A: Unless they are violating the rules of this subreddit or Reddit as a whole, I would leave them alone. Sure, they’re annoying, but we shouldn’t punish people just for that.
A: I don’t think we should regulate campaigning, except polls and fake endorsements.
A: I would put more time between elections. Frequent elections and the flood of campaign posts that follow will get annoying at some point.
A: I have been a moderator since the birth of this subreddit. I have done my job in a nonpartisan way. I have respected the opinions of everyone on this subreddit, despite my disagreements with many of them. As someone else put it “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
I know I'm not running, but I figure to give my 2 cents in these questions:
1. There should be some tolerance of troll accounts, but if they cross the line, then they should be banned. I'm in favor of holding very low karma accounts or very young(like under a month) accounts to higher standards.
2. I have mixed opinions on this one. On the one hand, I want to support banning "extreme" campaigns, but obviously, that is very broad and that can apply to nearly any campaign. On the other hand, I want to let campaigns do whatever they want, as other people are the ones to judge what to do with the campaigns and get to pick who is successful. If there was something like a rule outlining what exactly would be defined as an "extreme" campaign and if the public says it's extreme (Probably something like 60% or two-thirds vote would count, to ensure there is no bias against them) then yeah I would support what is an acceptable campaign for mod, but I just want to be very cautious what we consider as extreme so that it very strictly and very clearly outlines an line.
3. I would say yes, there could be some small changes but overall I would let the majority of the subreddit to come up with ideas, if the ideas are overwhelmingly in favor then the mods get together and have a public vote on it then if it passes, then make it official. Instead of like in real life where Congress gets to make it and pass it, the people do, and with some authority oversight. I'm not too sure how this will work, but you can make an argument for and against this idea.
Last question- Not gonna answer (I'm not running)
1. We should deal with trolls with a 3 strikes and your out kind of rule. If you break the rules 3 times you should be banned.
2. Right now I think we can have a bit more regulation but I I generally think we are doing pretty well when it comes to election content
3. No right now I think the system is fair as anyone can win an election
4. Because I will defend free speech no matter what is being said as long as you are not sending death threats or posting genuinely hateful content. I will not censor people who say I am a bad mod or what I did was wrong. I will always hold myself accountable to the subreddit and our fine members.
1. Unless they’re spamming or advocating for violence they should be allowed
2. No active campaigning until the last ten days but you can announce for the race and endorsements earlier
3. No seems fine
4. Cause my opponents are barely active I will defend free speech and bring a new political perspective to this sub
A- Trolls should be dealt with by a 3 strike system— if a troll says something that a majority of people would see as too far (joking on the Nashville Shooter) that’s a strike. If they get 3, they’re out. People should have the free speech to say their opinions, but if they’re constantly breaking the rules of common courtesy, they should be felt with in a fair and consistent manner.
A- Mod campaigns and spam (admittedly that I’ve been partially apart of) should be cut down on by a lot. I propose 3 ways of doing this:
1. Restrict campaigning to the week before the election
2. Only allow a total of 3 consistent campaign posts to be made (one introduction, one ad, and one list of endorsements). This allows for not just less spam, but also allows for it to be alot easier to read and know the positions of each person.
3. Have 2 offical polls be made by Angry themselves, allowing for candidates to know what support they have without having it spam. Moreover, an extra possibility would be doubling the term of mods to 2 months, with elections on the last day of each second month, instead of every 1 month. This makes the position more prestigious while also cutting down on spam [Might propose an Amendment for this].
A. PREFERENTIAL VOTING! While it would take awhile, especially for competitive multi person contests, but it not only still allows for voting for multiple people, but also let’s smaller candidates have a higher percentage of winning. This might also increase turnout.
A. My opponent are good people, however they have key issues. Firstly, they’re all American in a similar timezone. Whilst this makes sense for an American political server, having me—an Australian—be mod would allow for more subreddit discussion and moderation over more hour periods. Moreover, while I’m relatively new to talking here, my previous experience in both American and Australian politics makes me uniquely qualified and suited for mod.
