I think there’s very little support for simply yanking Wookie out and/or having Wook unilaterally step down.
You could make a better case for term limits, and making mods go through a periodic vote of no confidence if they want to continue being mods.
Holy cow guys. Let’s STOP talking about wookie and start focussing on a mod rotation.
I know it would be slightly different, since I’d vote in it. Possibly it would still be defeated, possibly any poll parsed as “Remove X as mod” will be seen as an attack on that mod. I don’t want Wookie gone, I want a system of modding that will incidentally entail his departure. I’m sure he’ll be back. He’s a good mod!
Which is why Wookie proposed a gatekeeping system for creating polls that would be formally recognized. It wasn’t helpful that that thread got trolled into oblivion.
neither do I. but it has little to do with how well anyone is performing in that job.
Why is that so important to you? To me, it seems like framing it this way makes some kind of assumption that wookie wants to be mod for life. Who in their right mind would want to mod this mess forever?
I just don’t think it’s a real concern. Mod rotation is popular, I’m for it if we can find the bodies. I see it fraught with potential issues but I’m willing to give it a try.
I see it as a solution to the endless griping about moderation. People may still complain about modding, but they’ll be complaining about different people over time. It’s less likely to curdle into long-term bitterness and grudge-holding. Plus it’s harder to complain about modding when half the people you’re complaining to have been mods or will be soon. Probably harder to complain if you’ve been a mod, too.
Well it is not workable for people to keep making contradictory polls that are worded in their favor then each side claiming opposing mandates.
It is also hard to get community consensus without polling.
Which is exactly why Wookie called for the invested parties to hammer the exact language of the polling amongst themselves before going to the wider community? Which seems perfectly fine? Certainly in good faith even if one believes there is an even better way.
The most controversial thing Wookie suggested was having at least one current mod signing off on a proposal. I can see the pluses and minuses of that, but don’t see it as an offensive suggestion. The straw poll currently has 53% supporting zero mods needing to sign off and think we should just drop the idea of mod sign off since the rest of the proposal seems plainly fair.
You need some way ahead of time to get the mods and admin to agree the results of a poll will be binding. The gatekeeper idea seemed like one way to do that, but maybe there are other ways to make sure everyone thinks it’s legitimate and fair.
Any poll is probably going to need to be up for a week or so so everyone can vote on it. Probably best not to have keed choose the wording
Heh, I actually added that to the wrong paragraph. I’ve rearranged it for clarity.
That is why I personally would favor it. It simplifies things, and I don’t think it’s the case that every mod here is unreasonable and would refuse to sign off on any remotely reasonable poll.
But this forum has a strong anti-authoritarian bend which is overall a good thing so 
If you’re just going to keep insisting that everyone behave exactly as you want them to is the only reasonable solution without any regard for community input, not to mention deliberately misconstruing what my actual proposal is, I can’t say I feel like paying much attention to your contributions on the subject. You’ve stated your opinion. It doesn’t seem to be that popular. Asking why everyone doesn’t just do it your way over and over doesn’t seem to be gaining any ground.
I’m not insisting? I gave my opinion. I know you don’t gaf what I think and certainly aren’t going to do what I think you should do.
I was thinking about counteroffering to the “zero” voters that someone(s) (mod, admin, or some new creation, parliamentarian?) should sign off that the process was followed in good faith, whether or not they personally agree with the rule, as opposed to needing one or more mods to actually want the rule. This may represent something mutually acceptable to the “zeroes” and the “majorities.”
I don’t understand what that rule is supposed to achieve or guard against, really.
No one in their right mind would want to do this though right? It has to be someone very impartial, honest, patient, and with a super thick skin.
I’m not sure this person exists here. Sorry everyone, not meant as an insult, but everyone here seems deeply personally invested in this.
A bunch of pointless polls that no one regards as legitimate.
I don’t believe you will accept an informal system. Goofy already voluntarily stepped down exactly as you suggest and people complained about the mods putting someone who they correctly believed had overwhelming community support up next (PocketChads) for a vote next because of process complaints.
Did I complain about that?
Isn’t every step in the process required for legitimacy public, though? Like, I’m not sure what there would be to argue about.