Should moderators be reviewed annually?
 

I know there was discussion about this before in a thread that got locked but I thought it was an interesting subject. Should we elect moderators? Or is it better that they are appointed by the admin staff who spend time deliberating over the decision with the existing moderating staff? I wasn't so much thinking of it in a "yeah we need new mods, screw the current ones" way, but rather, people disappear from the forum all the time, including moderators, and it wasn't until relatively recently that a bunch of them were demoted because they were no longer active members so it looked silly having them on the mod team. Should moderators be elected on an annual basis? Every two years?

No

Zee wanting a Freaking Game out of it

It's a bit iffy because it'd be a fantastic idea but there would be block voting. There'd be some people taking it seriously, and some going "Hey vote for me xxoxoxoxo I'll make everyone's avatar ********tan xoxoxo xox"

Where on earth did I say that? Stop being so rude.

Moderators are regular members who are given the power to control what is and isn't allowed on the forum. Sometimes people are picked for the job who aren't cut out for the reality of it and I think it's an interesting point of discussion - you can't tell if someone's going to be good at moderating until they're given the chance and if they aren't good at it, there's nothing in place to remove them from the position unless they're actively abusing the position so the admin team remove the power or the user themselves decides to step down.

Works ok as it is by the looks of it.

No, not at all

I don't think it would be a straight forward case of putting out a poll and the most popular wins, not like elections in a who would you rather sense, but mods should maybe serve 1 or 2 years on the mod team and then if they want to continue in the role, they'd need to put themselves forward for consideration like any other member would whenever James posts a thread asking for new mods. Then the admin team would look at what the forum would like to see and take that into account when they decide, which is normally what happens anyway but there's no re-election involved with current mods.

NO

That could actually work, :hugesmile:

Admin decision, it shouldn't be a popularity contest. And I guess it should go on how active they are if they keep the position essentially, unless the other mods are happy to do more?

Bang On Right Kizzy

To clarify, I'm not really speaking about picking new moderators, I'm speaking about whether or not we should be keeping a check on the current moderating team at any given time, because once a person is made a moderator, they continue to hold that position unless they stop using the forum, they abuse the position or they choose to step down.

What the hell, how have I only just noticed the inactive Mods are no longer Mods

yes that Sweet Power

..maybe after a length of time if their absent from the forum and Admin or someone has contacted them and a fairly sure that they're not coming back to the forum, they could remove the status...but most of our current mods are active..(I think I've only ever seen one mod name that I didn't recognise..)..and the only two mods that are new to the site since I've been here, which were elected by admin have both been good mods, so I think it seem the most effective way to choose them...

They do that anyway, remove the inactive moderators after a while.

..sorry, I don't know what you mean then Zee...

Should the active moderating team be scrutinised every other year? Is it okay that once someone is picked as a moderator, they have that position unless they stop using the forum, choose to step down or abuse the position; or should there be an appraisal period where all moderators are reconsidered by the admin? I just think that sometimes, and I'm not necessarily saying that any of the current mods are bad or shouldn't be on the team, but sometimes people are picked for the position and then they don't have what it takes to do the job, either because they can't be arsed or because they aren't able to be tough when it's required and step into an argument or perhaps they're just too busy in real life for the position after being a great mod for a while and they still use the forum but they aren't around as much so they don't have the time to moderate.

There are plenty of reasons why someone can't be an effective moderator, so should we reshuffle the mod team every now and then after considering personal circumstances or should the mod team remain as it is unless the admin decides otherwise? For example, Ben stepped down because he was moving abroad and didn't think he would be online very much - if he hadn't have stepped down, he would have still been a moderator but he'd have been on much less yet still expected to carry out the duties of a moderator.

..oh, I think I understand..you mean like school Governors etc, who serve a term ans then have to be 'elected' again to continue..or members of parliament..?...the only thing with that would be that I think it would give a bit of an inconsistency to the forum maybe..having the same ones helps you get to know how the forum works, I think....

If moderators break forum rules they should have mod status removed for a specific time maybe too.

I stand by what I said last time this came up. Tibb's Next Top Mod should be a thing.

Yeah. I mean, should it be a rule that moderators have to decide every year whether or not they want to continue to be a moderator? I remained a moderator for ages even though it was ruining my enjoyment of TiBB because I wasn't really forced to consider it and it took me ages to decide to step down because of that. If you're asked on an annual basis if you want to continue then at least you have to think about it. Then if any mods decide to step down, you would look for a replacement. I just think that there's a sort of static feel to being a moderator sometimes, like you've achieved something by being asked to do it and to let go of the responsibility makes you feel like you've failed in some way, even if you don't actually want to hold the responsibility anymore.

