Forum:Appointment of Chat Moderators without Discussion

''I would like to state before this forum even starts, that it is not about whether or not User:Straw Hat Boy is qualified for and/or should be a chat mod. This forum is about the process which was used to make him a mod. Please, try and stay on topic in this forum, and do not let your emotions about certain users cloud your judgment and poison your words. Remember that it is not SHB’s fault that he was made a mod with this process.''

For those of you who are unaware, here is a summary of the events that have caused this forum:

Here User:Ricizubi posted on DP's talk about him wishing to retire. He recommended User:Straw Hat Boy to replace him.

After Rici’s rights were removed, DP entered chat and was there for awhile talking with other users. Once SHB came on, DP private messaged him, asked him if he wanted the job, and then SHB became a chat mod.

Now, I and several other users have a problem with this process. Not only are their memories of “last time” but also genuine concern about whether things should have happened due to the Forum/Poll rules that are likely to pass in the next couple days.

My main concern is that during the chat before SHB was promoted, several users raised serious concerns and basically from what I can gather, the majority opinion was “SHB should not be made a chat mod.” What really frustrates me is that even though many users said “this should not happen” and DP made it happen.

I don’t care if an admin appoints a chat mod without an election. But there should at least be a community discussion about it. And if the majority of users think something should not happen, an admin should respect the opinions of their community. A good admin does not make policy, but helps the wiki create policy. I was in chat at the moment that SHB was made a mod, and I was honestly dumbfounded that DP would do that and knowingly disregard the opinions of so many users.

So from here, I would like the discussion to be about the process that chat mods are to be appointed. Personally, I think an acceptable way to deal with this would have been to have a forum where the discussion (and possibly a poll, depending on how the discussion went) was about giving SHB chat mod status. It would not be about any other people getting chat mod status, just SHB, in light of Rici’s nomination. This forum is not intended to be the forum about if he should be a mod or not. I am not out to immediately take away SHB’s chat mod rights. I just want there to be a real discussion about this process. So please, let’s all be nice and talk about this. 21:16, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

"Discussion"
I don't mind DP making an user a mod on his own decision. That saves us a lot of time and frustration. However, when multiple users were against it, and DP was fully aware of this, and proceeded on to making the user a mod, that is wrong. I can understand DP's reasons for that though. But people are taking this too seriously. This is the only problem I have with this. 21:20, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as it was wrong to make someone else a chatmod without voting, don't forget DP made me a chatmod by only asking me. Without a vote.. And then Rici and Ryu asked him and he made them too, without a vote. I'm not against to an admin's choice.

That was long ago LPK. Times have changed and when a bunch of users specifically state that it's a bad idea (including 2 chat moderators), then the admin should not just do what he wants in order to avoid a forum. 21:29, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

If a Mod is to be Appointed. It should be rewarded to a user is deemed as trusty worthy by the community and a user who covers a time zone that lacks Admin/Mod. Also Don't I think SHB isn't ready to be a MoD Yet. 21:31, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Now you are directly criticizing SHB's ability to be a mod. How come no one had a problem with this when Rici, Ryu, LPK, and Kuro were elected mods? Or when JSD and the other rollbacks were put in place? And I think that we are degrading the admins; remember they were elected to keep the wiki in line. I do think that DP should have listened, but I think that the only reason you people are making a fuss is because SHB was the one elected. 21:35, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing was just ridiculous. I have no problem with a CM being appointed without a community vote, but to completely disregard others opinions on the subject is completely asinine. Putting this aside, SHB is in general just not a good candidate for moderator position. He absolutely does not assume good faith. Name one moment where a new user has joined the chat and he hasn't assumed they were a troll just because they were new? --I didn&#39;t come here to paint eachother&#39;s nails like girls at a slumber party - I came here to kick your ass. If you have something to say, you can say it while I&#39;m cutting you to pieces! (talk) 21:36, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

The forum is mostly about what you said in your first sentence Besty, but let's try to leave out the second part since it isn't the Main focus of the forum. The main focus is community being ignored. PX, that is not true at all. This forum would exist right now no matter who the new appointed chat mod was. 21:37, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

l agree with JSD, a mod needs to be trusted by the community, so a community discussion is needed. 21:38, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

