Mods shall be elected by a 2/3 majority in an up or down vote in a poll in the OP of a thread in About Unstuck that is public and stays open for a week. They serve terms of 6 months or until they resign. They may be re-elected at the end of their term without any limit on terms.
0 voters
6 months term sucks and is going to create a constant drama train of bullshit. donotwant.jpg
This is the same as the status quo, except you force a vote of no confidence every six months. But it seems like you’ve found a way to overcome bad, invalid polls: write them yourself.
Voting no because this seems like a badly thought out rule, which leaves open may questions. So at the end of six months, if 2/3rds want that mod to continue they serve another six months?
What is the process for new mods? Is there a limit on mods, or do we just add anyone that volunteers and gets 2/3rds votes?
I got the new power cord for my laptop and I think the conclusion of all of this is obvious and inevitable, so I lost interest in the result.
His poll is fine, I was just pointing out that terms with no limit is basically the status quo.
Where is a poll where maintaining the status quo is an option?
dunno, wookie is in charge of making valid polls, take it up with him.
A no vote maintains the status quo, at least until a new rule is adopted.
This rule is clearly respecting that vote. Mods have to meet an elevated standard to stick around, and you are free to vote against any for any reason, including just having served too long.
The question in the screenshot is asking if this should be reconsidered. Seemed pretty clear to me (sorry if it came across snarky). What the term limit should be seems like a reasonable follow up. Building in an out to continue indefinitely does not.
I think it’s fine. To the crowd that doesn’t want a change, it’s pretty infrequent pestering. To the crowd that wants to see more mod turnover, there is a graceful exit time for every mod that is zero drama. It is robust against a lack of volunteers, as it does not exclude someone who might be the only eligible volunteer. To potential volunteers, it’s a short commitment rather than an indefinite one if they so wish.
Having mods have the option to continue indefinitely is pretty popular, even if you hate the idea.
come on, you know those two aren’t the same thing.
Being appointed for life is a very different thing than constantly needing reelection. Furthermore, even if you assumed that “for life” mods are subject to removal polls at any time, this lowers the standard to 34 percent being the threshold for removal.
We haven’t sorted out how to establish the right number of mods. If you have any ideas, I’d be happy to have the discussion in the About Moderation thread. I think we can settle this piece without that, however.
I just came up with this idea for modified retention voting.
If a mod wishes to continue in the role for another term, there is a retention vote. If the mod is ratified with a super-majority (60%, maybe 67%), they are elected and eligible to face another retention vote when the new term is up. If they get a majority but less than the super-majority threshold, then they are re-elected, but term-limited, so that they have to take some time off after the six-month term is up before they are eligible to be a mod again.
each time a mod is up for reelection, the threshold for ratification should be higher. 51%, then 63%, then 75%, etc
the mods who are widely respected will be reelected to longer terms based on the level of support for their candidacy within the community. the controversial mods can give their position to someone else for a cycle and we can see what it’s like to not have a controversial mod