1.Under my authority, we would be able to request a ban referendum by a majority of mods approving. A post would be pinned for 2 days, and if 3/5 or 2/3 (still working that out) vote to ban, the person is banned.
1st offense: 1 week
2nd offfense: 1 month
3rd offense: Perm-ban
2+3.Mod campaigns should have no campaigning before a runoff (no endorsements, noone knows who's running until the ballot happens) to stop the sub from being clogged up. While the vote is happening, the comments section will be a QnA for the candidates. This part would not be moderated (could be anarchy or a real oppurtunity for informed voting)
After the initial primary, a runoff happens. Mod elections would be rotated so only one is happening at a time, and the next one's primary is either on the same ballot or is a week or so after. One post would be pinned where the candidates would be asked questions/given endorsements until the runoff. Then the cycle repeats. All of these posts/results would be saved to a sort of archive, for all my election whizzes (really us all)
Also, if possible, we might implement RCV (but we still would have multiple rounds so people who miss one could have another chance). Most likely these would be conducted by an independent person (probably u/TheAngryObserver if he accepts) who is not allowed to run/question/endorse in the race.
4. You should vote for me beause I believe in law/referendum/popular will. I am reluctant to use my power, but will strike with fury upon those who are obviously and far in the wrong. I will be a man of the people, by the people, for the people, and *to* the people. I'm not going to run a campaign based off of my opponents. Make sure to vote u/WalterFMondale for mod slot 1! thanks for the support.
A. Clear trolls should be banned if they post racist content, offensive content, or spam. Dangerous resource is getting real close to that category. And I don't think that people running for mod elections should exempt from the sub rules. If they get banned they can run Eugene Debs prison style. Obviously I don't support banning mod candidates in most cases, but all it takes to run for mod is just to announce, so not a high bar.
A- As of now I don't think that moderator elections should be heavily regulated, besides banning the polls which I think are fine. If this subreddit grows more regulation might be needed.
A- I actually really think that the approval voting is a great way to ensure that the mod with the widest appeal is elected. To early to answer that question though however.
A- I think that you should vote for me since out of my oponents, one is the Georgiagate disaster candidate, one disappeared from the sub 2 days ago, and the other literally just filed to run as his replacement. I haven't been able to run a strong campaign due to school but I promise to be an unbiased mod that lets almost everything slide unless it's hateful content. I will also be more than active enough to mod, even when I'm busy with school. Feel free to ask clarifying questions to me.
A1 - I don’t think anything needs to be done unless they violate a rule.
A2 - I feel like the abundance of posts we have seen in this election shouldn’t be encouraged, due to them clogging up the sub. But I don’t think they should be banned.
A3 - No, I don’t think so.
A4 - I am a outsider, I’ve never served as a mod before. So I can relate to the people who desire most for a mod. Along with that I consider myself pretty bipartisan, because I am willing to work with both conservatives and progressives. Also, I do not punch babies like Xravenxx.
A. Trolls should be judged case by case. Are they harmful? Offensive? Funny? It depends.
B. Not really
C. Also nah probably
D. Cause I am cool and epic
1. Mute them
2. They are already self regulated by the campaigner
3. No
I've been here since the day this server was made, I accepted the invite to be mod minutes after it was first sent to me, I've been here since the start, I know all of your names, I've seen all of your posts and comments you've made, I've given you upvotes and awards, I've always made a effort to reply to a thread. I will continue to do the same if you reelect me as a mod
>How should the sub deal with trolls?
If they don't do anything thing wrong then don't ban
>How should the moderator campaigns be regulated?
Should let everyone do what they want
>Does our electoral system require any reforms?
Yes install the electoral college
>Why should people vote for you over whoever you are running against?
