Forum:New Mod Proposition 1

So there is a lack of chat mods in the chat for hours. In my time zone, Eastern Standard Time (EST), there is a gap starting at around 12PM and ends in the early night, when Calu, Kuro, or SHB come on. Sure, an admin or mod will pop up in the chat once in a while during the gap, but for a short time.

Therefore, I would like to have new mods to cover the really long gap. Two is probably good enough to cover the gap. Anyone else agree with me? 01:26, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion 1
Agreed. 01:27, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not? 01:29, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. 01:44, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's needed. 01:47, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Clincher. 01:54, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, people are agreeing so let's nominate people for mods. 02:00, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

How to Nominate
There is a few things about nominations for chat mods. Firstly and most importantly, the potential user must be an active chatter. The user should also be a trustworthy person.

To nominate, please follow this example:

KuroAshi98
I nominate User:KuroAshi98. Nominated by your signature here.

Once a nomination has been posted, the nominee must either accept or decline the nomination by posting either Accepted by nominee's signature here. or Declined by nominee's signature here. Also, no user may nominate his or herself.

Nominations ends in three days, on 12:00AM UTC January 7, 2013. Let the nominations begin!

Jademing
I nominate User:Jademing. Nominated by 02:56, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. 03:09, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Uknownada
I nominate User:Uknownada. Nominated by 04:29, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I accept. 04:31, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Coffee Shop Corporate Raider
I nominateUser:Coffee Shop Corporate Raider. Nominated by

I accept. -- 16:56, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy9000
I Nominate User:Galaxy9000. Nominated by 16:59, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I accept. 19:02, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

JustSomeDude
I Nominate User:JustSomeDude.... Nominated by User:X-RAPTOR 17:26, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm going to have to turn down the nomination. In 2-3 weeks, I'll be going back to school, so I'll be less active on the wikia. I will also have some classes during the time when we need mods, defeating the purpose of this election. Thanks for the nomination though. 20:22, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

The Humaniod Typhoon
I nominate. Nominated by SeaTerror (talk) 21:10, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I accept, now that school is coming back I'll be active more often.

AuroraOfDeath
I nominate User:AuroraOfDeath. Nominated by 21:22, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it's very true that l don't come on as l used too, but that's mostly because there are only a few people here, and most are away :/ But l do stalk this wiki from a distance from the FT Wiki. So I can cover up Panda a little bit, we have the same timezone after all. I am mostly on in the evening UTC (cause of homework) and l can be summoned by pings (or Skype by those who have it). Anyways, l'm going to accept it ( ._.). 21:48, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

SeaTerror
I nominate User:SeaTerror (if their is one guy often on the chat...) Nominated by

I accept. SeaTerror (talk) 22:13, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

X-RAPTOR
l nominate User:X-RAPTOR so that those two are content >_> Nominated by 21:59, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I accept. User:X-RAPTOR 00:09, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Pacifista15
I nominate User:Pacifista15 Nominated by 23:51, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Nada, but I'm going to have to decline. I don't think I fit the timezone being asked for, and I'm certainly not a chat regular. I also am going to have classes to deal with in a few days, so I wouldn't be fully dedicated. 23:56, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
We already have enough chat mods also why are you nominating Kuro who is already a chat mod? SeaTerror (talk) 04:03, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

It's an example, Einstein. :P  04:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I usually cover the chat 2:30 P.M. (EST) to about 10 P.M or a little later, except Tuesdays and Thursdays. But sorry that I haven't lately due to being the end of the semester and also because I'm in the process of moving. So it's kinda like a break for now. I'll admit that sometimes I don't even enter the chat because it seems dead like usually it only has two users who are on, such as Galaxy and ST, and they are mostly away. Around that that period it's mostly dead, sometimes someone pops up but leaves soon afterwards. Hmm... I thought Jade was going to be on much anymore... I mean I haven't seen her for a while, but welcome back. 05:03, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Nah Calu. I'm not "away". I just don't talk to myself in the dead chat. :P 05:10, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

You could though XD 05:15, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

When does the nomination period end? 1 week? 05:26, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

3 days. 05:30, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Another mod.. I guess I'm fine with that, but doesn't Jade usually joins around the same time as Calu and Nada when Kuro is on? When is the gap exactly?

