Should Appointment to Moderator be for Life?

About Unstuck
1
Should being appointed moderator of UP be for life?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

edit: Which is to say, should moderators serve finite terms?

edit2: This is only meant to apply to the politics mods, someone like Risky Flush who takes care of the uncontroversial Entertainment section ought not to be bound by this. Change your vote accordingly.

edit3: Sorry, that “if no” meant, if the vote goes no, not if you vote no. Everone who wants to should vote below, even if they voted “yes” above.

If no, what should be the term?
  • six months
  • one year
  • two years
  • other (specify)

0 voters

Assuming six month terms, should a 2/3rds vote allow a mod to extend their term if they want? One additional term max, then a year off from modding.
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

2

I think the language here is a little slanted. I interpreted this question as “Should we impose term limits on mods?”, which is why I voted no.

2 Likes
3

That is exactly what I mean, we should impose term limits on the mod. Your vote is correct if you think the only way for a mod to not become a mod is retirement at the discretion of the mod or a vote to remove.

1 Like
4

I don’t think there should be term limits if it is understood and accepted that once someone else wants to become a mod, assuming he is voted on, he replaces an existing one.

Because this appears to be an issue where feeling are getting hurt, a term limit is far easier way to accomplish that.

1 Like
5

Only if I get to kill the ones I don’t like.

1 Like
6

I get that polls are how things are done around here but it really seems like a bad idea to keep spreading the negative vibes across multiple threads.

3 Likes
7

This seems like a good perspective. Even if term limits are generally bad (they are!), they might have a good outcome in this particular case.

Still going to leave my vote as is. Will overtake “nuts do not belong on desserts” as my least popular belief.

8

I mean Wookie refuses to answer the direct question of: “how long do you want to be mod”. Which is a legit question in the face of the thread he started.

1 Like
9

Voted yes. If a mod is doing a great job and wants to keep doing it, I see no benefit to forcing them out.

Also “nuts do not belong on (or in!) desserts” is 100% correct.

1 Like
10

Changing this after mods have already been appointed is a passive aggressive vote to remove those mods.

The length of time these people have been mods isn’t the problem. We haven’t given them the tools to deal with the environment that this place has turned into. All the rules should be changed, not just this one. A new start would be an appropriate way to start term limits on mods. A vote like this is bush-league.

11

How is it passive? I’ve said I think mods should serve for finite, defined terms and then take a break.

12

What about pecan pie?

13

I kinda randomly voted on the time frame. I don’t have a strong preference.

1 Like
14

Literally the exception that proves the rule. (I know this is not what this saying actually means, but whatever.)

15

I have always regarded my tenure as mod is at the pleasure of myself and of the community. Do I think I’ll be a mod 40 years from now? No.

16

Six months is good. Maybe if the mod wants to keep going, he can if a super majority vote to extend his term another six months? Then after that he’s out as mod for a year.

17

What about peanut brittle?

18

Literally the other exception that proves the rule.

Also, peanut brittle is a (delicious) snack, not a dessert.

19

Just to clarify, almonds are not part of your theory, correct? Otherwise this is perma worthy.

2 Likes
20

Right, you’ve seen your tenure as mod as for as long as you like, unless a majority force you out. This is a pole on that model: I’m proposing another.

1 Like