I think on most sites this discussion isn't even worth having, knowing the type of people it would attract. But I have faith that Tildes can maintain civil discourse on this.

For those unfamiliar, for threads on r/BPT that receive an influx of racists and trolls the mods have implemented a sort of soft-lock where only verified users are allowed to post. However, the verification process strikes me as toeing the line of what should be acceptable in an online community. Essentially it breaks down to this:

1. Are you black? Give us proof of the color of your skin and you'll be verified and flaired with your race.
2. Are you a "non-white POC"? You can be verified but will receive no flair.
3. Are you white? Talk to the mods to receive further instructions...

I understand the rationale, but subtly race-gating threads feels icky no matter the reason.

I'm just curious how many people still use IRC (Internet Relay Chat) here. And if you use it, what do you use it for? Is there anything (server/channels, etc) that you would recommend to others?

I use it a bit, mostly for casual chatting on tildeverse.org servers, the SDF server, or on Freenode. On Freenode, I also use it when I need to interact with FOSS developers who use IRC as one of their main forms of support.

I limited the intake of high volume news and I'm currently taking a break from social media. I've been enjoying to occasionally visit blogs directly as my source of online reading. I tend to enjoy short essays, opinions, and honest observations. What blogs have you been following lately that you think are worth taking a look at?

P.s.
If it's your own, please shoot me a direct message: I'd love to check it out.

First post on Tildes (though I've commented some before). I'm a mod on one of the "beta" sites, and have been for almost four years now.

I don't follow any of the other sites really, and certainly not Meta, so the whole Monica scandal kinda happened without me noticing. After the fallout (or amidst, I guess), Shog9 and several other community managers that I liked were fired, with seemingly no notice or cause.

Then after that, there seemed to be a push to create a "mod council" to create standards for behavior and for removal and reinstatement of moderators.

But the whole thing has seemed so needless, everything could have been cleared up with a few heartfelt announcements (and/or apologies), and the executive team at SE has just been so damn opaque about everything.

Then, to top things off for me personally, the community leaders were explicit in stating that the votes for members of the mod council would not be treated as binding, so what's the point? They can just be a rubber stamp at that point if they're not freely elected. The new moderator rules are "abide by the council-approved rules and whatever the community managers say." The new moderator rules also say "moderators will be removed and reinstated per the council-approved procedure for doing so, except when SE doesn't want to use that policy."

The mod council vote was non-binding, and then SE is making it a point to clearly state that the rules approved by the council don't matter.

It's this last bit that is coming as too much of an insult for me. I've told my fellow moderators that I'm not planning on signing the agreement. I don't understand why there has to be such an adversarial relationship here when I'm volunteering my time.

I don't want to leave, but everything is just rubbing me the wrong way. Please someone help me understand how I'm wrong. I just can't understand the way things have been publicly announced.