Binding Vote - Concerning Election and Reelection of Moderators

Vote Here

Per this straw poll:

Here is a BINDING POLL, shall we adopt the following rule for electing and re-electing moderators:

New moderators begin with a Request for Comments (RFC) thread in About Unstuck. These may be started by anyone to nominate themselves or someone else. These follow the ratified process for RFCs, including the timings and votes prior to going be fore the community for a binding vote, which must meet a 2/3 threshold to appoint the poster as moderator. Moderators serve terms of six months unless they wish to resign earlier.

If a moderator wishes to be re-elected to another term, then within the last month of their term, they may start a re-election thread containing a yes or no poll that shall remain open for at least one week in About Unstuck, and they shall solicit an admin to make a banner about it. This is in lieu of going through the full RFC process again, although users may naturally state their cases for or against re-election in this thread. The moderator is or is not re-elected according to the same 2/3 threshold.

There are no limits on the number of terms a moderator may serve or on the concurrent number of moderators.

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

What are voting on? Approving the above rule?

2/3s of what? Of voters in the poll?

References for Comment? That seems vague. Shouldn’t “vote for moderator” be in the title?

Totally against mods seeking immediate re-election. Plenty of regs have volunteered to rotate mod duties on a 6 month basis, spreading the duty through the forum, so why concentrate it in the hands of a small number?

3 Likes

We don’t need term limits, this is a community discussion forum not elected office. If 2/3 of a forum like how a mod is doing his or her job there is no need to remove him or her.

1 Like

I voted yay. I am slightly concerned that the 6-month limit could cause active moderators to step down without clear replacements. I don’t know how many active mods this community needs–maybe the current mods can ballpark that based on their current workload?–but I want to make sure that we continue to have that number. We can likely resolve this issue by recruiting volunteers (there have been plenty already) if the number of mods falls too low, so I do not think this concern should prevent this rule from passing.

We’re voting on this moving to a binding vote, if I’m not mistaken.

This is the binding vote.

We should vote on whether or not to resolve the discrepancy between your two posts, IMO. Well, we should RFC first, then vote on whether or not to resolve the discrepancy.

In addition to nominating a particular person, anyone, including current mods, can start an RFC to seek volunteers, find one or more, and then vote to put them up to a binding community vote. I think it’s fine for people to only want to serve single 6 month terms. It spreads the workload and drama around a bit more.

1 Like

Also worth pointing out that this, in no way, concentrates it in the hands of a small number. There is no limit to the number of moderators.

Sorry, this has been confusing for me. I will edit the OP to reflect as such.

There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that, if ratified, would block the “plenty of regs” from doing exactly what you want.

In the actual world rather than the theoretical world some volunteered because they were concerned about a lack of mods. Existing mods clinging on to modship deprives the forum of that diversity in its mods.

You’re free to only vote for proposed mods who pledge to only serve for non-consecutive terms.

We already had a vote on mod terms and iirc there was a majority against multiple terms.

And the forum has since lost Keed as a potential mod and Jbro.

In a poll where no term limits wasn’t an option. In every poll where unlimited terms has been an option, it’s been favored by a healthy majority. And quite frankly, you whining about posters that have been driven off or not made moderator is really fucking rich.

Pointing out a loss to the forum is whining? lol ok pal

I don’t really care that much about the outcome of all the voting now, more about the method lol.

We overwhelmingly ratified an orderly process for crafting and voting on new rules, and this rule proposal has followed it to the letter.

It’s really not a big deal and I’m glad we’re doing it this way.

1 Like