This will be a long post so I will keep the intro short: I am running for Head Mod to implement this platform. I encourage you to read it in full and comment any concerns so I can address them. In this post, I will talk about my plans for reform, as well as why I think they are necessary and how we ended up here.

If elected, I intend to implement all of the below within the first hundred days.

Sanity

The approach to AusSim moderation taken for the past few years has been completely backwards. The mod team have seen their job as tinkering with the meta aspects of the sim, constantly changing them to be as close as possible to MHoC's model -- which is seen as some kind of platonic ideal.

Let's be clear: MHoC has the moderation structure it does because of its size. It does not, as the mods seem to believe, have its size because of its moderation structure. This is self-evident, considering all these MHoC Reforms have failed to truly revitalise the sim.

Below are specific policies to fix this, but I first want to talk about the guiding principle I would run the sim under: the primary function of the Moderation Team is the smooth running of the game. The most important component of the game is canon, and everything it encompasses.

Many Moderation Teams have seen AusSim as primarily a social club. If you believe that, it's easy to believe your most important role is meta moderation -- so you can keep the undesirables out of the social club. I would, instead, focus on expanding the player base and revitalising the canon.

To that end, if elected, I will implement the following changes:

The removal of Parliament Moderator: The PM role might be required for a large, thriving sim with dozens of bills a term. We are not that sim. Their powers will be split between the Speaker -- elected by the Parliament -- any Clerks the Speaker sees fit to appoint, and the Head Moderator.

The removal of Community Moderator: The CM role might be required for a large, thriving sim with too many infractions for a smaller team to manage. We are not that sim. Their powers will be split between the Community Commission and the Head Moderator.

The removal of Electoral Moderator: The EM role might be required for a large, thriving sim where having the assent of a tetrarchy (the ACTUAL term for when the joint rule of four. The hacks of MHoC thought they could just extrapolate triumvirate to quadumvirate but this isn't a real thing) is necessary. We are not that sim. A new role, the Electoral Commissioner, will handle the running of elections but have no moderation powers beyond an advisory role.

Reform to the Guardians: First of all, there will only be one Guardian. The duplication of the role serves literally no purpose. Further, the Guardian's role will be clarified in the Meta Constitution to prevent them overreaching their role.

If I am elected Head Mod, the Guardian will have the following functions:

• The ownership of the Discord and Subreddits. The Guardian is not to use this power to issue mutes or bans except in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, such as if a member is currently doxxing others. The Guardian feeling upset is not considered an exceptional circumstance.

• The running of meta votes, so as to ensure confidence in the process. The Community Commission shall have the right to request full access to the results.

• Advice to the Moderation Team when it is requested.

The return of the Community Commission: So as to avoid the Head Mod gaining near unlimited power, the Community Commission will be reconstituted. Some have claimed this is a bad idea due to the Commission's lack of activity. I would counter that the only reason for this is the dramatic overexpansion of the Moderation Team, which left the Commission with nothing to do. I would further add that it will be the responsibility of the Head Moderator to keep the Commission alive.

The functions of this new Community Commission are explained in section three, Democracy.

I'd also like to point out that I am open to restoring all these abolished decisions, but only if the player base is large enough to justify it.

Activity

Again, the function of the Moderation Team should be to keep canon alive. It is not enough to simply hope that new members will come along.

The Moderation Team has two options for increasing activity: indirect and direct. I intend to take advantage of both.

Indirect: The best way we can get active is by increasing the player base. This is what I mean by an indirect method of increasing activity.

To my knowledge I am the only Head Mod candidate with advertising qualifications and experience. I will use that to open new marketing channels for AusSim, which will hopefully attract new members.

Direct: This will not be enough on its own. In recognition of that, I will restore the Events Team to active use. I will also work with the Electoral Commissioner to impose significant modifier rewards to parties that engage with Events, and modifier penalties to those who don't.

While these modifier changes are a drastic step, they are necessary. Mid-term Events are the best tool we have for keeping the player base engaged -- it also gives non-parliamentarians an opportunity to get involved.

Restoration of the ABC: The Head Moderator and Electoral Commissioner will make up the ABC Editorial Board, and they will have the responsibility of regularly posting ABC articles.

However, other members may submit articles to the ABC, which will be published provided they meet standards of objectivity. This will those who wish to get involved with the ABC to, without leaving Parliament.

Democracy

For too long, the Moderation Team has tried to act unilaterally on the assumption that any community backlash will be mitigated by lack of candidates -- simply, they assume that the lack of good candidates for the (far too many) moderation roles will keep people from VoNCing them when they otherwise would. The Team, with pure MHoC brain rot, act as though our community is too large for direct democracy. This is obviously wrong.

I wish to bring as much transparency and accountability to Australia Sim as possible. This is how:

The Community Commission The Community Commission shall consist of a representative of each party with parliamentary representation, plus four community elected members. The idea is that, by engaging with the game, your party earns the right to help govern how it is played. The only restriction is that the elected members must have been Parliamentarians within the past year -- they may be current Parliamentarians.

The functions of the Commission will be as follows: * To review ban appeals. (More on this later) * To provide feedback on proposed Meta Rules and Meta Constitution Amendments. * To provide advice on request of the Head Moderator * To make determinations about canon issues. For example, if an event happens that may warrant decanonisation, this will be up to the Community Commission to determine. The Head Moderator or Guardian may advise the Commission, but cannot overrule their decision. Since decanonisation affects the playing of the game, it should be determined by people who have proven their primary concern is playing the game.

A public appeals process: Right now, AusSim has no formal ban appeals process. It's all vibes based and up to the whim of the Moderation Team. This is ridiculous, and should be changed.

I will allow a public appeals process, to take place on a new subreddit. If somebody is banned, they have a right to have their appeal publicly viewable. This is the only way to ensure the Moderation Team is truly accountable.

It shall ultimately be up to the Community Commission, through simple majority vote, to make the final decision on bans. There are only two exceptions: * When a member is banned for actions that threaten the safety of the sim: for example, actions that are illegal. * When a member has been constitutionally banned through the will of the people.

As part of this process, the Head Moderator is required to disclose any evidence. The only exception is when the evidence contains content that threatens the safety of the sim: for example, when a member is banned for being a pedophile.

The Head Moderator will be required to disclose the reason for every ban, even if they are not required to post evidence. This is to avoid situations like what happened recently, where the community interprets "no evidence will be disclosed" as the banned member being a pedophile -- a recently banned member did not, in fact, do anything of the sort: but that is now the common perception of them. This is morally abhorrent and will not happen if I am elected.

The restoration of Room-101: I will restore a channel where muted users may speak. I will also make this channel viewable by all members through an opt-in process. Ordinary members will only be able to view the messages, and cannot send their own or react.

This lets muted members share their side of the story.

An end to the automod slur filter: The automod slur filter is not fit for purpose. It is ridiculously overtuned and often mutes members who have done nothing wrong. Instead, it will be the responsibility of the Moderation Team to issue mutes and warnings for usage of banned words.

Mutes issued from time of last offence: The purpose of mutes is primarily to prevent behaviour. The secondary purpose is to act as punishment and deterrent. To this end, mutes will be issued from the time of last offence, rather than when it is noticed.

For example, if a member posts a message that warrants a 24 hour mute, and a Moderator notices six hours later, that member will receive an 18 hour mute. If a moderator steps in and mutes a member during an ongoing offence, they will receive a mute as normal.

Conclusion Okay so that's basically the long and short of it. Mucho Texto, I know, but please do read it. And if another candidate is successful, I hope you consider implementing much of this.

And of course, questions are welcomed.