If you guys don't want to be a chatmod at all don't participate in this forum. And if you want to strip off StrawHatBoys rights just because you think it's unfair then lighten up. Now if you want to be a chatmod instead of him then go ahead and complain

LPK that is not the point of the forum at all. It isn't about anybody being jealous, it's about the community being ignored. Numerous people stated that SHB would be unfit to do the job (which may or may not be true), but even so, DP should have listened to the people before making such a quick decision. 21:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

''This forum has become very accusatory and disrespectful. Please everyone, actually read what I wrote and try to do better in the area of "Respect."''' Take it seriously, guys. 21:46, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Look, with all past joking aside, I personally don't care if I never became chat mod. If I was offered the job like this so suddenly, I would have declined. It's not fair for other users to give somebody a job without consulting anybody. This situation is similar to when Kuro became mod, however I think everybody shrugged that off because they believe Kuro is a trustworthy member, and we probably would have voted for him if there was an election anyways. SHB, as far as I've seen, has not gained a status like this in our community. So when you give him a big position like this so sudden, without even consulting other users, that to me, with all due respect DancePowderer, seems very impulsive. 21:50, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Gal, I highly doubt that this would have happened if it hadn't been SHB. No one said a word when Kuro was made mod, let alone the other examples. No matter how much you say it, you guys are biased against him.

Anyways, if you guys want this changed, propose a process. I'm not agreeing to anything until you present a plan to make sure this doesn't happen again. 21:50, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JDS, a community decision is defenitly needed. We had this kind of situation before, and I don't see why DP appointed SHB as new chatmod..

PX what the heck. Kuro was already a trusted member of the community at the time, but if I had been here at the time, I would have been a little mad. This forum is NOT about SHB PX, so stop posting like it is. 21:53, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the community can make a decision like that. The community discusses about regular forums that are talking about rules and pretty simple stuff. That is an admins choice, unless it's a massive chatmod election that more than 2 people are going to be chatmods..

The community should have some sort of input over who gets to have power over them anywhere. Since many members of the community were AGAINST the idea of this happening, it obviously wasn't a good decision by DP. 21:56, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Gal, I'm not the one that started this criticizing of SHB. Anyways, since you all seem incapable of doing this, I propose a plan for new mods.


 * 1) Five or more users propose the need for a new mod on a forum.
 * 2) Nominations take place for the next three days. Each nominee must be approved by at least two current mods.
 * 3) Elections take place for one week. The winner becomes a mod.

This process is designed to be quick and streamlined. I personally don't think this is as important as an admin spot, hence the shorter amount of time. 22:01, November 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the admin that appoints the mod has veto rights. He can choose not to elect the mod. 22:04, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sure PX, that could work for future mod elections. If SHB went through something like that fairly and got it, then it wouldn't be that big of a deal. 22:03, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

And as for the amendment, sure. If the Admin feels that a new chat mod isn't needed, or that the person just isn't fit, but it would still go back to the community. 22:06, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Right now dispite us not liking DP's decision it's honestly to early to tell if SHB can be a good MOD. 22:11, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter Besty. Since he was brought in without community consent, it has to be decided in a way like PX described. 22:14, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Again, you;re taking this to a personal matter.. Community elects admins to do their work. If an admin wants to make someone a chatmod he can do it as long as he wants to. Now SHB is a chatmod for like 2 days, don;t judge him cause you don't like the idea of having him as a mod. If he abuses his rights then he will be stripped right away.


 * One day, actually, LPK. 22:30, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Just gonna clarify some things.....

When the forum is created, the names of the five people must be at the top. Each forum must list the reasons the forum was created, a Nomination section, and a Discussion section. After the three-day nomination section is over, the voting begins (in a new section).

Each new nomination in the nomination section has a new subheading (like the current admin forum). The two mods must give their consent within the three day period under that same heading. Users may ask mods to support them.

Unless the forum specifies otherwise, only ONE user will be elected per forum suggestion. This is to avoid the craziness of the previous mod election.

