Hey all,
As discussed here, I am looking for 3 new moderators to help with this community.
Please review this post and vote for the candidate you would like to see help on this community.
In no particular order, the candidates are:
- @goat@sh.itjust.works
- @Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.works
- @Apytele@sh.itjust.works
- @Seraph089@sh.itjust.works
- @sweetholymosiah@sh.itjust.works
- @annegreen@sh.itjust.works
- @imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
I invite you to review users post history when deciding on voting.
This thread will be open for 72 hours (until Friday June 23rd, 8PM ET) at which point voting will stop. Any votes after this time will not be counted. I will try to lock this thread after that time so people do not accidentally continue voting.
Everyone gets 1 vote, including the users being considered. The top 3 will be given mod powers of this community to help with organization of discussions and votes.
Please vote by calling the persons name. For example, if I you wanted to vote for TheDude you would reply with: TheDude
Infiltrate? No.
I’m providing dissent and lively discussion. It’s important to have diversity, especially in communities that are centred around fairness and equality.
It’s important to have diversity, especially in your moderators. Not having diversity is a death curl for any community.
There’s a whole lot more to being a good mod than just having a different opinions.
A contradictarian would make for a very bad mod, but if we just base it on diversity of opinions we would believe they would be right in their place.
I don’t think you’re responsible for counting the votes, are you?
As mentioned in the OP, people need to vote by mentioning the user’s pseudonym, that’s what they did with you name but to say they didn’t want to vote for you, hence my comment.
Why not?
I follow the rules very strictly. Is it the Donald posts you dislike? Those are satire. I figured that’d be obvious.
Regardless, I’ve generated a lot of controversy despite following the rules, and I think that’s a good thing. It’s important to have dissent and opposition. Otherwise, you devolve back into the problem of Reddit, where the mods have a certain bias that makes fair discussion and arguments impossible.
If you’re going purely off downvotes or upvotes, my account’s been bombarded by certain users who really don’t like me. Dunno why they felt the need to downvote my profile and downvote my music threads, but whatev~
That’s right, yeah!
Until CisMaelWhitestorm gained moderation and booted the original mods. Then it became that
I follow the rules very strictly. Is it the Donald posts you dislike? Those are satire. I figured that’d be obvious.
It’s not satire.
Let me be clear, I’m not questioning whether you believe it’s satire. I’m saying that after 7 years of edgelords coming up with worse and worse posts and memes to one up eachother, and now politicians saying things that were once “just a joke”, it’s not satire or a joke anymore. It’s becoming truth to some people, and that’s a problem.
I’ll also point out that r/the_donald also followed the rules strictly. That usually meant pushing the rules right to the line, and making the admins have to adjust the rules that were more ambiguous. I hope you’re not following that example.
Hey, it’s me! For what it’s worth, I’m excited to see this community grow and would be happy to be a part of the mod team helping guide it. Either way, I’m looking forward to seeing what’s next for this community. I don’t have a lot of experience with online moderation, but I do a lot of conflict resolution and strategy, which I feel are valuable skills for a moderator. If you choose me for a mod, I commit to helping make sure this instance and this community hold to their original vision of being friendly, chill, and democratic. I feel like I’ve already been able to bring some valuable contributions to the table, like the idea to use the [vote] format, and I believe I’ve got a lot more to offer the community. Thanks!
Yea @imaqtpie, Yea @annegreen, Yea @Seraph089.
From account history they have good engagement.
Nay @Apytele, Nay @sweetholymosiah.
Limited engagement. Can’t really comment on them yet.
Nay @goat, Nay @difficult_bit_1339.
Actively enshittening Agora and flame warring since its inception. @goat is evidently some manner of troll and “controversy” isn’t a selling point for moderation. This is an alt for his burggit account; he’s butted heads with admins over there because not allowing gore isn’t “free”.
That wasn’t my argument at all.
My entire argument on burggit was that I found it hypocritical for the admins there to be banning gore-related content because they personally found it unsavory, while still allowing Loli-content which many others find equally unsavory and many who have asked them to tone it down.
