i think you need to clarify what you wanted to achieve with the changes you were trying to make. there was an ideological motive behind them. make that motive clear to people. and then you should hold some sort of mod selection process so that you're not the only mod, or not mod at all if it turns out that you don't have the trust of members. suddenly taking control of the community under difficult circumstances, and making major changes that compromise the integrity of the community, before having to reverse them due to general outcry from members, is ambitious, in quite a concerning way.
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Liberty Hub
269 readers
273 users here now
- No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
- No defending oppressive systems or organizations
- No uncivil or rude comments to other users
- Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
- No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
I thought the motivation for the changes was obvious. The interpretation of the rules by the former moderator was so narrow, the community ended up (banning people for having left-wing views) and enforcing liberalism. There was no room for discussion, because if you had a discussion, the worst was assumed and you were banned. It went against the core ethos of the community. It seems that Kittenzrulz only wanted to bring the enforcement of the rules more in line with their spirit. There was never any wish to allow liberal points of view, only points of view from people further to the left like soulists and other schools of anarchism.
the community ended up banning people for [...] enforcing liberalism.
That's because this explicitly goes against rules 2 and 5
No defending oppressive systems or organizations
No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
You've misread that sentence. The community ended up banning people. The people had left wing views. The community ended up enforcing liberalism. I understand how grammatically that sentence was ambiguous, but surely you could have extended the benefit of the doubt to My intentions and realised I was against liberalism.
People were banned for bringing liberalism where it's explicitly stated to not be allowed.
The sentence was confusing because it's the complete opposite of what actually happened.
Unless soulism preaches a different definition of liberalism, because midtraveler also has a strange definition of liberalism.
I'll start choosing new moderators soon
i didn't mean you should choose new mods. i mean the remaining members should choose new mods.
and again, what were you trying to achieve? what was the ideological motive?
what were your ambitions?
seriously, the way you're responding to feedback does not give anyone the slightest bit of confidence.
Agreed, I think decisions about this community should be in the hands of the community and fully transparent, not random and unexplained.
So, this is good. Thank you. the transparency you've had so far is nice, please keep it up!
I'd say try to do things like libertyhub has been going from before? come back and ask for feedback after you've been running it for a while ♥️
oh and yes, like others suggested a moderation team might not be bad 😅