If an admin deems a user not fit to be a mod after election, veto rights are available. If the admin decides not to mod the user, he can be overridden by 20 votes for a particular candidate. Without these votes, the user does not get rights.

For the sake of not clogging up the history with a bunch of useless forums, we might want to consider deleting the content of the old mod forum when a new forum mod is created (the same page is used). Or we could create a new category, or do neither.

Any questions? 22:30, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I always support community decisions, because the wiki is run by a community, but I honestly think that the chat moderator is nothing special at all... that's may be seem out of place from someone that usually don't use the chat (well, at least not here :P) but seriously, what the purpose of the chatmod is? To kick trolls out when needed. Moderate the users in the chat and deal with them if they don't follow the common etiquette? Sure, but that's something that an admin is qualified for... so the chatmod basically replace the admin when he is not around. In my opinion any trusted user can be promoted to chatmod, and you can have the admin double check later any decisions that he does (= kickban users, the only decision he could ever make). No big deal, if some kickbans were unfair then they will be undo in less then a day by an admin, probably. I propose that the admins give chatmod status to trusted users who actively frequent the chat each week, rotating the status between the users themselves. Simple, fair and efficient.

easiest way to handle this, give SHB one or two months with the position of chat mod if he don't play is role as a CM just tell DP about this behavior,  Nico ❤❤❤  22:39, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

LPK, if the community has a problem with someone being made a chat mod, then they have a right to bring it up. We aren't just supposed to sit back and watch when something we don't like happens. No Nico, 1-2 months is a long time. 22:42, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I think we should just rotate the chatmod every week so this way everyone will be involved and it will be easier to deal with it. If you go with the election way, then I suggest to decide everything each time in the chat itself, for example set a given time, like 20:00 UTC then decide in the chat who will be the new chatmod and for how long, basically by raising hands. Simpler and faster, and since the chatmod is about only the chat it makes sense to not use the forum each time. You can do even both ways, like every Sunday at 20:00 in the chat will be decided who the new chatmods for the week will be.

That may work Levi, but it really depends on who else is OK with it. 23:02, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's too much shit. Why can't you just be ok with it.. If you guys want to be mods instead of SHB then suggest a poll for who's going to be one instead of complaining and bitchin about it. Please.

That seems like wayyyyy to much trouble Levi, we should just elect some new chatmod and that's that.

Nobody ever said a good business doesn't have much work. I support Levi's idea. Sure it takes time, but it's better than a sudden choosing. Would you rather have to go through something like this every time, where there will never be a happy result between all users, or go through an easy vote so everybody has a fair chance? 23:19, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

than sound good levi, but not every one has the same time line,@ gal as member's of this wiki reason with me i know that SHB some time can be an a$$ but i thing it's kinda unfair to give the position to him and take it back in just a couple of day,so lets just all give him 3 week then since a month us to long to play a good role, Nico ❤❤❤  23:23, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I was actually ok to just let the admin changes chatmod each week on their choice, since it's a basically useless status to begin with, but since I got the feeling that you like more the old democratic way, then I feel like using the forum each time and wait some days to get a results too complicated, you may do all of that in the chat itself. Of course it's still ok to do the old way, I was simply giving you guys alternatives. If we opt for a quicker promotion method (either nominated directly by admin or election in the chat) I think you should change/rotate chat moderators each weeks, this way everybody get a round, no one will left out and no one will cry over the spilled milk. Mine are just ideas, remember, but I'm saying this because it's already the second time that I saw a forum about chat moderators complaints.

that don't sound reasonable. it will cause to much confusions. Nico ❤❤❤  00:34, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

The unfair part is that he was given it in the first place Nico. The days do not matter. LPK, stop assuming we want to be mods. This forum is about the community being overlooked and nothing more. 23:34, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure if ppl are aware but we currently have 7 MODS..its more then enough 2 in europe,4 in america,1 in australia...so time zones shouldnt rly be a problem. User:X-RAPTOR 23:36, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

A weekly Mod would just bring up more uneeded issues. As X said 7 mods is more than enough. 23:41, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

@Galaxy: yeah since no method to give chatmod status wasn't decided (not that I remember) it was legit to inquiring that, so we should take this forum as an opportunity to choose a method and stick with it, because although I said that I'm fine with admins choosing the chatmods, it's fine if we voted that way to begin with. I give you some ideas, now work out some actual options to choose from. @Besty: I was actually proposing to change EVERY chatmods weekly, not just one. If a week is too short what about two or a whole month?

