Proposition: Council and Re-evaluation of Mods | Fandom

This post is locked.

Kill1mes·10/27/2014 in General

Proposition: Council and Re-evaluation of Mods

Yeah, another idea to try and make this dysfunctional place work, but hear me out. Right now we have too many mods. Not only that, but we have mods who don't do their duty. They're afk when they need to be watching, they take part in drama, they choose what rules to enforce, and I've even heard a tale of one mod threatening a user with a ban if a certain demand wasn't met. It's clear we need to do something.

But what?

I have an idea. We need a council. Un-biased, probably older, trusted members form a little council. They'd re-evaluate the mods, and cast their votes. Either with majority rules, or until the entire council agrees, that mod either stays, or is demoted. Of course, if this raises complaints, the council will take them into concern. We can work out the fine details of this later.

Part two: Get rid of applications. These can be twisted in one's favor, cheated on, or given support because "He's a cool dude" or "He's my friend, mod him pls". The council would meet every time one mod applicant was suggested, and discuss it. If positive, we could give them a trial, or we could mod them then and there. Provided with their permission, of course. Again, details can be worked out.

The fact that this even need be suggested is sad, and we need something to change. I believe this system is fair, and all complaints and ideas are welcome.

(Edited by Kill1mes)

0

Eyeless Jack·10/28/2014

Kill1mes wrote:

Eyeless Jack wrote: Support -- I like this idea because it will calm down the chat. We probably have the most mods out of any NORMAL wikia.

Wait, we're normal? When did this happen. Also, even though I wrote this thread, I'm gonna give my two sense.

We're normal in a sense that we aren't just giving out modship to whoever joins the wikia (Though it kinda feels like we are right about now)

(Edited by Eyeless Jack)

0

Kill1mes·10/28/2014

Eyeless Jack wrote:

Kill1mes wrote:

Eyeless Jack wrote: Support -- I like this idea because it will calm down the chat. We probably have the most mods out of any NORMAL wikia.

Wait, we're normal? When did this happen. Also, even though I wrote this thread, I'm gonna give my two sense.

We're normal in a sense that we aren't just giving out modship to whoever joins the wikia (Though it kinda feels like we are right about now)

Yeah, about that... But that's some real loose criteria to be seen as normal for, just saying.

(Edited by Kill1mes)

1

Ecuinach·10/28/2014

Stay on topic please. We still don't have a clue where we're going with this.

(Edited by Ecuinach)

0

Kill1mes·10/28/2014

Well, if this gets enough support, I plan on making a follow up thread discussing all the little details of this, and trying to cover every angle. Right now I'm just waiting to get a strong enough support or dislike count.

Actually, how much support will we need to consider this idea as something we'd go through with?

(Edited by Kill1mes)

0

ShawnCognitionCP·10/28/2014

Didn't we JUST re-evaluate staff?

(Edited by ShawnCognitionCP)

0

Steam Phoenix·10/28/2014

Mystreve wrote:
Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.
We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.
The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.
Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.
Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

1 Project:Demotion Policy. This was already a community voted thing. Not allowing them? When did that happen?

2. "Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread." I hate to be the crier of unfairness, but if you're going to have someone demoted via thread, they have the right to defend themselves. Say the person providing the screencaps used "Inspect Element"? Or just took a cap of an incident intentionally out of context? Why should someone who gets a demotion thread be deprived of the ability to counter said "irrefutable proof"? Just a small pointer.

(Edited by Steam Phoenix)

1

Mystreve·10/29/2014

Steam Phoenix wrote:

Mystreve wrote:
Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.
We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.
The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.
Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.
Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

1 Project:Demotion Policy. This was already a community voted thing. Not allowing them? When did that happen?

2. "Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread." I hate to be the crier of unfairness, but if you're going to have someone demoted via thread, they have the right to defend themselves. Say the person providing the screencaps used "Inspect Element"? Or just took a cap of an incident intentionally out of context? Why should someone who gets a demotion thread be deprived of the ability to counter said "irrefutable proof"? Just a small pointer.

I'm all ears for your better ideas, Callie.

(Edited by Mystreve)

0

Ecuinach·10/29/2014

Here's an idea. No demotion threads. If multiple user has an issue with a mod (causing drama, breaking rules, and other grounds for demotion; be they minor or large), then they take it to a Bcrat. That Bcrat will then take the mod aside and talk about with them privately, to get their side of the story. Then the Bcrat makes the decision from there. They can either decide to demote them, leave them be, or "shadow" them for a few days to see how they handle problems, and make a decision from there.

The pros of this are that there is no thread and little drama. Since the mod gets to defend themselves and also prove themselves, if they are demoted it will be on better terms instead of a thread that is pretty much a guaranteed demotion because of the herd mentality of voting, and the ever present drama and bashing that seems to occur in every thread.

Short on time, so I can't list any cons; but I'm sure there are some. Feel free to point them out.

Note: This was literally just an idea of the top of my head. If it won't work, then that's fine. I'm trying to get some discussion going on how we can handle demotions without causing shit and making everyone pissed.

(Edited by Ecuinach)

0

WhyAmIReadingThis·10/29/2014

Yeah, demotion threads really aren't the way.

Taking it to a Bureucrat should be more appropiate.

(Edited by WhyAmIReadingThis)

0

Steam Phoenix·10/29/2014

Mystreve wrote:

Steam Phoenix wrote:

Mystreve wrote:
Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.
We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.
The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.
Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.
Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

1 Project:Demotion Policy. This was already a community voted thing. Not allowing them? When did that happen?

2. "Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread." I hate to be the crier of unfairness, but if you're going to have someone demoted via thread, they have the right to defend themselves. Say the person providing the screencaps used "Inspect Element"? Or just took a cap of an incident intentionally out of context? Why should someone who gets a demotion thread be deprived of the ability to counter said "irrefutable proof"? Just a small pointer.

I'm all ears for your better ideas, Callie.

Honestly, I'd be content with this council idea if it could be ensured that the members found were really not biased and this idea didn't have the capability of easily blowing back up in our faces.

But, to be honest. Put an idea in play and demote the mods, the mods who get demoted will complain. Don't put an idea in, users will complain about bad mods. Put the idea in play, and eventually it won't matter - the mods we do select will eventually be singled out as "bad mods" by some user or another for some particular reason. If there was a way to break the cycle of complaining and drama, I'd be all for it.

(Edited by Steam Phoenix)