Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Chat Moderator Request- TheLaatSurvivor

Vote Closed

Following the day's events on Discord, I am rescinding my request. For those unfamiliar with what has transpired, I will summarize here.

This morning at about 8 AM EST, I was contacted by an anonymous Discord user by the name "I Know." This user threatened to reveal my identity and address if I did not end this vote. At the time, I figured this to be an empty threat and called his bluff. I told a handful of trusted friends and others about the incident, and one of them discussed it with the admins. The warning was mostly ignored, and those that did respond called it a fake. Unfortunately, I had called a bluff when in fact there was none.

The same account, or an account of identical name, entered the chat at around 7:40 PM EST and delivered on his promise. He posted my full name and address. Although immediately deleted and the account banned, I do not feel chat moderator privileges are worth the potential danger of the situation and feel unsafe remaining in chat for the time being. Although I have my suspicions about certain character's involvements, I trust the staff will proceed with a thorough and proper investigation into the matter.

For those of you who want to see for yourself, I have created an imgur album with the relevant (censored) images here.

Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia.png (talk)

Note: There is a zero tolerance policy on doxxing on this wiki and on Fandom in general. When we find out who is responsible, they and anyone who aided and abetted this behavior will receive a permanent, global ban with no appeals. This behavior is unacceptable. Tägäżïël 08:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


Hey guys, it’s Laat again! Happy holidays and all that. But this is serious. This time I’m back and better than ever running for chat mod. Or dare I say… Chaat Mod? My approach to this, much like a good stool, stands on three legs.

The first of these legs is qualification. I have had extensive experience moderating and managing all manner of discord servers, and I am well acquainted with the tools allowed by the platform as well as the various bot functions in the server.

My second leg is opportunity. With the recent and indefinite departure of one of our most active chaat moderators, the man the myth the legend Soto himself, we currently only have two consistently active chaat moderators. Although others pop in and out for a day or even the span of a couple weeks, only two have remained as active participants in chaat. And as a quick study of culture and history can reveal, three is the ideal number in any situation.

My third and final leg is that of activity. As of now, I am the third most active member of this server of all time. A member for as far back as I care to remember, I have sturdy relationships built with many, if not most users that participate in our chat rooms and can count countless Nukapedians that I consider friends. Although not as objectively important as qualification or experience, I do sincerely believe the positive personal relationships I have built over the years on this server are as necessary for effective moderation than any sort of qualification or experience.

In conclusion, I myself am like a sturdy stool. I know how to hold you up, I have held up many people, and you’ve been sitting on me for years. So when it comes election time, vote me for a new Chat Mod. Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia.png (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


Laat is one of the most active members of the NP server. His behavior is exemplary. He also has experience in managing other discord servers. I trust that Laat will carry the role of chat moderator in a competent way. Jgrsoto Coat of arms of Puerto Rico.png 00:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


Poll finished on 1:42 am December 17, 2020 (UTC).
Icon vote.png
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.


