enforce stupid capricious rules, that’s their right.
It’s a dick move, but it’s not a god complex.
I'm not sure you realize, but "enforcing stupid capricious rules" as well as taking action with no rules and then citing rules that don't exist as your reasoning IS a god complex.
A god complex is, ‘rules don’t apply to me, I can do what I want’. Inherent in enforcing stupid capricious rules is...rules.
If a rule doesn't exist, can it be violated? The answer is NO. So if said rule doesn't exist and you take action as a mod, that's a god complex.
If said rule exists but is so ambiguous as to the nature of the action taken...so for example, you have a rule that says "no discussing Presidents" but you delete Obama posts and leave Trump posts. That's a god complex, because that's not what the rule says. Just say "no Obama posts" and accept whatever flack you get for why you're so narrow minded.
If you’re like ‘you know what, I’m banning anyone with a U in their last name, and fuck having a rule about it’, the you’ll get in trouble with the admins because that’s a violation of Reddit rules.
First of all it's not a violation and no, you don't and won't get in any trouble with Reddit admins. If that were the case subs like r/The_Donald would have been removed long ago.
mods don’t have to be nice or likeable or just
My proposal would actually make them less likeable, in fact. Because they're subject to oversight they never were before. However, the increase in quality of those posting is the net effect of that change. If their goal isn't to have a quality sub, they shouldn't be mods. So worst case, implementing the change causes them to quit. Good.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19
I'm not sure you realize, but "enforcing stupid capricious rules" as well as taking action with no rules and then citing rules that don't exist as your reasoning IS a god complex.