete evidence so that our conversation can actually move forward in a meaningful way.

Given what was highlighted in bold, I won't be responding further for now, and I’ll bring this topic back up once the referendum is over. I hope that's alright.

You completely missed the mark here. Look, Nice doesn't just pick modes—the existing modes dictate them, and I highly doubt Nice checks anyone's stance on "hot button issues" before setting things in motion. 🙄

Honestly, you don't even have to dig deep; just scrolling through your posts on this thread makes the conclusion pretty damn obvious.
And look, if anyone here is throwing accusations around without any actual reason, I’d say that’s mostly on you—starting with Nica and just rolling from there—regardless of how much it feels like this whole 'complaint' or whatever is just total nonsense, basically a one-track mind that nobody else is buying, yet you just keep doubling down on it.

Anthony Jackson2 said:You’re completely missing the point here. It isn't that Nice chooses the mods; rather, the existing mods determine who gets brought in. And I highly doubt Nice asks for everyone's opinion on "hot button issues" before making any decisions.🙄

So what? Who carries the blame if an incompetent moderator is selected in the first place?

northernpilot2 said:One only needs to look at your posts in this thread to see the conclusion for themselves.
If anyone here is making baseless accusations, it’s just you—starting with Nice and continuing down the line. Regardless of how much people try to show you that this "complaint" is essentially meaningless, you just persist in this one-sided mindset that nobody else supports.

Accusations. ☕

Feel free to think whatever you want about me and my views.
But I’ll ask again, very calmly: what exactly am I propagating? What kind of one-sidedness are we talking about? On what grounds?

Patrick Bailey4 said:Yeah, and? Who takes the fall when an incompetent moderator gets picked in the first place?

So, apparently a moderator is incompetent just because they voted "no" in a poll? Good to know 👍 :facepalm—never been more needed

Anthony Jackson2 said:So, apparently a moderator is considered incompetent just because they voted "no" in a poll? Good to know. 👍I guess we really need those facepalms more than ever now.

And why am I being thrown under the bus again?

You were the one claiming that moderators pick their own successors, while Nice just rubber-stamps the decision. I don't make the rules here.
The reason I'm reaching out to Nice is because, at the end of the day, she's the boss. I don't exactly have a direct line to the owner.

What does any of this have to do with the topic? Or is this just what happens when you realize your opening post was a total mess—you start spinning the same thread over and over?

And what would your suggestion be?

Wait, what are you even talking about right now? This is your very first post here:

Anthony Jackson2 said:You’ve completely missed the mark here. See, Nice doesn't actually choose the mods; the existing mods are the ones who make those calls. And I highly doubt Nice checks in on everyone's stance regarding "hot-button issues" before every single appointment.🙄

My only response to that is that Nice is at the top of the food chain, which is exactly why I'm having this conversation with her.
What's the issue there?

Let’s be real—this whole topic is just fundamentally nonsensical, if we aren't going to pretend otherwise. If you disagree, feel free to explain how she’s supposed to dictate what moderators believe—or why her opinion matters at all regarding their stances—since you're the one asking her how to run the forum. That's the gist of it.

Charles Fox10 said:So, what would your suggestion be?

That’s a great question. Personally, I think when you're dealing with topics this sensitive and significant, you have to be incredibly cautious about how you select moderators. You need to be more careful here than with any other sub-section on the site. It isn't enough to just look at whether someone is a "good" user in terms of participation; you really need to understand their underlying stances—which, honestly, should be pretty obvious if anyone has been paying attention to them.
There are two main pillars to consider: economic and political. When looking at a candidate for moderation, you need to know where they sit on the economic spectrum—left or right—and the same goes for their political leanings.
Ideally, the final lineup of moderators should represent a balanced mix of these views to act as a check and balance for one another. They don't necessarily need to be best friends or constantly agreeing with each other like some people do on this Forum. There’s no requirement for every moderator to back up everyone else's ideas.
I can't recall a single instance on this Forum where someone complained about a ban and one moderator felt it was deserved while another disagreed.
As for the Supermoderator role, that person should ideally be known for being exceptionally objective, or perhaps just very moderate in their views. For example, Ryan Vaughn7 is a textbook case of what a Supermoderator shouldn't be. He has very strong, rigid convictions, which is the exact opposite of the ideal we're looking for.

Of course, all of this is just an ideal scenario in my eyes. A sort of compromise built on a variety of different perspectives and viewpoints.

Anthony Jackson2 said:The truth is, this whole topic is fundamentally pointless and, let's be honest, pretty idiotic. Let's not pretend to be polite. If you disagree, feel free to explain to me how this thread should dictate the moderators' views, or what connection it actually has to their stances. What responsibility does this thread even hold here, considering you're asking it how to run the Forum? To put it simply...

I'm honestly not sure how to explain it to you. If a company is failing because its employees are performing poorly, are you going to claim the CEO has nothing to do with it?
rustydrifter10 can't dictate exactly what a moderator believes, but they can certainly take those beliefs into account when selecting or confirming candidates. They can also provide guidance on what moderators should watch out for and define the specific profile they are looking for in a moderator...