  1. Yes See endorsement Jgrsoto Coat of arms of Puerto Rico.png 00:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Yes Yes. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 00:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Yes DankalorYT 00:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Yes - New California Ahoy Bear of the North Star lapel pin.png FO76 Red star pin.png "Who are you, that do not know their history?"
  5. Yes LLxMystic (talk)
  6. Yes Cool lads get yes votes :D Skysteam (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Yes Hell yeah man, doubts about it you'll make a great chat moderator. The Greatest Savior (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  8. YesUser:FalloutofStarWars2077 Sure. Go for it man if it makes you happy
  9. Yes Laat is a feisty lil thang with the knowledge and backbone to keep chat running smoothly. I trust him. User:PhantomMenace87
  10. Yes From what I've seen so far, Laat has been a welcoming and reasonable discussion moderator on Discord. This, paired with his frequent activity there, has shown me that he is dedicated to achieving this new position and convinced me to place a vote toward him. I will note that the no votes of certain members are concerning due to their reasons, but I have not been around on Discord long enough to voice my opinion on these events. I am hopeful that Laat will handle future situations with more delicacy and fairness. Katy Webb 21:42 EST 14 December 2020
  11. Yes User:Kmon814 Definite yes from me
  12. Yes So far all the no votes have been baseless claims and slander that have been proven false many times. Laat has had no involvement in any of the actions of Autumn and this has been proven many times over. Any comments about his discussions activity have no place, as he has been consistently active for years on Discord, which is what this vote is about. Any claims otherwise are outright lies and have no base here. UrbanAnge1
  13. YesThe Wandering Dragonborn (talk)
  14. Yes Conner x FE (talk) User:Conner x FE
  15. YesThis is you local Raat and I approve this messagesVery Cold Mothman Boah (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  16. Yes claims by the mods are baseless, his experience moderating Discord in a fair way and standing up for users being bullied into submission by the admins at the time, it should be a wholehearted yes from everyone With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  17. Yes Of course laat has plenty of experience moderating and a clean record of doing so . I also can’t help but notice a lot of the no votes are from people who rarely use or are not apart of discord. W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  18. Yes The comments about Laat I made in my old vote have not changed, you are welcome to read my previous vote in the “Excluded” Section in order to see what I think. I’m cutting it out of this vote for brevity's sake, not because my opinion has changed. Previously, I voted Neutral in order to attempt to give those making claims the opportunity to provide evidence but given a reanalysis of the situation, I am changing my vote to a solidified “Yes”, based on the fact it was practically a Yes to begin with. Any claims about Laat made by other users or even the moderators are either unsubstantiated, unevidenced or plain false. Laat did not contribute in Autumn’s little affair, I can tell you from my first-hand defense of the situation that Laat is not the person behind the leaks, and if association with banned users were enough to bring into question someone's ability to mod then half of our current admins, mods, and even crats would be fired for such reasons. And no, “Gut feeling that he’s guilty” isn’t enough. Previously I thought there was only one person left above the rank of moderator that I held no respect for and refused to acknowledge the authority of, however it seems that fact may have now changed. If you want to provide evidence to Laat’s guilt to anything then we all welcome you post it here, but if there is no such evidence, I shall remain calling it baseless slander. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  19. Yes After some discussion with other users, and reading over some votes, I've decided to vote in favor of Laat becoming a Chat Moderator. A big reason for my change is along the lines of what LovinglyGaslight has said. I'm seeing a lot of claims brought up against Laat, but nothing backing them up. I'm making the assumption that if these claims against Laat had truth to them, he wouldn't still be a moderator, so it's looking like slander and baseless accusations for now, which isn't right. With this, I see no reason Laat shouldn't be granted this position. Toronos (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  20. YesRedsoxfan55 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  21. Yes NukaModd (talk) Lovely Laat, my dearest friend upon the internet. It is to him whom I owe my life and limb for, under any circumstance. Laat is an honorable man, a brave soldier and a fellow after my own heart. Truly I say unto thee, after returning for merely a moment I have found dissension among the peoples of this perfectly moderated little website. Furthermore, I have found them undoubtedly blasphemous to your name. You are a man of pride and wonderful accomplishments! These words they speak are inconceivably foolish, and they will think twice when you prove them wrong. I am no stranger to the company of scoundrels, but you my friend, are not one of them. In all fairness, I am completely uninformed to any matter of the situation. However, I wish you grand success in your endeavors. May your graciously bestowed features- your masculine bosom and impenetrable jawline- be strengthened threefold by the hand of Yahweh himself.
    (How much am I getting paid to say all of this btw??)