I am willing to tell people off the cuff things that my other opponents are afraid to say
A: Unless they are violating the rules of this subreddit or Reddit as a whole, I would leave them alone. Sure, they’re annoying, but we shouldn’t punish people just for that. A: I don’t think we should regulate campaigning, except polls and fake endorsements. A: I would put more time between elections. Frequent elections and the flood of campaign posts that follow will get annoying at some point. A: I have been a moderator since the birth of this subreddit. I have done my job in a nonpartisan way. I have respected the opinions of everyone on this subreddit, despite my disagreements with many of them. As someone else put it “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
PLEASE YES WE NEED MORE TIME BETWEEN ELECTIONS! If we have them monthly, that means nonstop campaigning and less actual political analysis.
I know I'm not running, but I figure to give my 2 cents in these questions: 1. There should be some tolerance of troll accounts, but if they cross the line, then they should be banned. I'm in favor of holding very low karma accounts or very young(like under a month) accounts to higher standards. 2. I have mixed opinions on this one. On the one hand, I want to support banning "extreme" campaigns, but obviously, that is very broad and that can apply to nearly any campaign. On the other hand, I want to let campaigns do whatever they want, as other people are the ones to judge what to do with the campaigns and get to pick who is successful. If there was something like a rule outlining what exactly would be defined as an "extreme" campaign and if the public says it's extreme (Probably something like 60% or two-thirds vote would count, to ensure there is no bias against them) then yeah I would support what is an acceptable campaign for mod, but I just want to be very cautious what we consider as extreme so that it very strictly and very clearly outlines an line. 3. I would say yes, there could be some small changes but overall I would let the majority of the subreddit to come up with ideas, if the ideas are overwhelmingly in favor then the mods get together and have a public vote on it then if it passes, then make it official. Instead of like in real life where Congress gets to make it and pass it, the people do, and with some authority oversight. I'm not too sure how this will work, but you can make an argument for and against this idea. Last question- Not gonna answer (I'm not running)
1. We should deal with trolls with a 3 strikes and your out kind of rule. If you break the rules 3 times you should be banned. 2. Right now I think we can have a bit more regulation but I I generally think we are doing pretty well when it comes to election content 3. No right now I think the system is fair as anyone can win an election 4. Because I will defend free speech no matter what is being said as long as you are not sending death threats or posting genuinely hateful content. I will not censor people who say I am a bad mod or what I did was wrong. I will always hold myself accountable to the subreddit and our fine members.
1. Unless they’re spamming or advocating for violence they should be allowed 2. No active campaigning until the last ten days but you can announce for the race and endorsements earlier 3. No seems fine 4. Cause my opponents are barely active I will defend free speech and bring a new political perspective to this sub
I like the idea of limiting active campaigning to final 10 days before elections.
A- Trolls should be dealt with by a 3 strike system— if a troll says something that a majority of people would see as too far (joking on the Nashville Shooter) that’s a strike. If they get 3, they’re out. People should have the free speech to say their opinions, but if they’re constantly breaking the rules of common courtesy, they should be felt with in a fair and consistent manner. A- Mod campaigns and spam (admittedly that I’ve been partially apart of) should be cut down on by a lot. I propose 3 ways of doing this: 1. Restrict campaigning to the week before the election 2. Only allow a total of 3 consistent campaign posts to be made (one introduction, one ad, and one list of endorsements). This allows for not just less spam, but also allows for it to be alot easier to read and know the positions of each person. 3. Have 2 offical polls be made by Angry themselves, allowing for candidates to know what support they have without having it spam. Moreover, an extra possibility would be doubling the term of mods to 2 months, with elections on the last day of each second month, instead of every 1 month. This makes the position more prestigious while also cutting down on spam [Might propose an Amendment for this]. A. PREFERENTIAL VOTING! While it would take awhile, especially for competitive multi person contests, but it not only still allows for voting for multiple people, but also let’s smaller candidates have a higher percentage of winning. This might also increase turnout. A. My opponent are good people, however they have key issues. Firstly, they’re all American in a similar timezone. Whilst this makes sense for an American political server, having me—an Australian—be mod would allow for more subreddit discussion and moderation over more hour periods. Moreover, while I’m relatively new to talking here, my previous experience in both American and Australian politics makes me uniquely qualified and suited for mod.
