I was wondering when new moderators are chosen and if this information could be added to the bottom of this page.
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
2
-
\$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast No, I was just wondering how and when they're chosen. The times on the election website seemed fairly random. \$\endgroup\$ – rpgstar Mar 10 '18 at 4:44
-
\$\begingroup\$ OK, then the answer nitsua60 gave you seems to have covered it. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 10 '18 at 4:45
Add a comment
|
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
3
There is no set timetable for elections--they come when we (the community) feel new/more moderators are necessary.
For some context, here's (roughly) how the most recent election (2017) came about.
-
This meta surfaced a number of concerns, including some with moderation. The existing moderators had already been discussing the need for another moderator--note that "we're having a mod election ASAP" was posted as an answer to "How is the community doing?" something like two minutes after the question was posted. The other moderation-related feedback confirmed the existing belief that an election would be beneficial, and off it went.
Do we want three moderators, or four? was discussed in relation to that upcoming election, and 4, being the second number reached, was chosen. 5 was right out.
And then the election ran as you can see detailed in the /election page. Notably meta saw the 2017 Moderator Election Q&A - Questionnaire followed by voting and the 2017 Community Moderator Election Results.
If one feels that a new election is needed a meta post to that effect would be the most likely starting place.
If one feels that a regular timetable is desirable, that's a separate case to be made. (If you're considering that I'd recommend reading Should Community Moderators be "elected for life", or have terms? and many of its linked brethren before starting that conversation. This is a well-trod topic; that is not to say that it cannot be re-examined, but rather that one should clearly demonstrate familiarity with the existing consensus if they wish to be taken seriously.)
-
4\$\begingroup\$ I just want to say that this answer took me down a very informative rabbit hole of meta Q&As to the detriment of my sleeping time. Totally worth it though. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose♦ Mar 9 '18 at 6:11
-
2\$\begingroup\$ Short summary of the main reason moderators are elected for life: we have to be able to do unpopular stuff. In fact, at least half the time for most things a moderator does, the only people who notice it or know about it are probably unhappy about it, because we closed their question or removed their inappropriate content or suspended them from the site or held up a policy or etc. If we had to also be populists, ensuring everyone liked and approved of us all the time (especially going into an election cycle) it would compromise our ability to moderate — in that we couldn't do so effectively. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 9 '18 at 12:00
-
2\$\begingroup\$ A point off of that ^^: our experience here tracks pretty well with the rest of the Stack as regards moderator "refresh." In 6 years as a graduated site there have been seven different moderators. So the sometimes-raised (Stack-wide) concerns about moderation teams stagnating doesn't really seem to be a practical problem here. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Mar 9 '18 at 12:55