I'm so disgusted in how so many people have ignored the meaning of this forum. I am deeply ashamed in myself for even opening it. I trusted this wiki to actually read what I wrote and be respectful in their responses. But from the very first post, it was not so. It's become the worst thing I've witnessed on this wiki. It's even worse than the weird porn vandals upload. I can't "unsee" this forum, and I hate that.

'''Please, let us focus on the issues I mentioned in the opening post. If you ignored the opening post because you ASSUMED you knew what the forum was about, please go back and read it.''' 23:54, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

JSD, there have been multiple solutions proposed and discussed. While at the beginning this forum was off topic, I think that we have successfully brought it back on track.

Anyways, I think that the current system works well enough (having a set amount of mods), since they cover their respective time zones pretty well. If we did have the rotating system, I think that we would end up picking a lot of the same users anyways. Should we just set it to a vote whether to have rotating mods chosen by an admin or constant mods chosen by the rule I proposed above (or something else)? 00:24, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, skimming the bum rush that is this forum, I'm detecting hints of jealousy, as well as subtle yet overt undertones of confusion behind my reasoning with just a dash of feeling like you need to be involved in everything. It's not like I threw a dart and chose the person it landed on. If I didn't think SHB were responsible enough to handle it, i wouldn't have asked him following the resignee's endorsement. I actually had another person or two lined up on the off chance he said no, both of whom shall remain nameless but were picked by me using the same criteria, responsible, respected, etc. Appointing them saves us from what would have otherwise been a complete waste of time. Ok, I kinda goofed the last time this was opened. I admit that, and also I point out that the goof was resolved with a turnaround of not even 12 hours, but it only happened that way because people were bugging ME TO PICK some mods. Then what do we do? We waste a week with a forum whose results would have been the same as me just appointing the replacement. So I figure, why waste time with an ultimately pointless forum to decide something that would have happened anyway? It's not like it can't be removed. You don't have to go to the guys at central to request the removal of chatmod status. Seriously, I don't understand why people flip over this. It's completely reversible. Sheesh, you act like I just made the biggest vandal in wikia history a bureaucrat or something. You guys are flipping over something that is a complete and total nanny state. Now stop crying just because change happened and it scared you. 00:33, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly trying to ask this in a friendly manner, so please don't misinterpret anything. How do you know what the outcome would be if you didn't ask? How many people in chat were expressing concern over the possibility of SHB being made a chat mod without discussion?


 * Also, last week I heard some good advice from someone. It went something like this:
 * "A good Admin can wait. A good admin can wait for all the facts to be in." I got this advice from you, DP. It was last week, when we were talking about Big Mom's possibly corrosive saliva. How is not waiting for confirmation from other users on the wiki about SHB being a mod any different from not waiting to add that BM's spit is acid?


 * Also, I saw this on Central yesterday before any of this happened, and I can't help but have it on my mind now: User blog:Brandon Rhea/Tips for being a great admin. 00:56, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * What I kinda dont get is do we really need a replacement for Rici? I believe we have enough chat mods to fill all the timezones. Is 7 the holy number for the amount of chat mods we need or something? 00:42, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well Hungry sometimes we do. Earlier today at around 2-4 P.M. there was not a single chat mod online, but we had a pretty full house in the chat (around 15 people). 00:50, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

In response to Levi's idea and the initial prompt, not the above: The rotating idea sounds like a lot more work then it's worth, and will probably cause more problems then it'll solve (differences in time-zones, people who aren't mature being promoted, etc.). I'm also wary of the election process, as last time the community was given that decision we saw four new moderators elected... who were all on at the same time. Yes, we have eight moderators. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? But when you look at when they are actually on, over half are covering the same time-zone, and the rest only briefly overlap.

