most recent 30 from meta.stackoverflow.com 2025-08-05T10:01:37Z https://meta.stackoverflow.com/feeds/question/425311 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/425311 -46 machine_1 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/2474248 2025-08-05T16:31:34Z 2025-08-05T14:20:26Z

<p>There is an ongoing moderation strike across the Stack Exchange network. This has resulted in noticeable cut down on curating activities and a rise in pending flags.</p> <p>Apparently, there doesn't seem to be any compromises from the company's end to the demands of the striking parties, so I was thinking about what the SE management could do in an attempt to counter the dwindling moderation activities as a temporary measure:</p> <p>One viable option is to conduct urgent moderator elections with reduced nomination requirements ahead of the annual elections period paving the way for users who always wanted to hold the title of moderator, but could not meet the requirements of nomination with their current progress.</p> <p>Is this something SE management would seriously consider and theoretically could this work in their favor?</p>

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/425311/-/425312#425312 19 E_net4 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/1233251 2025-08-05T17:23:45Z 2025-08-05T04:32:14Z

<p>It sounds unlikely that they would be interested in doing that.</p> <p>The best candidates for the position of moderator continue to be those with their values aligned with those who are currently on strike. A moderator election happening at this time would have likely resulted in applications such as these:</p> <blockquote> <p>I am E_net4, and <strong>I will join the ongoing moderator strike if elected</strong>.</p> <p>[continues with moderator's answers to questions and other key points]</p> </blockquote> <p>So, things would stay roughly the same in practice. And this would still be the <em>best case scenario</em>.</p> <p>The other scenarios that I can think of, in ascending order of gravity:</p> <ul> <li>If the company itself intervened and invalidated the submissions of users who announce that they will go on strike afterwards, we would be at risk of having to pick lower quality candidates, with all that it entails.</li> <li>Rather than elections, management would continue to gather more staff to moderate. In this case then, they would regret having laid off so many people recently.</li> <li>Rather than elections, or even allocating staff to become community moderators, in their desperation for people to moderate (and I know I am giving them a dangerous idea, so I'm leaving this preamble right now because, dear Lord, <strong>don't you all even dare consider doing this</strong> <h2>I am dead serious</h2>) ... they would appoint or extend site-wide moderator privileges to more users based on subpar criteria, such as being recognized members in a Collective.</li> </ul> <p>But at this point it's safe to say that coming to an agreement with the company might still be a path of less friction. That, or we'll definitely be in a position to say that it's no longer worth it.</p>

百度