This is something that maybe we need to hammer out. I based this proposal on the likelihood of us having a 4-5 member mod team, so terms would be 8-10 months. Should we set a number of mods as part of this rule?
1 Like
Okay. Thank you. That seems a reasonable perspective.
1 Like
I think this is getting too complicated.
2a achieves the goal in a simpler way. Also, 6 months seemed to be a good consensus for mod terms. Whats the argument for changing that?
One comment on if we go the route of 2a, I think we would need to stagger terms so we donât have everyone turn over at once.
1 Like
Maybe just split the difference, combine a and b, set the mod term for 6 months and the break for 6 months, and queue up the current mods by seniority as suggested in b, each one demodding a couple of months apart. Then the difference between a and b is only at the very beginning and the number of mods doesnât impact the term of the mod.
2 Likes
If we get a volunteer that the community supports, they should be encouraged to continue until the community no longer supports them at the completion of their term, they are recalled by the community, or they wish to stop volunteering. No clue why this would be remotely controversial.
1 Like
Itâs controversial because this exact scenario is at the very heart of the Captexit saga.
We already had a referendum on Wookie and he won by over 90%. And yet here we are.
-
I think itâs good for people who volunteer as mods to be forced to take breaks for their own good. If theyâre supported by the community and want to continue, theyâll be back on after a short break.
-
It can allow for a cooling of the temperature in a situation where animosity has grown wrt a mod.
-
It causes more people to get involved in moderation and mods to take time being regular posters. This allows a better sense of community as more people get a better view of both sides of the table, and this also hopefully helps cool things off in arguments about forum moderation.
5 Likes
shrug If there is a mod the community supports, why would we ask them to stop volunteering so we can get a different mod that hopefully the community supports? Hey, there could be a boat in the box! Also, we can have unlimited mods with the only rule being that they need to be supported by the community. Cool?
I appreciate your perspective, butâŚ
Iâm fine with the folks that the community supports being able to decide for themselves if they need a break for their own good.
As for cooling things down, lol yeah right. The people here who youâd presumably hope to cool down simply love forum drama, it is their hobby and in my opinion, they will continue to foster an environment that provides what they seek.
Your third point is absolutely a great one, and is why we can have unlimited mods that the community supports, and there is absolutely nothing related to forcing a certain moderator to quit that prevents other community supported members from getting involved (except most people donât want the job).
2 Likes
Just throwing this out there as an idea for discussion to merge 2a and 2b into one idea. What if we did the 6 month terms and 1-2 mods rotating out every 2 months. In advance of them rotating out, we ask for volunteers of who is willing to take on mod duties for the next 6 months? A thread gets posted with approval polls for each volunteer and the two with the highest approval rating get installed for the next 6 months? That means we should have plenty of coverage, solid community involvement, and a good rotation of mods.
5 Likes
Perfect. Well, except it would probably be better to let anyone who meets a threshold be moderator. There doesnât seem to need for there to be a maximum number of mods imo, and I think the idea of being elected by running against each other and only the one with highest approval anointed moderator is maybe not what we should go for.
2 Likes
- Is definitely a good rule. To that point, do you know what the current mod terms are?
As long as itâs not Wookie. 
Youâre correct. I like this idea better. We can keep the existing 2/3 threshold here. If we go this route, do people have an opinion on how long the break should be between moderation terms? I tend to think a shorter break like 2 months is ok in this scenario, but that is just my opinion.
1 Like
Also, this means the new Captains forum is officially dead, right?
What? If this passes, wookie takes six months off, wants to be moderator again, and clears the threshold, of course he should be made moderator.
1 Like
Potentially, but Iâd like to fully flesh this idea out first. Iâd be lying if I didnât say that trying to keep this forum together was part of my motivation here.
3 Likes
Existing mods should have the option of being grandfathered in if they chose.
Why?
1 Like