Your link is broken, this is the link to my Burggit account (Be warned, Burggit has Loli porn and content similar to it)
Controversy isn’t a selling point of moderation in most cases, true. However, the prime function of Agora is to encourage diverse debate, even when that means challenging views you disagree with. Having a bias in moderation will cause nothing but a multitude of issues down the line.
As for “flamewarring” – I don’t insult other members or tell them they’re wrong, despite often being the crux of insults and ridicule myself. I believe I’ve proven that I can handle being challenged, something that most other candidates have not shown yet (with the exception of Imaq and Bit, of course)
You can also only vote once.
Your vote will be thrown out if you don’t narrow it down, I recommend @imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
My entire argument on burggit…
Your argument was that an unsavoury instance was against hosting your personal flavour of unsavoury content; hence you felt the need to browbeat instead of simply finding a better instance.
This appears to be your main method of “engagement” in discussion: incessantly hammer on your point, making persistent bad-faith invitations to “debate,” then when you rile up the user to the point of them flaming you, you claim that you’re remaining civil. It’s called sealioning, it’s a common enough trolling phenomenon that there exists an often cited web-comic about it..
Co-existing in a space isn’t an open invitation for you to repeatedly argue the same point past a persons point of comfort, for the sake of your personal definition of “debate”. When it’s clear the debate has run its course and the person is clearly being emotionally effected, if you persist then you’re acting in bad faith.
Your argument was that an unsavoury instance was against hosting your personal flavour of unsavoury content; hence you felt the need to browbeat instead of simply finding a better instance.
Your interpretation falls apart when I have found a better instance; sh.itjust.works
Nor am I sealioning, that isn’t even what sealioning is. Sealioning constantly asks for sources, feigning ignorance when produced with a counterpoint and dismissing a user’s points.
I make a deliberate attempt to not sealion, by often asking the other user if they’d like to continue the discussion, if they’re comfortable, asking about common interests or things we can agree upon and conceding and agreeing with their points without questioning them as a person – All of this is public information you can check.
I have been proven wrong many times, and I admit when I am. Most who I have a lengthy discussion with tend to come to a certain agreement or mutual understanding.
Here he is actively flaming/trolling in Main Community and Agora. He even states he’s willingly losing sleep because he likes arguing so much. Just because the person you’re disagreeing with is being salty doesn’t mean you have a free ticket to stoop to that level. It’s not moderator-worthy conduct.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/282908
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/291136
I checked. Maybe you can enlighten me because apart from being against the idea of willfully defederating instances & making note of OPs conflictive way of talking, I don’t see what you see. Maybe you’re conflating the fact that you disagree with his words with your idea of “flaming & trolling”.
Your comments are missing a lot of context.
I happened to interact with Chalkman (I believe they may have been banned from the community), and every single response of theirs was nothing but insults. If you want to defend a banned user whose content you can’t even see, I guess that’s your right.
Do find it strange though how you hold me accountable for trolling as well when during my interactions, I haven’t stooped to the same level of insults. I’ve been called worse than shit on a boot, a troll by many, a fascist, etc, etc~
What level of discussion are you even searching for? I know that your top pick, imaq, has even had negative experiences and even hostility towards certain users.
admins on burggit actually allow “guro” which is kinda gore but anime version
your link to goat’s profile is wrong, here’s a second try
imaqtpie
My first order of business would be developing a more organized way of voting here. No offense to TheDude, he’s got a lot on his plate.
Agreed. I think we need to separate the discussion from the vote. It’s confusing to have amendments take place on voting posts as discussion develops. We also need clear parameters on how to draft a vote and then how the vote gets resolved.
I think a parliamentary system could work well, though that’s complicated.
Maybe some strawpoll site that requires authentication? Link your account, have it approved, then vote.
That’s perhaps one of the better ways of doing it.
I’m seeing the desire for both verification of users (with accounts on this instance) and for the protection of anonymity. It’s possible to provide both those things at the same time, but I don’t see how we can do so on the native server.
(Limiting the vote to 1 person and not allowing us to rank is severly limiting, especially for a consensus-based community decision making system as what I remember being described in the post that announced the creation of the Agora.)
@imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works I support, while Goat’s method of engagement I think is fine for a member of the community but isn’t mod-material. Not a chill dude, and seeing how people have reacted to him already he would be starting from a position of adversity with too much of the community.
