Moderator Term Limits.

[Juliette]

Relevant posts are rotational already.

[Juliette]

How does it remove the 'bias' equation from a nonissue?

It really does not. One could 'mistakenly' argue though, that spending less time with power and the camaraderie of your colleagues changes your moral compass to favour those colleagues and 'dislike' users as a consequence. Folly, of course.

-Lowers the chances of a mod becoming bias

'biased'. Perpetuating the idiocy of Nimras' favourite typo is very unwanted. Think about me breaking your skull, next time you go make a thread about this.

Yea, I hate my elected officals in goverment, being lifers and all. I'm sure other do to...

Elected? Only me and Psyko are. *glare* You are being personal?

Anyways, I don't see why term limits would be a bad thing. Bring some new people through the ranks and structure.

And yet, you list 'counter arguments', which by definition are reasons why this would be a bad thing..

-Helps rotate members of the community into new roles.

That should be listed under "Cons", Tettie. Most of the other people here are .. focused on the games instead.

-improves relations between the team and the community

Team = Community. /argument

-Requires some mods to resign or be removed from positions they have held for Months/years.

This argument is not a 'Con'. This is something some mods might not like, but not an obvious 'bad thing'.

-More work for the mod team

This is not true. The job of organising such a thing would fall to Amelia, as the sole fixed authority in the forum. Tssk, tssk.

(These time limits reflect being in that position. Once they achieve this position, they have said amount of time in that position)
Admin Term-1 Year Term Limit
Global Mod- 1 Year Term Limit
Regular Mod- 3, 6, 9 months (review by the team for removal or replacement) 1 Year term limit
Ombudsman-6 months

Arbitrary structure. Bad.

So, these term limits stand as, well what they are. After said amount of time they are either remove/replaced or promoted.

Uh-huh. Now there is another bad idea. This is an infrastructural impossibility.

Regular mods-They will have every 3 months a review done, judging how they have done and if they they need to be placed. They max out at 1 year.

I am in favour of reviews. They were done when I was GM.

Fire away ladies.

Uh yeah. Your turn.

[Jack]

This idea has been proposed too many times to bother counting and was shot down everytime for the same reason.

[Juliette]

This idea has been proposed too many times to bother counting and was shot down everytime for the same reason.

Reason = Admin rules.

[Jack]

This idea has been proposed too many times to bother counting and was shot down everytime for the same reason.

Reason = Admin rules.

Reason = the best mods are the most experienced. Rotating mods out would just be hiring a bunch of terrible mods and then giving them the boot once they finally become good at their job.

[Jack]

Keeping mods that are good at there job, but are horrible to users, hmm. I disagree Jack. There is more than enough people out in the community that would love for the chance to become a mod. Experience is only part of what makes being good at something. To make the bold statement of experience produces the best mods is utter crap. I work with people that have been doing there jobs for 30+ years, and they suck at there job.

I fail to see anyone produce a legitimate counter argument as to why this is a bad idea. The only problem that I truly see with this, is the fact that people are afraid they will lose there jobs. Well, get used to it. Move aside and let new talent in.

New talent comes in all the time.

No one ever said that experience automatically equals great skill. What was said is that experience trumps inexperience. Firing the most experienced individuals to replace them with the most inexperienced is just plain stupid.

[Drought]

your pros are meager.
get some good reasons as to why such a thing would be desirable, and people might actually think about it, the current reasons stated as pros are as usefull as stating that bunnies like carrots.

I am however, more curious to the transparency of forum staff and their state of relation to their jobs.
Users have warnings, and warning levels.
How does that work for the forum staff ? Do they have warning levels ?
Is there a threshold that does make them applicable for replacement ?
What are grounds for replacement ?

I know it most likely the forum's staff most favorite topic, <_<

>_>

not ... but ... as it stand from a community members perspective, ... forum staff seems somewhat untouchable.

[The Doctor]

I am however, more curious to the transparency of forum staff and their state of relation to their jobs.
Users have warnings, and warning levels.
How does that work for the forum staff ? Do they have warning levels ?
Is there a threshold that does make them applicable for replacement ?
What are grounds for replacement ?

Mods have warning levels, just like users. I think I've even warned a few.

I'll let someone else answer about replacement, I'm not entirely sure what the full extent of what the grounds for replacement would be.

[Empy]

I am however, more curious to the transparency of forum staff and their state of relation to their jobs.
Users have warnings, and warning levels.
How does that work for the forum staff ? Do they have warning levels ?
Is there a threshold that does make them applicable for replacement ?
What are grounds for replacement ?

I'm not sure what you mean by most of that.

Forum Staff can be warned just like any user, they must abide by all the rules as well. There is no threshold at which staff members will be removed, but if a staff member is racking up warnings then they're probably not going to be on the team much longer... but not because of some written rule of, "they've acquired 5 board warnings" or something like that.

