Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-26908198-20150727013747/@comment-26047195-20150727145947

GuacamoleCCXR wrote: Luke McSwagger99 wrote: Aravis Tarkheena wrote: I'm pretty sure bias would horribly ruin this. The /good/ mods, that is, the ones who do the most to enforce rules in the toughest situations, would have the most people against them, because their actions would naturally affect the most "troublemakers" negatively. It makes sense that those who kick/ban the most are the ones with the most enemies. (Though I find that those CMs are generally the most effective.)

also, nothing can put our faith back into the idea that links will not be spammed, nothing. Implying that we have enough "troublemakers" and "enemies" around to corrupt the entire voting process? I'm sure most of our community agrees with you on the point that those CM's are the most effective and are worth keeping those rights. I wouldn't risk it, honestly. Let's not pretend there aren't any shonky people around.

Besides, what's the supposed benefit of this procedure in the first place? Removing unefficient CMs won't help anyone, it's like decluttering a storage hall of infinite size. If a mod were to actually cause trouble, the admins would intervene by themselves. We don't have to be fearful of the votes of two or three trolls either.

The procedure would allow the community to have their say and provide the capability of them (through voting) to 1) Remove the rights of inactive CM's who upon their monthly visits to chat would most definitely be unaware of newly introduced policies and other matters, 2) Remove the rights of CM's who aren't productively using said rights, and through it all: 3) Shift the position of CM from a mere right in chat that a large handful of users can possess to one that is more strictly obtained and exercised with a higher standard of seriousness.