  22. Yes Changing my vote to a yes as a show of support and act of protest over the childish bullshit that just went down on the discord over this. I don't know who's responsible, but whoever you are, get the fuck over yourself. That shit was entirely out of line. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. No Oh my dear Laat, I'm afraid I just can't support this. Laat "The Survivor" is a miscreant if I've ever seen one. He has a history of racism, ableism, transphobia, xenophobia and sexism that just CANNOT be ignored. I even recall him asking me to join him on a "panty raid" many months ago. Panty raid? What is that anyways? Probably something sexist. To put it simply, Laat is a cancerous growth on the pure body that is this wiki. CobaltJack (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. No Gonna say no to Laat. He's been a minimal presence until very recently, and frankly, his sketchy history and association with a number of banned users leaves me thoroughly unimpressed in his ability to moderate the discord. -bleep196- (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. No Most definitely not. Laat can not be trusted, he has shown that much. The most glaring example of that is when he conspired with Autumn to actively create conflict in the chat and to leak private messages between the moderators. I do not think a mere lack of moderation is enough justification to grant Laat power. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. No I'm afraid that I cannot support this. Less than a year ago Laat was involved in a very sketchy act involving threats to abuse their power to delete the posts of another user, as well as irreparably damage staff's reputation with the Fallout Wiki community. Laat has made no attempt to remedy or show remorse for these actions. These, along with Laat's lack of activity as a discussions moderator over the last year (if anyone needs to view them, I keep a detailed list of staff activity logs, just send me a talk page or discord message) gives me doubts that Laat could succeed in an additional staff capacity. Saxhleel12 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. No "Well, uh, I think they must have popped by for something." "Popped by? Swarmed by, more like!" AllYourFavorites! (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. No Probably going to ruffle some feathers and I apologise for that, but I'm going to be honest. To say Laat's behaviour has been exemplary is bending the truth. In terms of the sorts of discord servers that Laat moderates, I have been acquainted with a few of them, and I can say that much of what CobaltJack outlines takes place behind closed doors, not just publicly, and not to mention a lot of the users he associates with either have a similar history or are outright banned for harming the wiki. This, to me, makes him an exponential security risk for the wiki and I am surprised he has been tolerated this long (alongside a few others), and with him as a chat moderator I would not be surprised if the chat were to be nuked again (an event that Laat expressed that he didn't care about in one of the chats he claims "moderating experience" and "familiarity with tools", which doesn't make a great chat moderator). His activity on /d as a moderator has been inconsistent at best, and his actual track record moderating it has been practically nonexistent alongside other /d moderators. I dare say the only reason why Laat is active currently is because he is vying for another position within the wiki, and considering Laat's involvement in discord chats where whatever is said goes, I find it laughable and pretentious that this is a claim to experience, of which he certainly can't claim from /d moderating. To that end, this endorsement has been made haphazardly and/or disingenuously as the highlighted features that merit the endorsement are perfidious. Soto isn't even in the server currently. Going to vote no and hopefully help prevent a train wreck. TechnoCrusader (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. No We got raided once and I still haven't gotten over that, I have a feeling you were or may have been involved with the security desk leak scandal along with the discord attack incident after all you were part of (or affiliated with) Autumn and his crew along with your shady history in the chat. I simply cannot trust you. -Cassie The Rodio Girl I see you. 04:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  8. No If the measure of Laat's abilities as a moderator are to be based on what we have seen here on wiki as a discussions mod or elsewhere through other servers, especially those he has run completely, then the only appropriate response should be no. If the server so severely needs an active moderator, I would rather see the admin pick a temp mod until a suitable, trustworthy person chooses to petition for rights. Laat is certainly neither of those. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  9. No I have considerably stronger thoughts about this than I can possibly write here without getting myself banned, so suffice it to say only that I believe letting Laat obtain a position of higher power would have disastrous consequences largely reflected by the reasons in the above no votes. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 14:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  10. No I don't know Laat too well, so I can't be a very good judge of character in this case. However, I am aware of his questionable behavior in the past, and incidents which harmed the community that he may or may not have been involved in, which make me unsure whether he can be trusted. Because of that, and his inactivity as discussions moderator, I'm gonna have to vote no on this one. The Appalachian (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  11. NoConqueror of Otherspace (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  12. No After looking at the evidence provided and doing my own research on the matter, as well as the information I've found on the discord itself that do back up some of the other "No" statements, I can't in good faith vote yes. There is evidence from the past of the things that he has supposedly done that isn't just circumstantial and the fact that the wiki staff basically had to give in to the pressure they were receiving from people because some of it wasn't airtight. There's also the matter that Soto who is supposed to be the chat mod that is giving the Endorsement also hasn't been in the discord in over a month and left over something pretty stupid, didn't moderate the chats, participated in actions that violated some of the rules of the discord, and letting people who he is friends with get away with breaking those rules. Due to his lack of presence and the fact that he hasn't been performing the only duties he has as a rights holder he shouldn't be considered an active chat mod anymore. As for the mention above of the people voting no not being in the discord: Only 2 people who voted no so far are not in the discord and one of them just doesn't have it linked so I can't check. One of the people who voted no is even an active chat mod! If you want to say something like that I could always say that a lot of the yes votes are friends of his and therefore immediately biased towards him. -Eckserah User Eckserah.png Head Dataminer 01:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  13. No Based upon a thorough read through of Laat's talk