mai favorite <3
A Walruse: Strong oppose.
A5637: Oppose.
Aok: Oppose.
Aravis Tarkheena: Support.
BusyCityGirl: Oppose.
Dwarfminefan580: Oppose.
Gslover1: Oppose.
GuacamoleCCXR: Oppose.
Idkwhoyouare: Oppose. Idek who they are.
InvisibleHunter: Oppose.
Man.City1: Support.
Marcel77799: Support.
PinguBonScott: Oppose.
Samed5: Oppose.
TheShadowAssassin: Support.
I support Jdude and Obi. Change the rest to CM. They certainly ought to be appreciated for their contributions to the early advancement and development of this wiki so I'm not in favor of entirely demoting any of them. If they wish to become fully active admins once again, then they as CM's can put up an admin RfR and the community will vote them back in if they feel the need for more administrators.
No, it's certainly not cheating. Merging polls on votes is merely an implementation of clear logic.
Note the revote on CM's/admins. Choice A was in favor of revoting /only/ those users with rights who had never been voted in through RfR. Choice B was in favor of revoting on /all/ of the CM's and admins, regardless of whether they were already voted in or not. Therefore, choice B /contains/ choice A entirely; the only difference between them is that B favors more than just what choice A favors. You could draw out a venn diagram or some other sort of logical graph if that helps you make more sense of it. The staff merge polls on votes like these because it's only sensible to realize that supporters of choice B are not opposed to choice A and are fully supportive of it, they simply desired additional changes.
And wouldn't you rather be logical and adherent to common sense? I mean, you have a whole policy supporting it. This feels like cheating to ensure that the poll you want isn't threatened by a logical combination of other polls sharing the same desires, which obviously isn't being fair or unbiased. I support vote merging, provided that the admins are doing so logically as they previously have in those two votes you mentioned.
If this idea were to come into effect, then I would propose that we do the RfR voting in pieces. Doing revotes for 20 or so CM's at a time would be highly impractical, and users would be annoyed to the point where they would hardly care to put time into thoughtful votes or to vote at all. My suggestion would be that we arrange it in a way where only 3 CM votes are done together for a 48-hour segment. After that segment, we would move on to another batch of 3 CM's to vote on. This way, the process would be spread out over about 2 weeks of time. Not only would we avoid having an overload of votes, but we also wouldn't have issues with losing a handful of CM's at once should there be many opposes.
The policy states that:
A request is not required to last 5 days if the following requirements are met:
The "48 hour segment" thing was just a suggestion that I personally would find practical for the situation. This vote will soon establish for us a minimum of time before RfR's can close due to the reasons that normally cause them to end before 5 days' time which I have just mentioned.
also, nothing can put our faith back into the idea that links will not be spammed, nothing.
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.
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.
For Fortress, Vonness, and whoever else would be concerned with an overload of votes:
If this idea were to come into effect, then I would propose that we do the RfR voting in pieces. Doing revotes for 20 or so CM's at a time would be highly impractical, and users would be annoyed to the point where they would hardly care to put time into thoughtful votes or to vote at all. My suggestion would be that we arrange it in a way where only 3 CM votes are done together for a 48-hour segment. After that segment, we would move on to another batch of 3 CM's to vote on. This way, the process would be spread out over about 2 weeks of time. Not only would we avoid having an overload of votes, but we also wouldn't have issues with losing a handful of CM's at once should there be many opposes.
They need to be evaluated on their chat skills, so IDK, have some people evaluate how they moderate, but we don't tell the CM who is evaluating them, so they don't act different. Then they judge and report it to the Admins or something, that way we can have actual examples and stuff. Plus, that's my thought on how an Evaluation goes :P
And then, at the end of the three day evaluation period, all info is put together, and then people vote.
