Need a pole about process for recalling a rogue mod. Or rather, need a pole about process for posters who don’t like moderation to request that the mod be removed. Given that it’s 2/3 to elect a mod, i’d say maybe simple majority to remove a mod, but some mechanism in place to prevent this from happening constantly because the same small group of posters don’t like a particular mod or mod.
Depending on whatever fixed number gets settled on, neither goofy nor micro have been replaced.
I assume it would go through the same RFC process. If some same small group of posters don’t like a particular mod, they should be allowed to voice their displeasure. No one should be completely free of criticism. If it is just a small disgruntled minority, then it will never get past the RFC stage and the community as a whole will never have a formal vote on it.
I think there should be a provision for suspending a mod gone wild. If the other mods unanimously agree that a mod has gone too far and that mod refuses to resign, then they should be able to suspend the bad mod from mod duties until there can be a community vote on ousting the bad mod. This impeachment vote should be expedited and not have to go through the regular RFC process.
1 Like
No. Justing putting this out there…I don’t trust that you just don’t revel in the drama. But if someone is not a mod and new people want to mod it will be very easy for everyone to be like “let’s give X a chance” and it will be really easy for the old mod to be like, “yeah, why not, I’ll get it next time, I’m available if there aren’t acceptable new people”. Whereas if someone is going to be unseated as a mod everyone who suggests that they should not be re-elected will be seen as making a personal attack on them and of course any decent mod who wants to will be reelected very easily. That’s just permanent mods for those who want it and huge drama if anyone suggests that mods shouldn’t be permanent by like actually replacing them at a particular time.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
I’m not really proposing a system as much as soliciting forum opinion, but having N mods who are subject to up or down votes at a 2/3 threshold, and if someone doesn’t hit it, we try again with another volunteer doesn’t seem terribly impractical.
I’m inclined to believe that the combined forces of one or more visible volunteers and particular term end dates is going to lead to many people modding for a term or two and then bowing out for a stint, while allowing for indefinite terms is much more robust against forum malaise and a lack of volunteers.
I guess there could be some feeling for not doing it, but everyone can quit modding whenever they like and set their own term limit when they accept the job. I hope that I demonstrated by example that that is not a problem. Point being, I don’t think people should not volunteer for that reason - that we need to have mods have a particular term solely so that they have a convenient point for demodding.
1 Like
Thanks for the reply. I hope my original post was not too abrasive. I definitely have concerns (some logistical, some substantive) about having a fixed number of mods.
Could you (or anyone else) describe the benefits of having a fixed number of mods?
1 Like
Lower chances of a bad actor ever becoming mod is one. I mainly included it just because it’s an obvious idea.
Mainly that 6 month terms was pretty popular last time we polled this. And 3 months is pretty often to be holding elections that pester the whole forum.
I’m almost indifferent to the two. Both terms are fairly short. I think I voted 6, but maybe 3 is better. My argument for 6 is that it’s not long enough to really make the position anything like that person being a mod, rather than modding just being a job to do for a while, and people can still demod at 3 if they want.
1 Like
The mod election should be pretty trivial. 9/10 people will get like 80%+ support and it shouldn’t matter if that many people vote. It’s just a safety measure so that someone very unwanted doesn’t become mod. It should not be anything more than “yeah, that poster is acceptible” imo.
2 Likes
Doesn’t seem all that dramatic really. People can disagree with me on it, that’s fine. I’m not bashing anyone for it. I don’t why I shouldn’t advocate for something that may happen in the future, especially since I think the wisdom of it will become more clear every time we select a mod, especially when it comes to renewing existing terms.
1 Like
Always with your finger on the pulse
And goofy, yeah, this is snarky and your post was snarky. You just turned something in which at least I saw no drama into something with drama.
Get off your high horse.
I did use the word “fucking”, but I don’t see how anyone could have taken it anywhere near directed at them. It’s pretty diffused, since, as you pointed out, a lot of people feel that way.
Mostly grunching, convincemeotherwise.gif, but don’t see a reason to have 6 month terms if there is no break. I prefer infinite terms with recall votes as necessary because I don’t want to constantly vote on mods, but if there are 6 month terms then I sorta start to favor that the mod take a term off before being voted on again. It feels like a half pregnant situation otherwise, either we rotate mods or we don’t, votes of confidence every 6 months that are bound to pass seem mostly pointless.
2 Likes
However this ends up, we’re never going to have a snark-free forum. I don’t seek to maximize the drama. I just don’t think we can ever really avoid drama and there’s no reason not to enjoy the inevitable. New mod selection rules aren’t going to decrease the drama, but I support going through all of this because sometimes I can be a process-oriented rules nit. Rotating mods won’t decrease drama. Term limits won’t decrease drama. Mods for life won’t decrease drama.
Not bad, but I think it’s somewhere in between. The rules will have some effect, but, yeah, there will still be fights on the forum about modding and other things no matter what we do.