Nobody addressed what I said about having enough chat mods already. SeaTerror (talk) 08:04, January 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't have enough active chat mods, ST. Panda is gone again, and IH is now busy with college, and anyway he's on FT chat more often than here. Since they were supposed to cover the gap I talked about, there is now a big gap lacking mods. Though it's up to opinion, I guess. 16:15, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's alright, Calu. We understand that you got your own life and is busy with it. But even if you're active, you still can't cover the gap during school, which is what I'm aiming for. I want a mod to be able to cover that time, and you can't do that even if you're fully active because of school. 16:15, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

That gap is already filled by Panda, it's not as if she isn't coming back whitout saying anything >_>

Panda is currently inactive now and it would be better, if we had another mod that shared the same timezone as her. For instance when one is unable to watch the chat, the other could take over and we wouldn't have to worry about the lack of mod's. 17:52, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

As an average skimmer, it seems convoluted with the extra sigs and paragraphs, so I bolded the accepters. I think we should do this traditionally, just so it's a bit easier to read. 00:08, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for going home over the holidays I guess? Back for good now, still not convinced that we need another mod for that timezone though >_> 23:49, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Panda, it's alright to take a break or whatever the hell. This is more of, who can stand in your place when you are gone. You can't be on the chat all the time, because you got your own life, but the chat can't be without mods for a long time, so we need another mod to be able to stand in for you. 01:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Candidates
Since the forum is about getting two new mods, you may vote for two different people. Voting twice for the same person is not permitted. You also cannot vote for yourself. To be able to vote, you must be here at the wikia for at least 3 months, and have 300 edits. Voting will end at 13, January 2013, at 1AM UTC. 01:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

AuroraOfDeath

 * 02:19, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 03:25, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 08:16, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 09:28, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Coffee Shop Corporate Raider

 * 02:14, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 02:15, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 07:30, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:12, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 00:09, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 00:09, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy9000

 * 02:19, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 03:26, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Jademing

 * 01:56, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 09:28, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:21, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

SeaTerror

 * 16:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Uknownada

 * 02:14, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 02:15, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)   02:25, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  05:43, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  07:30, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)  00:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

X-Raptor

 * 1)   02:25, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  Mods who live in European timezones are something we really need.  05:45, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)   07:57, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)   08:16, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5)   16:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6)   22:21, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)   22:21, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)   22:21, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Voting Discussion
Just a quick question, but if a chat mod gets elected, does an admin have the right to veto it? 02:04, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

According to the rules, yes, but it can be overruled by 20 votes. 02:10, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Voting seems to be going as expected. One big social contest. You've got people who are rarely on the chat in the top 2. Good work. 12:24, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Which would those be?

Mainly Nada. X is there, but kinda fluctuates between afk and at the keyboard. 12:45, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

And in the time frame that has been called for, neither of these two are in it at those times, (weekdays), so we basically just wasted our time. 12:46, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hate to be a jerk here, but you're one of the ones who voted for this system. Honestly, what else did you expect in a community vote? There is still nearly a week left in the voting time, so hold back the complaining for now. 13:06, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I know what i voted for. But in my new mindset, option 3 would have been the best. 15:49, January 7, 2013 (UTC) You guys know that there's also the distinct possibility that whoever we elect will actually try to be on the chat more because of their new responsibilities, right? As long as the people we elect are able to be on when they need to be (so not asleep/at school), they'll almost certainly be on more. The current level of activity for a mod isn't really what matters, it's how active they will be once they become a mod. Look at SHB or Kuro, for example. And this time, we even specified a time that we need the mods on. 17:12, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm assuming we're following PX's guideline on appointing a chat mod:


 * 1) "If five or more users feel the need for a new mod, then they create a forum. At the top of the forum are the signatures of the five people, as well as their reasons for wanting a new mod. A discussion session is opened for people to determine if a new mod is needed. A one week long poll may be necessary.
 * 2) If a need for a new mod is approved, nominations for mods take place over the next three days. Each candidate must be approved by at least two current mods, who sign their names below the candidate. Each current mod can approve as many mods as he/she wants. Candidates can ask mods for referrals, but if a candidate does not acquire two mod votes, he/she is disqualified.
 * 3) The qualified candidates are then put to a vote. Unless otherwise specified, only one candidate can win. After a one-week voting session, the candidate with the most votes becomes mod.
 * 4) If an admin feels that a candidate is not a worthy mod, then he can choose not to mod the user, along with a statement of his reasons on the forum. The community can then override the admin with 20 votes.
 * 5) If a new need for a mod arises, a new forum is created."

Do that mean we have to follow the part I bolded? If so, then whoops. I forgot about that part.... 21:23, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah.. We have to do that. 21:28, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well if you read below that part, JSD argued against it. Judging by this forum ignoring that part, I assumed you all thought it was null and void. On that note, I think it should happen. 21:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore that part. I forgot. Well, by that note, we should get the mods to give their approvals of the candidates then, as quickly as possible.... Unless everyone else disagree? 22:00, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It's easy. Clear the other votes though... 22:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

So if we are going to follow the approval by current mods part, do we have to pause the voting, and wait for mods to give their approvals? Or allow the voting to keep going on, and get the mods to give their approval before the end of the voting? Or whatever else? 22:07, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

As long as a candidate gets elected, s/he is worth the job IMO. So (if my approval count as a mod approval) I approve all candidates.