It isn't just about whether the user is capable, it's also about necessity. I was promoted because there was an average of ten hours that wasn't covered, and anybody who was on in this time was effectively defenceless. And until yesterday, I was still the only moderator in this time zone while the opposite side still has six others.

I don't mind the election process, it's good when it works and right now is the best option we have. I just want the people voting to be aware that they shouldn't just be voting for people who are on when they are, the chat still goes on when they're asleep. And as for nominations from retiring moderators, that's fine too. But it should be a matter of, "I nominate this user" before going to the community to judge, rather then insta-promotion. 01:13, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing I can really say, I think PX and DP have summed up this discussion nicely. One thing I will say though is that not once on this wiki have I felt insulted until now. You didn't even give me a chance and you try to justify it saying it isn't about me, with some people that's true but to some this is plain and simple, It's because you don't like me and you feel the need to say this in a forum instead of talking to me on chat about it. Why are some of you judging me when you don't even know me? 01:25, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Or we do things fairly and do something like PX or Levi suggested. Sounds much better. 01:46, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so is everyone done blowing off steam? 03:41, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

lol, MODs >_> 03:45, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of PX's suggestion DP? 03:55, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

I do feel a bit better about all this nonsense, though I still stand by concerns I raised in my response to DP. 03:57, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say blowing off steam. I would say keeping a democracy within our community. 03:59, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

This is by far the stupidest discussion in a forum ever. SHB if I were you I would've given up my chatmod rights and insult all those who are against me. You act like babies seriously. You call this being a community where one user from your 'community' got a chance to do something and you jump to him like he came in this wiki yesterday.

I'm seriously pissed. And it's not like DP made him a mod out of the blue!!! Rici was the one that gave up his rights as a mod and as a favor to that he wanted SHB to replace him, god damn... I'm pretty sure that JSD didn't want this to end up like that ok.

LPK, that's not really the issue right now. The issue is how to do the mod process from this point forward. The way I see it, we have a few options: 1) We keep the current system and use an election style similar to what I have proposed. 2) We keep the current system and let administrators choose moderators (within the scope of their personal opinions and the sources the choose to consult) and 3) Introduce Levi's proposed rotating mod system. Let's cut the crap and decide once and for all. If you want a detailed explanation for any of the proposed systems, read the above conversation. As JSD stated before, this is not about SHB or any of the current mods (I contributed to that problem, which I regret), so let's just focus on the topic I mentioned and nothing else. 13:35, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, DP also recently appointed several users (Calu, JSD and Jade) to be rollbacks, also without any prior discussion. Really not the way things should be handled. 14:26, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

@LPK, .. bro, why do I feel like you are the only person taking this forum very seriously =_+ come on bro, cool down .. count one to ten or sip some herbal tea or join me for KOSTAS FAMILY RE-UNION ^_^. No need to get all worked up and pointing fingers >_> MOD business has never been easy on this wiki. They are hired and fired like its Donald Trump's Apprentice ..wait, no .. actually I only seen hiring till now .. this is where I agree with IH that we have more than enough MODs. and even if someone is made MOD to fill-in time-blank then he/she has to be worthy of it, right? I mean if anyone wants to be a MOD .. he/she shall list their name on a specific page and also list the time they are available in between. So if a MOD is required between a specific time then admin can look up the list and know who's available. If they are more than 1 candidates and only one post then a mini election for can be put in place. OF COURSE, they have to list the right time they are available in-between .. if they just write the time and then not be there or be on but mostly away then its plain lame. I never liked MODs, I still don't .. but I never thought that my dislikeness will get to level when I would wish that DP would just remove the whole chat and put an end to this bullshit. Cause whenever there is some issue regarding chat, its nothing but drama and people leaving the wiki. and I seen more then enough of that to know where this is going. 17:12, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Panda, we can't really discuss that on this forum. Start a new one about that if you want to have it discussed. 23:44, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Actual Discussion
So the above discussion has turned into a shitstorm, let's make a new section where we'll talk only about future prospects and nothing else. As PX has summarised we have three presented options;


 * We use an electoral system where the community can nominate and then vote for new moderators when new chat moderators are required.
 * We allow the administrators to choose the chat moderators based on personal judgement and whoever they choose to consult about it.
 * We introduce a rotation system where after a determined period of time we swap around the chat moderators.

