What are we doing y’all??? I don’t even get this bullshit. Why do any of us care who mods and who doesn’t? What makes you think Q has to ask any of us ANYTHING. He made a decision in what he felt was good judgment. No matter who was picked people were gonna moan and groan and point fingers whether it was me or fuckin Jesus. Whether you had a say or not. “Democracy” or not ANYBODY who was picked was going to face the same insane amount of criticism. Don’t act like because it’s him you have a problem. A lot of this sounds like pure jealousy because he got “picked” and you didn’t. That’s life. I try not to get into the bickering and arguments but this is insane. This is supposed to be the “community”???
If he ever decides to pick a mod again at some point, some of you sure are showing him who not to pick.
It’s an online forum. The user base having opinions about moderation is not only acceptable, but expected. That’s how a forum works.
He doesn’t. We’re literally just discussing the forum. Whether or not @Q acts on any of this is his prerogative. We understand that. It just doesn’t mean we won’t discuss the concerns some of us have about the way the forum should be moderated, especially after the drama that just happened between the new moderator and some users who disagreed with their policies.
I really don’t think this is the case at all. Though some people had rather personal concerns regarding the moderator choice, there was also a general concern about the reasoning behind moderation decisions. We all accept that at the end of the day these decisions are in the court of the current moderators and admin. In the meantime, we simply offer discussion for their consideration.
All this frankly isn’t even that bad compared to some of the squabbles here. That may just be my perception, though.
I think discussing these things matters so long as we maintain respect. There is frequently grief here. In trying to genuinely address some of these things after a breakdown in communication and community care, we are taking an active role in organizing our community. So, yes, this is supposed to be the community.
Nonetheless, I sympathize with the grief in your response.
I just wanted to address this for a moment as its the second time one of y’all have put my name forward for a moderator position.
I’ve been on this forum a long time and I’ve always maintained a somewhat periphery presence here. The only reason I’ve been so engaged in these discussions over the past few days is because I grew frustrated with some of the patterns in discourse around the space. I generally try and not take anything too serious but I do care about this space and I think it is a shame to see that some users don’t feel heard or seen here. I think the world has been a rather stressful endeavour these past few years (decades/centuries, really) and while I understand our desire for escapism to this place, I also think it’s imperative to ensure such a place of escapism is safe and welcoming to those who feel outcast from their societies. Otherwise, what is the point? You’ve just synthesized the injustice of the world in a more intimate space.
I don’t have an opinion about whether or not I should be a moderator. I think if I were made a moderator then I would likely be criticized and would also have less freedom of opinion than I do as a casual user. However, if a lot of people for whatever reason sought me as their moderator, then I would do my best to satisfy where I can. I think @Q and the moderators have consistently cared for this space in various capacities throughout my time among them and I don’t judge them for any of the issues we perceive in the forums, even regarding admin or moderation. These are expected things to come up in the operation of a forum—especially an online forum. I only hope they continue to listen when the community has opinions.
I’m not sure how you arrived to these conclusions, nor why you thought this was a productive response to avoid the type of conflict you think you’re seeing. I think Shadow answered your questions really well though, couldn’t have said it better myself.
I didn’t say moderator. I said president because you should be our president.
Thanks for saying this. Ironically one of the reasons there wasn’t an announcement of a new mod is because I really dislike the usual type of power tripping mod who e.g. moderates 200 subreddits amongst a cabal of other guys doing the same in order to feel a bit of internet power, or some guy who types some grandiose 2,000 word post about his mod appointment as if it were the coronation of a new king or etc. I’m very grateful for the mods (and non-mods) who put time into contributing to the site, but it’s better to think of a mod as more ‘the guy who gets to press the delete spam button’ rather than any position of social significance which is what some people seem to have interpreted it as.
Dictator day one.
While I understand where you might see this in some folks’ interpretations, I also don’t think moderators shouldn’t be reduced to spam cleaners. Through their site curation and exercise of their power (which you’re obviously right to hold concern for), moderators help to shape the culture of a space. For this forum, the shape of things has often mattered. Ironically, your preference that moderators not exercise their social power at the expense of the exclusion of others is exactly what a lot of the folks critical of moderation have been concerned about by the presence of some bigotry: the exercise of social power at the expense of the exclusion of others.
Regardless of whether the admin or moderators would prefer to see their roles as holding social significance, they do. There is no way to separate users’ awareness of admin/mod power from the social perception of those positions. Thus, it’s the responsibility of the admin and the moderators to exercise their power ethically and responsibly. Concerns regarding this are part of how this whole thread got here. Bringing attention to this responsibility isn’t an attempt to push politics on the forum but rather an effort to genuinely acknowledge the politics inherent in forum spaces (the Athenians knew a lot about this sort of thing).
I get just wanting to maintain a cool and tidy space but that must include an ethical and sincere response to imbalances of power here that reflect patterns of social injustice in the ‘real’ world. When comments that showcase transphobic rhetoric are permitted in the forum, it signals to the trans user base that transphobic users are permitted to exercise their social power at the expense of the exclusion of others’ (in this case, at the exclusion of trans folk). That matters, especially on a sexual fetish forum where one of the most consistent individual psychological concerns is alienation from society due to a difference in social, sexual ‘norms’. I’ve made this argument several times here before and will continue to make it as my piece on the matter.
I understand that’s responding to more than your comment entailed but I’ve had a lot of thoughts on this matter as these discussions have unfolded. Despite some interpersonal grievance, general user concerns brought up here have all been quite relevant to the integrity of the forum and to the broad array of issues ongoing in the world. I don’t think there’s any reason to lead a crusade here but there should be a reckoning—a recognition of the inherent power the position of moderator holds and how that power should be exercised to maintain the social integrity of the forum. That’s what this thread has broadly entailed, to me.
Are you referring to that one post a few months ago, or others since then?
Neither. I’m using transphobic comments as an example to illustrate what I—and others—would consider unconscionable rhetoric on a forum dedicated to a sexual fetish and to illustrate my reasoning behind why I believe they warrant a sincere response.
Individual squabbles obviously have to be taken on a case by case basis, especially online. I don’t think it’s worth unilaterally banning people for simple unethical speech (e.g. telling everyone that people who use AI should kill themselves). However, when hate speech deliberately targets a group of people for a biological reason, then that is the sort of hate speech that should be unilaterally banned.
Transphobia seemed the easiest thing to reference given that it has come up here and because it is the exact kind of hate speech we often given a concession. When people act against transphobic commentary, it isn’t because they have a political stance but because they have a philosophical stance against bigotry. I think people who view trans issues explicitly within the lens of political concern—as ‘woke’ or whatnot—fundamentally misunderstand why transphobia is unacceptable. Transphobia is akin to homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. It isn’t a political hatred but a biological hatred—one that has often been excused by framing it as ‘politicized’. Such ‘biological hatred’ should be unilaterally banned.
This is just my opinion, though. Don’t take it as some unnecessary moral stand against bigotry or a long-winded defense of the trans community. I am merely stating what I think the appropriate response to such acts of bigotry ought to be, transphobic or otherwise. Also, don’t take any of my rhetoric as a criticism against you, @Q. I’m just talking and you happen to be listening so I figure I may as well continue talking. 
The forum has had problems, and that’s no secret, but I also know the community tends to ride these waves as though they were a cruise. I’m sure everything will work out in the end.
Politics ruining an apolitical online space. I am shock.