Introduce a policy that makes inactive users lose their rights

This post is locked.

Veralann·8/6/2016 in Community Voting

So recently there's been some talk going about the huge amount of chat moderators we have and how many of them are actually active. To prevent this from continueing (or happening again), I propose we introduce a policy that makes users who have been inactive for x amount of time lose their rights.

Note: This would not affect bureaucrats as only they can demote themselves (or staff, but that's only for specific cases), and they worked hard enough to become a buro in the first place.

Should we introduce a policy that makes inactive users lose their rights?
A) Yes: 22 Votes

B) No: 10 Votes

If you voted "A) Yes," how long should the amount of time be?
1) 6 months: 17 Votes
2) 8 months: 3 Votes
3) 1 year: 1 Vote
4) Election through a period a time: 1 Vote
5) Other (explain in comments):

Consensus: Yes, introduce a policy for demoting users with rights who have been inactive for at least 6 months

(Edited by Veralann)

Riolu777·8/8/2016

Johnyjo wrote:

BusyCityGirl wrote:
...Also, no one has ever been able to explain to me what real harm an inactive mod is doing. Food for thought. The closest to a halfway decent reason I've heard is, "They won't be up to date on the rules if they're inactive too long." That, honestly, is just silly though. All good mods stay up to date always. Most especially when returning after a long time away! Even if a certain mod returns and takes a couple days to get around to brushing up on things, they can easily observe other mods and let them handle things. Or if they apply a rule that no longer exsists, a simple explanation from someone solves that slip up in a jiffy. ...*a 3 page essay starts forming in my mind*

People are always complaining about how there's too many Mods. While, frankly, I don't care, if you've been inactive for 6 months, it's only fair that you loose your position so that there's more room for other people.

There isn't some cap for user rights. If a mod is inactive, their rights wouldn't be considered in the discussion of there being "too many mods." They would merely sit in the back, gathering dust, until they ever decided to come back to the wiki. I have never seen an RfR affected by the existence of inactive mods. No "room" has to be made in this regard.

As a result, I vote B.

(Edited by Riolu777)

Romaniandude12·8/8/2016

(Edited by Romaniandude12)

Starrocks923·8/9/2016

BubseyBrick wrote:

KnightoftheLight wrote:
After reading what Harry said, I'm changing my vote from A1 to B.

I am also changing my answer to B

As am I. Funny how your opinion can be changed by someone repeating what you say and agrees with you. In this case, I feel Harold explained it much better than I could, and then some.

And as BCG (I missed you!!!) and Rio pointed out, there's no cap for CM Rights. And I think Loney's point up above is the cherry on top.

(Edited by Starrocks923)

Dark Yada·8/9/2016

A 1

Yada Dark 21:07, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

(Edited by Dark Yada)

GandalftheWizard·8/10/2016

A 4

I think CMs and other positions should be elected for a period of time.

That would prevent inactive users from retaining rights they aren't using (they won't run for reelection to their position) and, imo, help ensure quality modding.

(Edited by GandalftheWizard)

GuacamoleCCXR·8/10/2016

a 1

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

SkepticQuark·8/10/2016

GandalftheWizard wrote:
A 4

I think CMs and other positions should be elected for a period of time.

That would prevent inactive users from retaining rights they aren't using (they won't run for reelection to their position) and, imo, help ensure quality modding.

Honestly, that just sounds like more bureaucracy and red tape which is exactly what this place doesn't need more of in my opinion.

(Edited by SkepticQuark)

Peudguin·8/11/2016

A). 1).

(Edited by Peudguin)

Jdude420·8/12/2016

B). 3).

(Edited by Jdude420)

Veralann·8/13/2016

Jdude420 wrote: B). 3).

Why do you insist on voting no and then voting on the Yes subvote

</noscript>

(Edited by Veralann)