It's a good thought, but I can't see it being very practical. We couldn't "pick a user to watch them" very easily without that CM finding out who is watching them anyway. We also need input from our whole community, not just one user's gatherings. Like I said, it just wouldn't be practical. Keep thinking though. :P
Luke McSwagger99 wrote:
1) Every user with CM rights would be put under an RfR as if they were requesting those rights again. (Basically, this would be a request to /keep/ those rights.)
2) The community votes on their request the same way they would for any RfR under the same guidelines (unless we decide to change some things for it).
3) Should the majority of the vote be oppose, then the user will be demoted of their rights.
This would essentially give the community the chance to decide which CM's are effective members of our moderation team and which aren't. The position of chat moderator would be treated much more seriously, rather than simple rights that are handed out to a large handful of users. This would also allow for demoting of inactive CM's who only show up once every 4 weeks to visit or something and would be unaware if we made significant changes in our policies and whatnot.
No, not at all. If I thought that none of our CM's were good then I'd be wanting them all demoted, rather than re-evaluated for the purposes of discerning which CM's are using their rights effectively and which aren't necessary.
They need to be evaluated on their chat skills, so IDK, have some people evaluate how they moderate, but we don't tell the CM who is evaluating them, so they don't act different. Then they judge and report it to the Admins or something, that way we can have actual examples and stuff. Plus, that's my thought on how an Evaluation goes :P
And then, at the end of the three day evaluation period, all info is put together, and then people vote.
I'm not sure i entirely understand what you mean there. Could you try rephrasing it a little bit?
1) Every user with CM rights would be put under an RfR as if they were requesting those rights again. (Basically, this would be a request to /keep/ those rights.)
2) The community votes on their request the same way they would for any RfR under the same guidelines (unless we decide to change some things for it).
3) Should the majority of the vote be oppose, then the user will be demoted of their rights.
This would essentially give the community the chance to decide which CM's are effective members of our moderation team and which aren't. The position of chat moderator would be treated much more seriously, rather than simple rights that are handed out to a large handful of users. This would also allow for demoting of inactive CM's who only show up once every 4 weeks to visit or something and would be unaware if we made significant changes in our policies and whatnot.
No, we ought to re-evaluate every CM we have. I meant admins like Alemas who are clearly participative and actively contributive to the good of the wiki.
^ What cash said
1) Every user with CM rights would be put under an RfR as if they were requesting those rights again. (Basically, this would be a request to /keep/ those rights.)
2) The community votes on their request the same way they would for any RfR under the same guidelines (unless we decide to change some things for it).
3) Should the majority of the vote be oppose, then the user will be demoted of their rights.
This would essentially give the community the chance to decide which CM's are effective members of our moderation team and which aren't. The position of chat moderator would be treated much more seriously, rather than simple rights that are handed out to a large handful of users. This would also allow for demoting of inactive CM's who only show up once every 4 weeks to visit or something and would be unaware if we made significant changes in our policies and whatnot.
I think we should, except for a select few that we need to stay in position.
So what I gather from what Cash said is this:
1) Every user with CM rights would be put under an RfR as if they were requesting those rights again. (Basically, this would be a request to /keep/ those rights.)
2) The community votes on their request the same way they would for any RfR under the same guidelines (unless we decide to change some things for it).
3) Should the majority of the vote be oppose, then the user will be demoted of their rights.
This would essentially give the community the chance to decide which CM's are effective members of our moderation team and which aren't. The position of chat moderator would be treated much more seriously, rather than simple rights that are handed out to a large handful of users. This would also allow for demoting of inactive CM's who only show up once every 4 weeks to visit or something and would be unaware if we made significant changes in our policies and whatnot.
LilCaSh15 wrote:
ZXSpidermanXZ wrote: I'd agree but I'd say since many of them have already been voted in it should be by majority vote.
Well of course, there would (hopefully) be plenty of other CM's and admins included voting on it as well.
I definitely support this idea, and after some more thought on it I'll offer my input.
Why would we have opinions in our policies
Alemas2005 wrote: B). *Incoming boos*
Maybe he's secretly a hipster.
Lol so true Rio