So how would the Admin Team decide who is worthy of a moderation position and who is not? What is the criteria needed? What are some of the traits that the team will be looking for in the search of moderators?
But aren’t unelected people…more trustworthy?
Bull. There’s no way to know that before clicking the button. Besides, with the inconsistency of LC’s and their standards for suppression, it’s entirely possible a completely fair post is suppressed. Oh hey I’ve looped us all the way back to not trusting the LC! Wizardry. And that’s the issue. Trust and quickness are the two most important functions of moderation. Players you can trust to nip problems in the bud and to tamp out the bad without suppressing the good. That isn’t what the LC does.
The same way we’ve done it for Discord and the forums-- look for active, respected, and trustworthy people with good heads on their shoulders.
1 Like
Why would someone trust someone they:
Do not know
Was appointed without their input
And possibly corrupt
Look-- then I’m not entirely opposed to this RMB moderation idea. I do think however that the upcoming elections in November should take place though (they’re on the 1st of November, correct?).
Well…corrupt is some harsh language there my friend 
And no one ever said that the elected people would not be active in the message board space…you never know, maybe you could be a moderator one day!
1 Like
I’d would wrather lose 3 succesive elections then be appointed by a suit come to life.
The corruption charge gets thrown about on both sides, it really needs to stop
I have an idea.How about we do a trial run of the reform proposal.If it works keep it.If not then go back to the curent system.
Deal.
I am very displeased with the turn this debate has taken in the past few hours, particularly on the part of individuals who intent on scoring points rather than discussing the reform at hand in good faith.
If this trend continues then I will be more forceful abut my role as Chair, including any combination of the following:
-
Explicitly admonishing participants.
-
Ruling on points of order that a participant is violating decorum, which would result in their removal from participation.
-
Restricting posting only to registered participants, which does not automatically include all legislators.
1 Like
If the reform does fail,I suggest a compromise.How about the 3 LCs remain as adivisiors to the MoC but they keep some mod powers.The LCs get to appoint 2 mods.The higher ups (forums,discord) get 1 each.Those mods have instaban and BC powers.That in my opinon would be a good middle ground.
There is nothing special about gameside that it should receive so many accommodations. We have a standard way of appointing moderators to the forum and the chat, and gameside should be no different.
I would like to motion this to vote
5 days have not elapsed since Jay reposted the proposal, however its contents are completely unchanged from the previous debate on the other forum, which had been posted more than 5 days. The Great Council itself is continuous across both forums, so the proposal has already been at discussion for many weeks
1 Like
Yeah I’d be in agreement on this. The act in its essence has existed for far longer than the allotted period.
I’m a bit hesitant because I firmly believe we should just make real moderators and have done with all this, and I’m a bit worried if we institutionalize this in our documentation that things will get ignored. But if this will be subject to further discussion to sort things out, I could live with this.
From my perspective, the proposal creates RMB moderators, so I’m confused where/how you think it falls short
I mean we should separate moderation all together, make it as others have said, just a admin job. Leave it out of our government setup all together except as far as we set the rules and there’s a appeal pathway for people to protest something.
The motion is recognised and will be brought to a vote 2022-10-30T14:00:00Z.