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time, including moderators, and it wasn't until relatively recently that a bunch of them were demoted because they were no longer active members so it looked silly having them on the mod team.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