...the only thing is though that active moderating in terms of infractions/bans etc must be only a part of moderating a forum...there is more 'technical/behind the scenes' stuff as well..?...well you've been a moderator yourself, so you know what goes on and people have strengths and weaknesses, everyone does...so what might not seem like a 'strong' mod in terms of the infractions stuff maybe invaluable elsewhere to the forum...

Nope. like someone said in a previous thread, popularity wouldn't make a certain person a good mod

That was me who said that :laugh:

Generally speaking the main part of being a moderator is dealing with infractions so a lot of the time you are led to threads that are filled with arguments about stuff you don't even know about, it's what I imagine being a teacher/parent/referee is like :laugh: it's about crowd control, then there's stuff like moving topics or merging them etc... it's not too difficult to get to grips with it, but sometimes there will be situations where members you know and like as people will be causing trouble and you have to put aside your friendships with people and be impartial, and some people don't have that ability, for example.

..do you not think though that because you and Ben both did 'step down', which you felt was the 'right thing to do..' because you couldn't spend the time moderating that you felt it needed..it kind of shows we have the right mods and who would make that decision if they felt they should without any other changes to be made..

Well, in all of the time I've been here, the only people to step down have been Lauren, Ben and myself. Ben stepped down for a practical reason; Lauren and I stepped down because it was ruining our enjoyment of being members of the forum and we didn't want to be impartial all the time, we wanted to take part in conversations that we otherwise wouldn't have been able to for fear of being accused of being biased in some way. So I don't think that's the case at all, I think there are plenty of people who would happily hold on to the position without ever giving it up willingly (see: all of the people who have been demodded due to inactivity) because there's no prompt for them to think about it. If you know that you're going to be really busy in real life, you're not going to think "oh I should probably give up that moderating position on that forum I use" - but if you were asked to consider whether you wanted to carry on for another year, you might know that you wouldn't be able to commit so you would terminate your contract, as it were.

I suppose what I'm really talking about isn't popular elections for new mods, that was never the point, I'm asking whether there should be year long commitments to being a moderator instead of it being more like a club with lifelong membership.

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/cust...ar11566_69.gif

Where's the mod list, I can't find it anywhere :/

Most definately it's a commitment but as you say it has to be someone who's impartial as it would ruin the enjoyment having to effectively mediate all discussions.

Would always have an element of a popularity contest if this was the case *funny post now about me only being one probably because of that reason*

Nah, people put themselves forward for the position in a thread James posts and then the existing mod team debates it to death and then the admin reaches a final decision about who they think would be suitable for the job, people have to actually apply for the position though. If people have been banned/infracted they're generally out of the running so it narrows itself down pretty quickly.

Don't think this place is big and serious enough to have these election kind of things Lol it seems a bit politics-ey

i see no need for elections, what i do see is a conflict of interest at times.
if you're a mod and a member no matter how much people say it does not happen, there are times when your opinion as a member will cloud your opinion as a mod.

the hand that rocks the cradle should also be able to rock the boat!.

..I haven't seen the 'demods' but I'm presuming they are all inactive mods who haven't been on the forum for quite some time..?...essentially they're not really mods anyway if they're not here, so that's really just turning their username from green to black...for me, the mods are just the active mods that we all know and maybe there are some that are less active at different times because of stuff in their own lives but that would be the same with anyone who was a mod, I think....and if/when our active mods become inactive then I imagine they will lose their 'membership' as well at some point...?...

..but it's an interesting comparison to a teacher/parent etc and the crowd control thing because everyone has their own methods to do that and in the right situation, they're all equally as effective...the 'softly' one can be just as much so, as the 'harder approach'..which is what we have here, I think...

I'm going to rename the thread, too many people have read the title and think I want some kind of General Chat poll to see who can get 20 votes first :bored:

Theres a few mods that seem to do absolute nothing so maybe :tongue:

..haha...I think it's more that I don't see the benefit in taking away the status of an inactive mod that quickly because it only seems to be that they're names are in green that's been taken away..(if they're inactive..)...if we had say hmmm 20 'moderators' but only 5 were active but the forum only required 5 active mods..?..then it doesn't really matter if those names are still in green..?...

But I'm speaking about active mods. If you are a moderator, you have been given that position on good faith that you will be good at the job. Some people turn out not to be so great at it, as I said for any number of reasons that could range from not having the time to not having the resolve to be tough in difficult situations. They might be really active members but just not cut out for being a mod - should they be asked on an annual basis whether they want to continue or do you think the system is fine the way it is? I guess I've not made it very clear what I'm asking :laugh: