Board Thread:Administration/@comment-4832646-20140318213355/@comment-1196539-20140320190345

Princess Callie wrote: Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Princess Callie wrote: Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Noothgrush wrote: And as for moderators. It makes sense that moderators are required to help out to a set amount on the main site to get the position. Once they're moderators, they're free to do their duties, but once again the site and chat are not separate entities, it doesn't make sense to have a mod that was literally only here for chat. They should be here for the site, chat should be a secondary perk. Why? What do we care if they're only here for the chat? What we need is moderators who are responsible and capable of dealing with situations that come up. That's all the job requires and it doesn't really make sense to limit our pool even further than that for no reason. If I could, I'd make it so you'd have to help something with the site to enter chat, but it does have productive times with new users who are just trying to get the hang of things. It's rare, but it happens.

But yes, a mod should be required to have something done on the site. But I'll put it a different way: We're training a firefighter with cash registers because of a grocery-clerk shortage. We're telling the firefighter "If you want to be a firefighter, you have to make a contribution to the community." ...implying that firefighters do not contribute to the community?

The chat is arguably a part of the site. But the responsibilities of a chat moderator are not the same as the responsibilities of a beaurocrat or administrator. They're two totally different job descriptions with totally different requirements.

Right now our problem is irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. You suggest they be required to contribute to the site.

Result: Now we have irresponsible chat mods who stir up problems. But at least they're editing articles!

What I'm saying is that we're not addressing the issue at hand. In order for someone to be a chat mod, they would have to have been active in the chat for some time. That means there will be absolutely no shortage of feedback or information on whether they are responsible, fair, and willing to address problem situations. Editing is not related to this or to the job of being a chat mod. Or are you suggesting that admins, beaurocrats, etc. be required to spend a certain amount of time on the chat each week in order to contribute, regardless of the fact that that's not their field of obligation?

And if you are, then we might as well make admins and chat mods one and the same because it's all the same site. So we should just let users sit there in chat for a few days until an admin temps them and lets them on a trial run? That's it? Because that's what your saying.

And editing can be, in fact, related to a mod. If a user comes wondering how to edit, a mod with editing experience can help. There aren't always admins in chat. That's only one example. We should let users who have actively participated in the chat for several weeks if not months and who have repeatedly demonstrated good judgement and maturity be chat moderators. That's exactly what I'm saying.

If a user comes wondering how to edit, there are how many dozen pages on this site dedicated to that precise question? Both in the rules, in blogs, in the forum, and about everywhere else on the site. A user doesn't have to be an admin to know about editing, but it's not something that's required for the job, either.

That said, it would be good for chat moderators to have some KNOWLEDGE of the site so that they can direct questions to their appropriate answers. But that's not mutually inclusive with being an active editor.