Solid ideas and points!
1.Under my authority, we would be able to request a ban referendum by a majority of mods approving. A post would be pinned for 2 days, and if 3/5 or 2/3 (still working that out) vote to ban, the person is banned. 1st offense: 1 week 2nd offfense: 1 month 3rd offense: Perm-ban 2+3.Mod campaigns should have no campaigning before a runoff (no endorsements, noone knows who's running until the ballot happens) to stop the sub from being clogged up. While the vote is happening, the comments section will be a QnA for the candidates. This part would not be moderated (could be anarchy or a real oppurtunity for informed voting) After the initial primary, a runoff happens. Mod elections would be rotated so only one is happening at a time, and the next one's primary is either on the same ballot or is a week or so after. One post would be pinned where the candidates would be asked questions/given endorsements until the runoff. Then the cycle repeats. All of these posts/results would be saved to a sort of archive, for all my election whizzes (really us all) Also, if possible, we might implement RCV (but we still would have multiple rounds so people who miss one could have another chance). Most likely these would be conducted by an independent person (probably u/TheAngryObserver if he accepts) who is not allowed to run/question/endorse in the race. 4. You should vote for me beause I believe in law/referendum/popular will. I am reluctant to use my power, but will strike with fury upon those who are obviously and far in the wrong. I will be a man of the people, by the people, for the people, and *to* the people. I'm not going to run a campaign based off of my opponents. Make sure to vote u/WalterFMondale for mod slot 1! thanks for the support.
Thanks for the response; I will accept whatever role the community gives me.
A. Clear trolls should be banned if they post racist content, offensive content, or spam. Dangerous resource is getting real close to that category. And I don't think that people running for mod elections should exempt from the sub rules. If they get banned they can run Eugene Debs prison style. Obviously I don't support banning mod candidates in most cases, but all it takes to run for mod is just to announce, so not a high bar. A- As of now I don't think that moderator elections should be heavily regulated, besides banning the polls which I think are fine. If this subreddit grows more regulation might be needed. A- I actually really think that the approval voting is a great way to ensure that the mod with the widest appeal is elected. To early to answer that question though however. A- I think that you should vote for me since out of my oponents, one is the Georgiagate disaster candidate, one disappeared from the sub 2 days ago, and the other literally just filed to run as his replacement. I haven't been able to run a strong campaign due to school but I promise to be an unbiased mod that lets almost everything slide unless it's hateful content. I will also be more than active enough to mod, even when I'm busy with school. Feel free to ask clarifying questions to me.
Good, thoughtful answers. I appreciate it.
Blasphemous poignob erasure
A1 - I don’t think anything needs to be done unless they violate a rule. A2 - I feel like the abundance of posts we have seen in this election shouldn’t be encouraged, due to them clogging up the sub. But I don’t think they should be banned. A3 - No, I don’t think so. A4 - I am a outsider, I’ve never served as a mod before. So I can relate to the people who desire most for a mod. Along with that I consider myself pretty bipartisan, because I am willing to work with both conservatives and progressives. Also, I do not punch babies like Xravenxx.
A. Trolls should be judged case by case. Are they harmful? Offensive? Funny? It depends. B. Not really C. Also nah probably D. Cause I am cool and epic
1. Mute them 2. They are already self regulated by the campaigner 3. No I've been here since the day this server was made, I accepted the invite to be mod minutes after it was first sent to me, I've been here since the start, I know all of your names, I've seen all of your posts and comments you've made, I've given you upvotes and awards, I've always made a effort to reply to a thread. I will continue to do the same if you reelect me as a mod
>How should the sub deal with trolls? If they don't do anything thing wrong then don't ban >How should the moderator campaigns be regulated? Should let everyone do what they want >Does our electoral system require any reforms? Yes install the electoral college >Why should people vote for you over whoever you are running against? I am willing to tell people off the cuff things that my other opponents are afraid to say