I’m thinking through logistics. Having new mods added every two months and serving 6 month terms means we don’t have to have complete turnover of the mod team at once when this system is in place. Matching the break up with the nomination and approval process every two months makes sense to me.
Reading the discussion in here, it’s pretty clear to me that the shorter we make the mandatory break the more support this will likely have. Take the win. If not, I guess I’ll move on without your support.
I agree that I believe we will have plenty of potential mods. I also think for people who are hesitant, we get this passed by putting in place a system where it’s easy for us to prove that it will work.
Correct, if they are decent mods and stick around for all/most for their terms then I’ll believe we have at least 5 good mods around and willing to serve, and support a longer break period.
I don’t think it’s telling at all. Sometimes people don’t want to be seen giving too many likes to the same person/people because they then get accused of being part of a “clique” - this has actually happened many times here and has been weaponised.
This goes along with my thinking about a lot of politics, but I think people are alienated from so many things because they don’t feel any ownership. Cause and effect. Ownership will cause obligation. The path we’ve taken where moderation or administration have been an honor rather than a duty has caused alienation. People are alienated.
Everyone is theoretically willing to be a mod if they just get to make decisions to the best of their ability and move on with their lives. Not everyone is willing to behave in a way to reach the 2/3 threshold to be approved as a mod and then maintain that support once their character and integrity are questioned when people don’t like their decisions.
I’m a believer that the system we’re putting together will reverse this trend and move it more towards being viewed as a duty that someone is serving as a member of the community.
We shouldn’t be codifying things that limit the will of the community.
We already have a six month term rule. If the community wants to keep re-electing someone over and over they should he allowed. Making it do a minority uses rules to block the will of the people is very Republican.
Wookie is up for vote in august. If he wants to be a mod and the guy receives overwhelming majority vote yes he should be a mod. We don’t need to be protected from this.
We need to be protected from people trying to sneak in rules to mute the power of the community to benefit a few.
The current mechanics allow the community to limit mod terms if the community decides to do so. We don’t need rules to do any of these things. They are all currently possible.
So my question was, why not make the break one month? It has such an obvious answer that it seems to be rhetorical. Obviously if a moderator was six months as a moderator and took one month off and was moderator for six months again, then took a month off, then such a rotation scheme is unlikely to actually drive any change in the forum. There isn’t going to be any fundamental change in the forum with this new moderation scheme, there won’t be new moderation schemes arising and new ways to deal with conflict in the forum. No chance for a new culture to take root and flourish.
So my question of, why not a month break is (properly) treated as rhetorical. It’s the same as the current system. Well, you’re proposing just double the break of that ridiculous rhetorical proposal I presented. And again, the same objections: it’s too short a break to really drive any change. So you’re saying that I’m just left with the existing system if I oppose your two month proposal. Well, in my view what you’re proposing is too close to the current system to be worth doing at all. So I’m indifferent between your proposal and the current moderation scheme.
The most persuasive complaint about the consecutive terms, despite re-election by 2/3 of the forum, is incumbency/status quo bias. Why isn’t a minimum of two months long enough to sufficiently remove that bias?
I think you’re confused about who is demanding to be appeased here. Most folks in this community are OK with the status quo and aren’t really making any demands. On the contrary, voting into existence any kind of mandatory break for moderators (even the ones who continue to maintain 2/3 community approval) would seem to be appeasing a different group of posters entirely.