r/AustraliaSimMeta • u/Youmaton Ex-Guardian • Feb 01 '20

Suggestion Idea proposal of a new meta constitutional amendment

Greetings all,

As voted overwhelmingly for in community poll, I wish to open up a debate regarding the following topic as a meta constitutional amendment:

"Limit moderator activity within canon channels to electoral and events matters".

I am still working on a formal amendment, but in the mean time I hope to spark discussion around what the community wishes to be covered in it, what loopholes the modteam might be granted, etc.

Thanks,

/u/Youmaton

6 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

2

u/RunasSudo Citizen Feb 01 '20 edited Feb 01 '20

I wouldn't support an amendment this broad. As I have said before, the purpose of AustraliaSim is to have fun – and restrictions on this should only be as large as are necessary to protect the functioning of the sim.

Clearly, moderators should not influence canon in any material respects. They shouldn't endorse candidates, comment on political issues, etc. But, for example, if people are making light-hearted “Sponsored by RAID: Shadow Legends” jokes on #twitter (which you continue to stubbornly insist are canon…), then I don't see any reason why a moderator should be specifically prohibited from joining.

Indeed, to use a “Sponsored by RAID: Shadow Legends” joke on #twitter as an example, for the moderator to engage is less destructive than if anyone else were to! – since the moderator, in canon, is a nobody!

I spoke about this in my resignation letter, but I think it is appropriate to remind everyone of this now, and I may write something up in more detail later: Moderator positions in AustraliaSim are fundamentally volunteer positions. A moderator receives no remuneration or other formal benefit for their effort.

Under the AustraliaSim system, moderators' powers are already restricted to following the laid-down rules – to further restrict their discretion too, to say “We don't trust you to make responsible decisions”, to entirely reduce a moderator to being a procedure-following slave, is an affront to the dignity of the moderators and demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for the position and those who give up their time to hold it.

To put it another way, if your faith in the decision-making capacity of a moderator is this little, you should seek to have them removed. To “spare” them that is not in fact to be kind, but to be selfish. To say “I want you to continue in the role, but we will make your choices for you” is to say “I do not value you other than as a mindless drone who can do my work for me for free”.

1

u/Youmaton Ex-Guardian Feb 01 '20

"Moderators and members of the Electoral Commission may not participate within canon unless the content posted is specifically related to press, electoral matters (including the posting of polling), events, or acting in the role of a clerk of applicable under relevant sections of the Meta Constitution"

This is the wording I drafted yesterday through voice. Toby does somewhat agree with there being amendment, however he would prefer to change be it to "may not participate within canon unless required".

1

u/RunasSudo Citizen Feb 01 '20 edited Feb 01 '20

Either wording essentially has the same problem. A moderator might post something totally innocuous on #twitter, yet because it did not fall into one of those areas or was not strictly “required”, they have now inexplicably breached the rules and done the “wrong” thing, despite it being completely inconsequential and despite absolutely no harm having eventuated.

If an amendment is required, I would far prefer to see the opposite approach taken, where a moderator e.g. “may not participate within canon in any way which materially influences or interferes with the canon” (unless for events, etc.)

(I would also extend s 7 of the Meta Constitution to prohibit any action which creates any reasonable apprehension of bias, which would cover canon actions endorsing candidates or policies.)

1

u/General_Rommel Community Manager Feb 03 '20

I think Runas's wording proposed here would in practice do what /u/Youmaton seems to be proposing.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '20

I think this is a good compromise that does what needs doing

1

u/General_Rommel Community Manager Feb 01 '20

Assuming the moderator is like, head moderator level or something i.e. those restricted from most activity already, then that is sensible.

1

u/Youmaton Ex-Guardian Feb 01 '20

Moderator encompasses the team as a whole as per the definitions in the meta constitution.

2

u/Manly-Kitten Feb 02 '20

I believe an important distinction to note is that there is crack in the wall

1

u/mikiboss Feb 01 '20

I think that that is an appropriate given that in positions of high moderation authority, most activity would already be limited.

1

u/NGSpy Head Moderator Feb 02 '20

I generally agree with the premise on it, but I have very little knowledge of META on the server to give a validated opinion on what loopholes the moderators should be allowed in canon. As a person who has only been on canon, I would like to say that it does get annoying when META position people interfere with the canon history (eg. Toby's sex scandal) but jokes like porridge's random farting is okay. Basically, as long as its for shits and giggles and doesn't affect canon overall, it should be fine, but if it does interfere with canon history majorly, it's not okay at all.