If you're talking about rules for the Forum Staff that we have to follow, I think there is a list of rules. It's just for the forum staff though.



To address what Tetris brought up, if you really think there are enough people for everyone to be rotated out then you're crazier than I thought. A rather small amount of people apply for the job, and most want it just to see what it's like, and after a month or two will go inactive and have to be removed.

Besides that, Jack is correct.. it takes time to become a good Mod. Which is why you start out as Section Mod and move up, no one immediately becomes a Global Mod or anything like that. To remove people on the team just because they've been there a long time is not logical.

[Drought]

I'm not sure what you mean by most of that.

But you awnsered it quite well, thanks

[Jack]

After 1 year as a blue mod, if you can't progress to GM, then get out. Sitting in a position for years on end, only creating special groups within, protecting each other. Don't you dare say otherwise Jack, I was a mod once to, and saw first had the inner circles that developed in the team. Hell, I fought tooth and nail against those individuals.

You so crazy. You sound just like one of those conspiracy theorists, would you like a tinfoil hat?

Btw:

No one ever said that experience automatically equals great skill. What was said is that experience trumps inexperience. Firing the most experienced individuals to replace them with the most inexperienced is just plain stupid.

Reason = the best mods are the most experienced.

Look up correlation vs causation, then feel stupid.

[Clarkey]

Yea, I hate my elected officals in goverment, being lifers and all. I'm sure other do to...

I hate all Governments, but I don't judge my Prime Minister too much as i've never done the job and i'm pretty damn sure that every British person that moans about our Prime Ministers would suck even more if they were in the job. Get my drift?

Pros:
-Helps rotate members of the community into new roles.
-Lowers the chances of a mod becoming bias
-improves relations between the team and the community

So, pros....
It's an ok pro. There are opportunities for new people to become mods, maybe not as frequently as people may like. However it does seem those that complain the most are those that never apply to become a mod, so not sure how this rotation thing wwould be a pro anyway because people would still judge and complain.
lol I bet you were itching to get the word bias in there. How does it lower the chance of a mod becoming bias? Because the amount of time they are in the position is reduced? lol Tetris, just stop and think about this. The very moment a new user joins this forum they start making friends and enemies. The longer they are on tghis forum they will produce some sort of bias towards certain people. Therefore there are more likely more bias users than there are mods because of the vast number of users on this forum so it would be so easy through a rotation system for many of the bias users to become mods and therefore bias mods. So stop thinking that the longer mods are mods that they will become bias. Because the truth is if you think any mods is bias it is because you are bias towards that mod because you don't like how they do things. Next time try looking at the word bias and it's meaning properly.
Next time you state pros and cons give explanations. How would this improve relations? What if for example, you were to become a mod and some people don't like you and they don't think you should become a mod, is that improving relations? No, so you thinking a rotation will help improve relations is rubbish because relations are only based on like and dislike.

Cons:
-Requires some mods to resign or be removed from positions they have held for Months/years.
-More work for the mod team

Who is this a con for? Staff or Users?
More work for the mod team? How would it create more work for me for example, me being part of the mod team?

Structure:
(These time limits reflect being in that position. Once they achieve this position, they have said amount of time in that position)
Admin Term-1 Year Term Limit
Global Mod- 1 Year Term Limit
Regular Mod- 3, 6, 9 months (review by the team for removal or replacement) 1 Year term limit
Ombudsman-6 months

So would you expect someone like Bazsy to give up his position after 1 year? he's got a very technical role, but I know my way around forums like back of my hand too, i'm very technical. Would you be happy with non-technical people in such a role?

Explanation:
So, these term limits stand as, well what they are. After said amount of time they are either remove/replaced or promoted.
Regular mods-They will have every 3 months a review done, judging how they have done and if they they need to be placed. They max out at 1 year.

Fire away ladies.

So Tetris, who would do these reviews? Who would be the most neutral to do them, because if Admins are to review the GMs and it's come to their time limit then the option for the GM is to quit or get promoted therefore the admins (or one of them) doing the review is then to have to leave? So who is best suited to do these reviews? And what would the reviews consist of? How would mods be judged?

[Juliette]

Amelia.

[Clarkey]

Amelia.

Exactly. However, my other question is what would the review be based on?

If the term limits is based on length of service as a mod, then what is the need for a review? Because Amelia, bless her soul, probably has little knowledge on how a mod is performing.

[Psyko]

What intrigues me the most about this topic is what sparked a request such as this. Did something mod-related happen in the past few days that I've missed while in computer purgatory?

What has caused you (Tetris) to believe a term limit should be instituted on staff members who were, in a sense, hired and not elected?