Are we all good? Are we all focused on the matter at hand now? If you have any different ideas, share them! Or weigh your opinion in on the current choices. 23:23, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

The second one. The first one is just a waste of time while the third is both a waste of time and a royal pain in the ass. 23:29, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Number One. Just from this situation alone it can be seen that #2 just isn't going to work. 23:32, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

In the second scenario, to make it better, I say that the new mod that an admins selects must be approved by no less than three current mods. I don't think that this would be so large of an inconvenience that DP wouldn't be troubled to do it. 23:35, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

People are acting like the mods I've chosen have been completely ineffectual as at their job and I'm ignoring that. They aren't and I'm not. If a mod is mistreating his or her position, or using his or her position to mistreat others, tell me and I'll rectify it. It's that easy. You act like it's permanent when it's not. Oh, and God forbid someone might get kicked off the chat for a short period of time by a bad mod, that would be tragic. Now why don't we focus on issues about something whose domain doesn't come with a kill switch? 23:42, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

DP, right now we're just focussing on what we'll do in the future. There is no longer any questioning of the current moderators (at least in this section of the forum). We're just working to put a system in place.

There is a fourth option. On the Bleach Wiki we have a committee of sorts, and whenever it comes to a decision of promoting a user to a higher responsibility (such as chat moderator or roll backer) only members of this committee are permitted to vote. I know we don't have a group like that here, but if we were to allow only the administrators and current chat moderators to weigh in on any future promotions. This would cut out the social-minded users who only vote based on who they're friends with (and therefore gaining immunity to kicks/bans if their friend is promoted) and allow for the majority of voters to be people who are actually invested in the good of chat.

See it as a compromise between the first and second options. While no immediate resolutions can be made, once a majority decision is reached we could have settled the matter in mere days instead of weeks, and the people voting will be considerate to what will benefit the chat. 23:49, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

I like the second one the most. We pick trusted admins, and if a admin believes that another user is capable to be a good chat mod, or anything else, then they should become it. How come everyone is just having a problem with it now, and not before? Anyways, the other two do take time, and as DP said, they are a waste of time. For the fourth option, I think some people might think it's unfair that they aren't allow to vote. 00:03, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

First option. Simple, original and effective with guaranteed satisfaction to both MOD and the community.

Or .. the idea that I talked in my message above. Let me re-phrase it for in simple terms. First admin should make a MOD page where he/she lists the relinquishment for being a MOD. The people who would like the MOD position will list their name if they meet the relinquishment. With their name they will also list the time-zone they are available in. When wiki requires MOD til fill certain time-gap, admin can look up the list for the available people and if its more then one candidate .. there will be a mini election .. 3 day cote forum or judgement by admin .. that I don;t care. But this way we can elect a MOD who wants to be MOD and will be available in the time-zone where he/she is most requires. Of course they have to be true to themselves when they write the time .. they can just write 24/7 and when they become MOD they are just mostly away. Well this is my idea, .. other then this I support the first option of community election. 00:12, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

We elect admins to enforce community decisions. We should be allowed to oppose a choice they make, which has happened in this forum. It really doesn't matter if something is a waste of time, because it makes everything fair. 00:13, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Galaxy either you take the chat way too seriously or you're just bitter that Rici or DP didn't choose you over SHB. I can't explain how immature you're acting. You keep saying that this is a community and everyone has a right to say something, well not all the time.

If an admin wants to do something on his own he can do it. That's why he is an admin. Why do you think we have admins? Only to ban trolls? It's his own decision and he thinks he's right.

If you guys won't give it a rest, then open a poll for the replacement or a poll for future decisions of admins over matters like that, AND STOP COMPLAINING.

