So there should be an authority above moderators that determines which moderators are fit to moderate? I don’t see that being abused, ever.
You’re probably right, though. We don’t need gatekeepers keeping good people out. We need gatekeepers keeping things on topic and keeping bad people out. And by good and bad, I don’t even mean morals, I mean, those who contribute and those who are a detriment. The problem is figuring out who’s who. If I get a pretty nasty reply, I like to look at the user’s post history. I know that’s considered rude, but it can be enlightening. If the person generally helps someone, and then there’s their comment to me, maybe another rude one, I think, I don’t know this person’s life, maybe they’re going through something, maybe it’s just a bad day. And I can forgive that. But if all they do is spew vitriol… that’s an easy block.
But do I ever think everyone should be like me, or make decisions like I do? No, never. I recognise that too often, people who make bad decisions, or who decide poorly about things, do think everyone should think like them, and that is a fundamental problem even if you have better intentions. No, we should all be free to be ourselves, and to make mistakes. I don’t know what kind of person should be a moderator. I tried it once, years ago. I was tested, and I do not think I did very well. My solution was “I’m not going to do this again.”
The authority should be the people. A community is for the people, by the people. All a moderator needs to do is keep the community happy, by removing obvious spam. If a post is having engagement, even if it slightly breaks the rules, you let it be.
Again, a moderator is not a king. He is there to serve the will of the people. A community is made by the people/community, not by the moderator.
No, creating a new community is not the way to solve this sort of thing. Removing and banning the power tripping mod is the solution.
There is also a power tripping mod on !pics!pics@lemmy.world. See this post: https://slrpnk.net/post/34743977?scrollToComments=true
So there should be an authority above moderators that determines which moderators are fit to moderate? I don’t see that being abused, ever.
You’re probably right, though. We don’t need gatekeepers keeping good people out. We need gatekeepers keeping things on topic and keeping bad people out. And by good and bad, I don’t even mean morals, I mean, those who contribute and those who are a detriment. The problem is figuring out who’s who. If I get a pretty nasty reply, I like to look at the user’s post history. I know that’s considered rude, but it can be enlightening. If the person generally helps someone, and then there’s their comment to me, maybe another rude one, I think, I don’t know this person’s life, maybe they’re going through something, maybe it’s just a bad day. And I can forgive that. But if all they do is spew vitriol… that’s an easy block.
But do I ever think everyone should be like me, or make decisions like I do? No, never. I recognise that too often, people who make bad decisions, or who decide poorly about things, do think everyone should think like them, and that is a fundamental problem even if you have better intentions. No, we should all be free to be ourselves, and to make mistakes. I don’t know what kind of person should be a moderator. I tried it once, years ago. I was tested, and I do not think I did very well. My solution was “I’m not going to do this again.”
The authority should be the people. A community is for the people, by the people. All a moderator needs to do is keep the community happy, by removing obvious spam. If a post is having engagement, even if it slightly breaks the rules, you let it be.
Again, a moderator is not a king. He is there to serve the will of the people. A community is made by the people/community, not by the moderator.
Agreed