page, followed up by some deeper diving into some of the bans and controversies surrounding him, I must vote no. I do not believe someone like this has any business holding a position of power, especially when they have displayed in the past that they are incapable of wielding said power responsibly. NotAlex123 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  14. No Frankly, I do not believe serious moderating will be the result of this vote, if it passes. Based on what other users in the community have said, and what I've read on the wiki's 'Social Space' Discord server. If one moderates a Discord server with some level of civility, it is worth hearing out. Lack of consideration to be cordial and without any sort of etiquette, makes me believe this vote would just reinforce the toxic behavior evident in the 'Social Space' channels where behavior goes way off the rails even as "just a joke". Constant joking that I cannot and will not take seriously. The wiki's Discord server is not a personal playground for constant joking around to the point where it is unwelcoming to some users who wish to join the conversation in a given social channel, or especially the dedicated channels for Fallout or wiki editing where off-topic is commonplace. I do not participate in the social channels much at all due to this behavior allowed to foster along with the bandwagon mindset that "everyone is doing it" as justification. In short, my vote is a no on this topic based on what I've experienced and read. I still remember the drama which unfolded on the previous iteration of the server as well. Canyon Light (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  15. No At the present there is no need to appoint an additional chat moderator, especially when the Discord is frequented by other special rights holders, and I do not consider basic competence in operating Discord's administrative tools to be a quality distinguishing enough to support granting extra rights (and elevating users to what's commonly, though not quite accurately, seen as a position of power). Secondly, while it's plain that Laat is quite popular, I also don't think popularity is the sole criterion for selecting additonal moderators. Thirdly, I believe that endorsements from inactive chat moderators (if you are not in the chat/Discord to moderate it, you are by definition inactive) do not fulfill the necessary criteria, so the whole application is moot. Tägäżïël 11:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. Neutral I have to stay neutral as I'm not involved enough and present for sufficient time in our Discord's social space or on discussions to make a true vote, based on my own experience. However, I want to point out that I see the wiki's Discord and discussions as a part of the wiki, not as something separate. Reading certain statements by Laat, he may see this differently: I wouldn't call it actually "mocking," but some comments about actually editing the wiki or people doing so come close to this. In addition, I have way more trust in the people who voted "no" (or changed their vote) than in those who voted "yes", in general. So, if there wasn't the option to stay neutral, my vote would be found in the "no" section. -- UserCCCSig.png -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions --
  2. Neutral hi um I don't think i'm deep enough into this community to make an educated vote (though i would def like to be some day >.<) but from what i've seen Laat seems nice? sooo yeah thats about it ^.^ User: Aphraxoxo
  3. Neutral Branebriar1930 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. I vote strong yes for this exceptionally sweet and caring cancerous growth. -kdarrow 01:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC) User removed vote
  2. -Eckserah User Eckserah.png Head Dataminer 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) User removed vote
  3. I'm good friends with Laat, and I've infamously defended him before when he was once banned from the Discord server. However I can't let personal bias get in the way of my vote. Laat has not been incredibly active in terms of his current /d mod position; and while I cannot say I've seen any evidence of Transphobia or Sexism or Racism on his part, I cannot in good conscience say it doesn't exist merely because I haven't seen it. With that said however, Such accusations of prejudice or collaborating in Autumn's Raid don't have a leg to stand on without sufficient evidence, and I do think Laat could function a great deal better as a Chat Mod as opposed to his current position due to his continued presence on the Discord Server, which I think is certainly substantial. So, I cast my vote to Neutral in order to give the arguments against him some opportunity, but I think that if such evidence isn't provided by the time the final count is made, my vote should classify, albeit tenuously, as "Yes". LovinglyGaslight (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC) User changed vote
  4. Neutral Laat, just like I said in the discord, you seem very nice and have experience already as a moderator. I just feel like I'm not integrated enough with the community to be able to make a vote, so I just wanted to put my thoughts here. Toronos (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) User changed vote
  5. Neutral Laat seems like a pretty chill and trustworthy dude and the accusations in the no votes seem a bit over the top. I've heard so many conflicting things about the Autumn fiasco, with no proof from anybody, that I don't know what to believe on that front, and honestly a lot of it stinks of petty interpersonal bullshit that wouldn't be out of place on the playground. Still I admit I don't know him that well, and some of the people dropping accusations in the No votes are also pretty chill and trustworthy, so I'm keeping this neutral.--DirtyBlue929 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC) User changed vote
  6. No After reading through some convos and hearing arguments from multiple sides, I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. Laat, I like you, you seem like a fun guy to hang out with, but this petty inter-staff feuding between you, your friends and the admins that's plagued the discord for the past couple years is just dumb and I don't fully trust you not to escalate it as a "joke". No offense but I just don't trust a teenager with a grudge against half the staff and a history of immature behavior to responsibly moderate the server. Hope this doesn't drive a wedge between us. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) User changed vote again


Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.