Ignoring the post just above me, I believe the second or first options might be best. I don't think one single person should tell who gets the job, so I support PX's idea with the approval of other chat mods. I personally think 2 is enough, though. 00:52, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I support PX's idea as well. We get more then one person's input, and the people weighing in are trustworthy. 01:17, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's good that we are working out a solution, but seriously, the chat moderator is the most useless right ever in the history of wikis... you shouldn't take all this mess so seriously, but whatever...


 * (this is somewhat out off-topic, but I just want to explain this) Levi, if the chat moderator job didn't exist, then only admins would have the right to monitor the chat. It's a minor part, but it's still convienient to have a sub-ordinate patrolling a section so the higher can work on things only they can. Think of the Marines. You don't see the three admirals patrolling every part of the world, do you? Of course not, which is why they have lower ranks.That's why the sub-ranks work. Focusing on one thing, letting the more important work on more important things. I just wanted to explain that. Carry on with the main discussion. 01:40, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the assumptions LPK. This is all about the community and if you can't see it then you have no right to be on this forum. Nobody is jealous over anybody. I would be complaining if ANYONE was made a mod, because of this overlook of what the community thought. I myself would have denied it, because I know something like this would happen, and I would go through it in the FAIREST way possible (which is for chat frequenters to vote, or even current chat mods).

You also don't seem to understand the point of an admin. They are here to enforce decisions that the community makes. The community needs to make a decision in this forum about how they want Chat mods to be selected.

Levi, the chat mod position may not be important to the wiki itself, but for people that use the chat, it's very important. Even if the person who moderates the chat has no power elsewhere, they are still being put in charge over many people, and those people should at least get to decide if they want that person in that position. 02:02, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Guys, focus. This section was made to avoid topics like this. Stick to talking about how we're going to deal with new chat moderators in the future, not personal arguments or nihilistic opinions on the value of chat. 02:14, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Some people have expressed interest in Option #2, with two or three mods approving a new mod. DP has also backed this idea, and Levi has stated that we should not make a huge deal out of this. I agree with all of them. After thinking this over, I think that we should go with option #2, where an admin proposes a new mod (doesn't matter if someone recommends him to, asks him to, or he decides on his own) candidate and if that person is approved by three current mods, bam, the new mod is in. Abuse of power from ANY mod can be reported and the admin shall judge it himself. Any problems? 02:21, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Instead of 3, it should be the majority (meaning 4 at this moment). 02:26, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

No problems here. Bam, print it - wrap it - ship it. 02:28, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

(sorry PX and Kuro, but you're edit conflicting too much and I haven't read your posts. But here's mine)

The reason I believe admin should not promote a user to mod alone is because I feel that's impulsive, and unhealthy for the job. Especially when some people deserve it more than others. A chat mod should be somebody who participates in chat often, is friendly to users (specifically new ones), and is deemed trustworthy by the community. I believe we should know the users' opinions on things before anybody gets promoted. I don't mean things like forums. If it's chat mod, it can be discussed on chat when many people are there. It's also a perfect place for debate on who can get the job. I don't believe in the "want mod? you got it" approach. Putting it in one person's decision is irrational, and making elections of it just wastes time. If a user getting promoted is controversal, MAYBE a forum is necessary. But those are special cases that will hopefully be rare. Does anybody like the idea of discussing future chat mods in chat? It's quick, and most of the community who's concerned about it will participate. 02:29, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nada, I like the idea, but this is entirely subjective on who is in the chat at the time. The mod approval would allow for a more reliable and flexible election that could take place anytime, anywhere and still be consistent. And it's not like it's random people appointing new mods either; mods are the people who know the chat best and therefore have the best idea who is up to the task. Changing it to four mods, per Gal's suggestion, would allow for a more consistent, community-approved, kind of feel. 02:54, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * What Nada said reminded me the full story of the previous MOD hiring conflict. It all started when some scumbag annoyed DP enough that DP decided to make quick hiring for 4 MODs. Thou the method was bit goof but the purpose was positive. At that time what other members found wrong was that, there were other members in wiki who deserved the MOD title nore but they didn't get it .. Pandawarrior, Sff, IH(don't ask) and other few to name. SO because of that belief it was decided to re-elect the MODs but with community's votes. Now not sure how you might relate that incident to this but to me the issue seems very similar to that situation. Some believe that the member who do deserve MOD title didn't get it. Nothing personal, no personal conflict involved. Now thats what I think. 03:17, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * MDM, that's a completely different situation. It wasn't done by discussion at all. That was just another form of "want mod? you got it". I'm talking about discussing the candidate on chat, not just giving it away. I know my idea is flawed, since timing is the key factor as who is on chat at the time, but that's also why I thought of the possibility of waiting until there are people on chat, since the only people who should care about chat mods should be those who participate the chat. Again, this is flawed because it can involve waiting. It's just an idea that can give the community more decision. Don't like it? That's fine. The other ideas are good too. 03:23, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

