You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 3 points 14 points (+17|-3) ago 

There are a lot of reasons the suggestion is bad.


[–] Antimatter 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

Yeah. I don't really agree with it. I understand mod abuse is an issue but having elections like this will make the "good" mods unwilling to invest their time into the sub. I don't think this is the right "fix" for this issue.


[–] Zkv 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I'm with you on this one. The moderator who is now potentially being removed has CREATED the community that people are subscribing to, that has to be worth something. If a mod faces removal from the sub, does that really make them a better moderator who is better for the community? Or does that make them weaker, more ineffective, and a slave to the bandwagon?


[–] tpdplsio 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Agreed. Mods should be removed if they are abusing the sub or not observing their own rules or shit like that. Having elections will just be a mess and cause drama, especially if Atko and Puttitout start offering financial incentives for the mods of successful subs. I really think having to campaign and other similar bullshit will discourage good people from wanting to be mods and building up subs they're passionate about.


[–] gatordontplaythatsht [S] 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Like you losing mod status because you're shit at it?


[–] Antimatter 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

I don't think you're getting the problem. Even mods who aren't shit at their job can be voted out. All this will accomplish is mods side stepping every issue to avoid angering the community. One small mistake and that's it.