Request for Comments: Selecting Moderators

[Rexx]

I thought we voted for Chad to be mod and it was pretty much unanimous?

[anon10396289]

@goofyballer

Keeed withdrew himself from consideration

A lie

[MrWookie]

My nomination of Chads was premature and not part of a more orderly system that respects all people who may wish to be mods. This is an attempt to rectify that. I think we’ll get Chads as mod by a widely accepted process rather than a free for all of nominations.

[Rexx]

Didn’t the keed thread get closed? This is all really hard to keep up with.

[MrWookie]

I don’t get to pick the standards or the process. The community does. I only started the discussion.

[anon10396289]

No, it’s a lie because you’re fucking lying:

@anon10396289

The poll should probably be closed because Wookie seems to want to stay on as mod and was adamantly opposed to my moderation philosophy. I tried to say this a little more gently above. I don’t want to be mod if I’m not able to implement my proposal, or if I can sort of do my thing while Wookie mods in his diametrically opposite philosophy. I don’t think it would work, perhaps another mod can weigh in.

And while I think that churchill was acting in good faith, I think that this can and certainly should wait a while. And given other posters concerns that an Official Person didn’t start the thread, let’s just close it.

[MrWookie]

It is no secret that I made the OP. Anyone can see that. Literally anyone can start an RFC, and that doesn’t exclude mods.

[anon10396289]

Mad? lol.

Of course whosnext wasn’t lying, since he wasn’t willfully misrepresenting me and accepted my clarification.

[anon10396289]

Not posting for three weeks is a temper tantrum? This is amazing.

[MrWookie]

Sure. Keeed made a mockery of our lack of processes and frequently acted in bad faith throughout.

[Trolly]

No one is shelving making chads a mod and Wookie is doing more than anyone to set up an orderly process for electing new mods.

[MrWookie]

@marty

What processes?

What part of:

@MrWookie

our lack of processes

didn’t you understand?

[MrWookie]

So now we will have a process that the community adopts.

[Rexx]

Was that just to be fair to others who had shown prior interest?

[MrWookie]

So why are you on an a posting binge apparently upset that I started the creation of a community-oriented mod nomination process?

[microbet]

Probably ponied, but there was a vote for me.

[econophile]

People have been thinking about these questions for a long time

Next after these things is the distinction among offices. For this part of the regime also involves many differences: how many offices there are, in what matters they have authority, and in regard to time, how long each office lasts (for some make them for a year, others for a shorter period, others for a longer one), and whether offices should be perpetual or of long duration or neither, but the same persons should be permitted to hold them several times or the same person not even twice but only once, and further in regard to the selection of officials, from which persons they should come, by which persons they should be selected, and how they should be selected.

Aristotle, Politics book 4, chapter 15

[econophile]

@whosnext

Maybe I am missing something …

Aren’t having a fixed number of mods in conflict with the 66% mod voting threshold? How would the vote even be structured if we have a fixed number of mods, fixed terms, and more people up for election for the next term than the allowed maximum? Do the highest N candidates become mods regardless of their vote percentages? Alternatively, what if we have fewer candidates than the number of mods required?

Anyway, for these and a host of other reasons, having a fixed number of mods does not make any sense to me.

The 66% vote threshold doesn’t really imply anything about the numbers of mods. If the community decides the number of mods is fixed or semi fixed, then they would have to specify more about when mods are elected and who gets to run for open slots. If there is an unlimited number of mods, then any additional ones could be approved by 66% vote, although again the community may wish to specify some additional procedures for becoming a mod.

[econophile]

A few more pieces of food for thought:

Upthread jman asked about procedures for recalling mods, and someone suggested that just go through an RFC process every time. That seems impractical, because the process takes at least 17 days to go from proposal to ratification. So there needs to be some way to quickly demod someone if they start going crazy. I suspect admins would step in if things are egregious, but it probably also makes sense to codify a community based procedure that could be quick but also isn’t subject to abuse.

As a second thought, do we want to specify that all posters are eligible to be mods or do we want to have other requirements (e.g., account must be at least a certain age)?

[MrWookie]

Affirmative Action

• We should promote getting mods from diverse time zones
• We should promote getting mods from diverse countries
• We should promote getting mods from diverse identity groups
• We should promote some other kind of mod diversity (please specify)
• Nah, just pick reasonable mods whoever they may be