No.1 sounds like a good option. --Listen up...I&#39;m a guy who thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, soooo...I guess I gotta get some. (talk) 03:00, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

And, late to the party as always, here comes Ryu. I think we've already established that admins get to pick the mods, right? No rotation, no election. That's all well and good. Here's the thing. The day I became a chat moderator, the following conditions were met. 1) We needed a moderator. All we had was LPK and Rici. Two, to the eight or nine we have today. 2) It was a popular desicion. The entire chat was urging me to apply for the position, supporting me, just being pajamas. I didn't hear anyone oppose the idea. 3) I sent a formal request to DP. With a list of reasons why I should be a chat mod. Because it was a big deal to me. I'm not saying that these three conditions need to be met for every moderator, but it certainly says something about who the admins pick. 03:25, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how having a community discussion about who to make a mod is a "waste of time". I honestly don't. I see no reason for anyone to run into getting a new mod within days of losing a mod, let alone the few hours it took for SHB to be appointed. I don't care if an admin wishes to appoint 1 user to the position, but the wiki should be consulted via a forum. There's absolutely need to rush into decisions like this. It doesn't have to be a long one, (maybe like 3 days) since most users of the chat come on every day, and would learn of the forum from chat. 03:49, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think when people say "waste of time", they mean it's time-consuming and is a bit unnecessary. That's why I proposed doing it on chat. It saves time. 04:24, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I would apreciate it if my name was no longer mentioned in this discussion. Cheers 04:21, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud, this will never end. Basically most of you want a forum before appointing a new mod. DP doesn't. Now this will take forever if you don't talk to DP alone who was the one that did it.

The idea of PX is good, but it's like a poll too, only that the current mods can vote. This is unfair to the 'community' right? Only the users with rights can decide what happens in this wiki then. Galaxy either way, with you agreeing on this idea, you're still out of the picture. You and 85% users on this wiki. You care for the chat way too much, we have already like 8 mods to take care of every noob out there, so we shouldn't make any fuss about it.

If you want this forum to end then talk to DP or open a poll about future decisions.


 * Agreed. I think we've reached the limit of discussion here, so it might just be time for a poll, since no one is agreeing on one set thing. 13:59, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree, It would be good to get this over with. 14:11, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Poll
The following poll is to decide the process we shall use to decide chat moderators in the future, should the need arise. The poll will run from the 8th of November, 2012 until the 22nd of November, 2012. In order to vote you need a minimum of 300 edits, and have been active for three months.

How will we promote future chat moderators?


 * We use an electoral system where the community can nominate and then vote for new moderators.
 * 14:33, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14:58, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14:59, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15:47, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) User:X-RAPTOR 16:00, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16:19, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16:28, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16:28, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * We allow the administrators to choose the chat moderators based on personal judgement and whoever they choose to consult about it.


 * We introduce a rotation system where after a determined period of time we swap around the chat moderators.


 * We use an electoral system, but only the current administrators and chat moderators are capable of voting for new candidates. One administrator and four moderators for a majority vote.
 * 1)   14:24, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  14:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  15:48, November 7, 2012 (UTC) It's faster, but with a "community"'s decision. Kind of like the Senators, House of Representatives, and so on.....
 * 2)  16:22, November 7, 2012 (UTC)