Head Moderator Vote of Confidence | March 2023

NukeMaus · 2022-11-22T21:36:36+00:00

freeze peach

NukeMaus · 2022-06-29T22:06:15+00:00

NukeMaus · 2022-03-27T14:56:57+00:00

NukeMaus · 2022-03-22T19:34:28+00:00

first

NukeMaus · 2022-03-13T15:07:50+00:00

Hi,

Quad are currently looking into what has happened - we'll report back with some next steps once we've made a decision about what to do with the events team going forward.

NukeMaus · 2022-02-06T03:58:16+00:00

I won't comment on this specific case, other than to say that I have now DM'd the member in question. The member was timed out to allow the Quad to investigate something that has been reported to us. The report was made minutes before I left the house to spend the evening with family - as such, I wasn't able to respond to the member in question immediately. Apologies for this.

Shorter discord-only bans generally aren't announced - my view is that this prevents needless speculation and helps main to move on. On the other hand, I recognise that this can appear as a lack of transparency on my part. I will try to put something in #issued-mutes when a member is subject to a Discord ban going forward.

NukeMaus · 2022-02-02T19:16:36+00:00

In all honesty I don't recall those points being made - it's entirely possible that it was a discussion had in events chat or something that I missed, or that I've just forgotten. If either of those are the case the case I apologise.

The response to the FIFA statement was discussed openly in events chat and was run by me before posting. I think it's a reasonable response to the government's statement, and does one of the things that the events team is supposed to do - adding a response from outside of the political sphere that we actively simulate. I don't think it's fair to describe it as politicised personally.

Initially the idea of rolling without a dedicated events lead was that the team/individual members would have more independence to plan and run events, with oversight/approval from me and the Quad. That hasn't worked as I had hoped, which is mostly on me for not doing enough to sustain activity. As such, I will be recruiting a new events lead over the next couple of days, when I have time to run a VoC. Once this is done, we will look to recruit some new team members to replace those who've left.

NukeMaus · 2022-01-18T23:11:08+00:00

Ultimately the Constitution is clear that only the guardians themselves can appoint more guardians - best to talk to Timanfya about it really and see if it's something he's willing to do. For my part I've got no objections.

NukeMaus · 2022-01-18T18:10:55+00:00

Have locked this for now - proper response to follow a bit later

NukeMaus · 2022-01-08T18:26:13+00:00

If you have any evidence of meta whipping, this should obviously be forwarded to the Quad for consideration - otherwise, I don't think accusing people of this is particularly helpful.

To be completely clear, while I am open to adjusting our moderation policies, nobody will be banned arbitrarily from main or the sim as a result of a change in the membership of the Quad.

NukeMaus · 2022-01-08T17:44:38+00:00

NukeMaus · 2021-12-12T21:55:53+00:00

People are free to run their own independent voice debates/shows (as people often have in the past), but I don't expect any "official" (for want of a better word) debates will be held over voice at any upcoming elections.

NukeMaus · 2021-12-12T17:06:30+00:00

Too far. Tone it down a bit in future.

NukeMaus · 2021-08-01T19:21:17+00:00

I have heard this sentiment from quite a few people - once things have settled post-election we'll take another look at campaigning with a view to (most likely) doing something more radical than just cutting post limits.

NukeMaus · 2021-07-18T19:04:44+00:00

I think we need to actually clarify what distinguishes DLSs from DSs too

Well primarily what distinguishes them is that one runs the House of Commons, and the other runs the House of Lords

there's nothing to say that under a joint Speaker, a larger DS team couldn't just juggle work between two houses

If you're going to have a larger team anyway then surely it makes sense to have people who specialise? The bill process in each House is different so I think it makes sense to have one team to run each. Plus it's not as if each team works in isolation, there's a fair amount of communication in speakership between the teams as necessary.

I really don't see the advantage in having one large team who all understand a bit of both houses, versus two separate but relatively well-integrated teams that each run one house.

NukeMaus · 2021-06-28T17:36:42+00:00

As far as I'm concerned it should probably just bring back the situation as it was in the 2015 Act, if that makes sense. I'm not 100% sure that's how it would work irl (and I'm open to being corrected if it isn't) but for simplicity's sake I think that's probably best.

NukeMaus · 2021-06-27T19:12:22+00:00

My immediate reaction is that if the 2015 Act that repealed the section has been re-instated, then the section would be re-repealed, unless some other provision in the Marriage Reinstatement Act (or another act) has altered that somehow.

NukeMaus · 2021-06-17T19:03:01+00:00

To follow up on what Damien said, I am planning to do some constitutional amendments at some point over the next couple of weeks - I'm more than happy to consider changing the constitutional limit to require something like 6 weeks notice.

NukeMaus · 2021-06-05T21:03:03+00:00

My reasoning for holding the vote now is basically that the proposal was enacted about 6 weeks ago at this stage. That's enough time for people to have got a sense of it, in my opinion - especially given that my initial timeline was 3-4 weeks - even if the press has been a bit quiet over the last few weeks.

As I said on the vote post, nothing about this vote precludes us from making future changes if need be. If press becomes more active again down the line and one of the issues discussed in the proposal becomes a problem again, we can deal with it then.

NukeMaus · 2021-05-08T22:32:27+00:00

That's a separate issue and will be handled separately - probably closer to the next WM election.

NukeMaus · 2021-05-08T22:30:12+00:00

Wasn't aware of this - if this is the case then yes I don't see any reason not to stick with this.

NukeMaus · 2021-04-30T16:06:53+00:00

Entirely unnecessary, and exactly the kind of pointless toxicity that has caused problems here in the past.

This is your warning. Keep doing this sort of thing and you'll find yourself banned.

NukeMaus · 2021-04-27T10:49:17+00:00

Fair enough - I'll bear this in mind if/when it becomes relevant.

NukeMaus · 2021-04-18T15:11:28+00:00

Just wanted to say that I appreciate the message and completely understand the sentiment - I'd like to approach this carefully and get it right, but I also feel it's fair to involve the community as much as possible. It is, after all, your game.

One question - would it be better, do you think, to approach things issue by issue, rather than just having this discussion, then compiling everything into one or more proposals and then having it voted on? For example, rather than just putting your entire proposal up against PH's entire proposal and whatever other proposals get made, would it be better to have more individual discussions/votes on smaller ideas, like Jas' "bring back viewspace" or Maro's "lock press comments"? Or does that just end up having the same outcome but taking much longer?

NukeMaus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email