I thought this might be worth a little bit of discussion at the moment.

We’ve had a few communities started by existing subs on the other site, some making it clear that it’s staking a claim to the same name on here in case they ever decide to move, but that they have no plans to at the moment, and will not be doing any moderating.

I have to be honest, this kinda rubs me the wrong way. It feels like hedging your bets, running one community, not running the other one, but still intending to be in charge if it takes off despite that.

If you’d like to start a community here in the same style as an existing one, that’s great, go for it!
Moderate, post great content, grow!

But if you’re aiming to put your name on undeveloped land, in the hope that when you come back someone will have built a farm, I’m not sure it’s very helpful.

Discussion encouraged!

  • GoodKingElliotEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    https://feddit.uk/c/ukpersonalfinance is another one that is closed and being squatted upon. I understand the reasoning, but personally it really rubs me the wrong way. If you can’t moderate it, I don’t think you should squatted on it for more than a few days or a week. I think there should be an expedited way to claim squatted-upon communities.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝AEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, they joined 8 days ago, started the community (added no icon, banner or description) and have yet to post.

      There may be a plan (it’s a big undertaking, they may be assembling a mod team as we speak) but, if there is, they aren’t sharing.

      Feel free to drop them a (polite) message and ask if they want to chip in here. Getting more perspectives on this issue will really help.

    • GreatAlbatrossOPMAEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      I saw that one. Quite honestly, the biggest thing for me is working out what is, and isn’t, allowed. And any special circumstances. (For example, locking a name until a team steps forward with a solid plan).

      The actual resolution of squatting isn’t too difficult, but it is a bit “nuclear option” (admin removing a user, or the sub).
      So the surrounding framework/ruleset needs to happen, otherwise it could undermine confidence in people putting effort into communities.