The idea of the mod approval was to balance the popularity thing. The mods (and admins, by extension) are supposedly the most knowledgeable people about the chat, so a person cannot be elected simply by popularity. If you all want to restart the vote, then we can. 22:40, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I suggest doing so. Not sure how everybody else feels. Yeah sff, your approval does count. 22:50, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

If we go along with this, we are going to have to delete (or at least suspend) the voting section and let the mods (and by extension, admins) approve the candidates. 23:29, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Says "PX's Guideline." Show me where that was voted on and approved by a community vote. SeaTerror (talk) 23:41, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

The poll on the mod forum before was voting on those policies... so yeah.

Yep Px. 23:46, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the rules PX proposed were proposed after the poll closed, meaning we did not vote on them. I still think it's a bit of an unneccesary step to have the mod approval when the admins can veto as well. Especially if we have to start this vote over again, which I don't think is necessary at all since Sff approves of all candidates. 00:13, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I also think it's a bit unnecessary to have mod approval. Admins, being higher authority, do have the right to veto and should have that right. But I believe we should work with whatever the community's happier with. 00:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point, ST. Here are some of the comments I made before the vote took place:


 * "Each nominee must be approved by at least two current mods." (November 5, 2012)


 * "The two mods must give their consent within the three day period under that same heading. Users may ask mods to support them." (November 5, 2012)

The vote started November 8, so these proposals were already on the table. However, as JSD stated on the forum, and you people are echoing, this might not be a necessary case. If we want, we can do away with that part of the guidelines and proceed as normal. So what's going to happen? 01:27, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

No. We can't do away with something like that. Let's just have the mods accept the current nominations, and if somebody gets disqualified, the votes can be recast. 01:36, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Says "at least two mods" and not all "mods". Sff9 already excepted all which leaves one more needed. SeaTerror (talk) 02:05, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, upon further review, what PX posted above was said outside the "actual discussion" section, and it was said very early in the forum. My (personal) interpretation is that what PX proposed on Nov 5th became "option 2" ("We allow the administrators to choose the chat moderators based on personal judgement and whoever they choose to consult about it") of the four option poll, and was therefore not included in the winning result of "option 1" (We use an electoral system where the community can nominate and then vote for new moderators). Now, to me that doesn't sound like it includes any mod approval, or even anything about admin vetos or anything, just a pure electoral system. My interpretation is that the "Mod approval" and "admin veto" were never officially rules, and not following them now is perfectly fine.

Now, I don't think that because we voted for "community elections" it doesn't mean we can't have other restrictions and changes to the final rule, but they do need to be discussed and verified before they can take effect. That was what PX and I were doing in the Post-poll discussion portion of the previous forum, but since nobody else besides the two of us had any input on the topic there, we've screwed ourselves over and have to deal with it now, along with the awkward situation with the current election. (Don't ignore forums, people...)

My proposal: I don't think we need to worry about any of the "mod approval" stuff for this particular election, because A) Mod approval was never technically a rule and B) It's very likely that every nominated candidate would get the 2 mod approval. If people still wish to move forward with the mod approval, I think there are several ways that it could be done where we don't have to completely restart the process. 02:18, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I approve all of them too. 02:34, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, with two admins approving all candidates, we can proceed on with the votings. And after the votings, someone better get this whatever the hell layout for electing a new chat mod whatever done, because this is confusing me. 02:49, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, this layout seemed to work somewhat well. Is everyone good on keeping the mod approval (this includes admins), or should it simply be thrown out? I don't think anything else was really complicated here except for that. 03:31, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, do everyone think this layout should be the standard when electing a chat mod? And how do everyone feel about the admins/chat mods' approval for each candidates? 00:13, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of this layout, it's really just the mod approval part I think is unnecessary. Especially since I've heard a few of the current mods say that they don't think we need more mods, and therefore don't really want to take part in the forum at all. I think the admin veto is enough of a check on the system, especially since mods/other users can always just inform an admin of their concerns and ask for vetoes. But if people really do want the mod approval part, we should just make sure it happens before the voting part, unlike it did in this forum/layout. 08:13, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

That was the original intention of the mod approval, to be before the voting process. It's purpose was to weed out those people who are elected simply because they are popular, which I seem to recall was an issue with some people. 00:10, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

I guess it stops people from wasting their votes, so it would be a bit useful. But I feel like it would never really change the end result of the election if the admin veto exists. If people really think that's a serious problem with the elections, then I guess I'm not opposed to that rule anymore. 05:14, January 10, 2013 (UTC)