Moderators = Citizens, why?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The current constitution says:

Staff Officers - Tribounos
The Staff Moderators form the front line moderation force on the Forum. They are drawn from the Citizens and appointed and fired by the Senior Moderators, but each appointment must be ratified by the Curia as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 2. A Staff Moderator who fails his ratification is removed from his position.

The total number of Staff Moderators, along with individual assignments and powers are set by the Senior Moderators.

Now, I cannot for the life of me understand why they have to be drawn from the ranks of the citizens. I know the arguments, the two main ones being:

'Citizens understand the culture of the site better'
'Citizens are more loyal to the site'

However these are patently not true. Lets look at them,

'Citizens understand the Culture of the site better'

Well, that may be true but only insofar as the citizen is often someone who has been a member of the site longer. Lets consider someone with a couple of hundred posts in the Mudpit (brilliant though they may be) who has been patronised and become a citizen, and a long-serving member with no interest in citizenship and several thousand post over several years - which understands the site better?

'Citizens are more loyal to the site'
This is also true (insofar as one can be 'loyal' to a site). Citizens have shown they value the site enough to jump through the hoops that we on the site have put in place to join our group.

However, why are moderators a special case? Both the Technical Staff and Content Staff are free from this restriction - and both could certainly do a lot more damage either to the physical existance or the reputation of the site.

I would also argue that, for example, a modder who hosts their mod on this site and has a mod forum, is likely to be a huge amount more interested in the wellbeing of the site than someone who merely posts in the CC now and again. Yet that modder may not be interested in playing the Citizen game and therefore we cannot tap into their drive or experience.

------------------------------------------

From where I sit I see we have three options:

1. Keep it as it is.
   
   • Obviously I don't see this as a viable option, mainly because I think we are needlessly excluding talent which we could use as moderators, particularly in the TW section.
   • As an example, the current request for TW moderators has thrown up 3 very high class candidates (a couple with > 1000 posts), all who have a lot of moderating experience and yet are not citizens. To me it is daft that we cannot use their experience and enthusiasm.
2. Remove the requirement completely
   
   • I'm a bit ambivalent about this, I like the traditions of this site, it is what makes TWC unique. That being said, the moderators would still have to be ratified so maybe this is an option.
3. Go for a hybrid solution, for example:
   
   • Anyone can be appointed to be a moderator, then either:
   • The moderator is put forward for ratification 2 months after their appointment and, if they pass, receive citizenship. Or
   • The moderator starts work and 2 months after their appointmenta CdeC sponsorship is put in place. If it fails the moderator must step down.
   • I say 2 months for both to give them a chance to prove their worth.

I do think that the traditions of the site are important, but I also think that the daily policing of the site by a good moderating team is equally important. With the current constitution we are limiting the pool from which we can recruit, particularly when we are trying to recruit for the TW side.

To go back to one of my first points, both the Technical and Content staffs seem to get along perfectly well with non-citizens involved. I see no reason that the moderating staff shouldn't either.

thought, comments, screams of rag, mobs baying for blood ( ) at the 'reduction' of citizens perks?

[Evariste]

Why aren't they citizens yet?

I'll gladly patronize them.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The point is, why should they be citizens?

Rather than artificially patronise people to get us to be allowed to make them moderators (which is probably what we will have to do for this batch of recruitment), I would much rather see a process whereby we can recruit them and reward them with citizenship for doing a good job.

Citizenship is, after all, supposed to b awarded for contributing to TWC, can't see many better routes for this than giving up time to act as a moderator.

[Ragabash]

I would just remove the whole requirement. As a content editor of the Scriptorium I know that there is no difference is the person citizen or not, its always invidually.

Tac, remember to take a look at your child sometime, it has changed quite a bit from those days. :wink:

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Tac, remember to take a look at your child sometime, it has changed quite a bit from those days. :wink:

I do, I do, baby has all growed up and I'm immensley proud of it and amazed with how well the librarians have done with it.

[Aristocrat]

Option 4: Every citizen must put in a 3 month term of service as a moderator, those who fail to do an adequate job lose their citizenship.

( Thats right...TWC conscription).

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

now that would be truly terrifying

[Atterdag]

It is one of the benefits of being a citizen. You can "advance" furhter through the member ranks.
If you take that away you weaken the citizen class by reducing the perks- which is something I'll not support.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

It is one of the benefits of being a citizen. You can "advance" furhter through the member ranks.
If you take that away you weaken the citizen class by reducing the perks- which is something I'll not support.

People are made citizens because they have contributed. They are not made citizens so that they can contribute - and that is what the current system results in.

Apart from anything else, I totally refute the idea that being a moderator is some sort of 'perk' of being a citizen, or that it should be.

[Serious Spamurai]

People are made citizens because they have contributed.

And, most likely, can be trusted to contribute again.

[Halie Satanus]

Support.

Today staff! tomorrow the Curia!!



Infamy! Infamy!

[Aristocrat]

Hence the conscription idea...people will soon find out being a moderator is not all chocolate and candy (and rice crispy treats).

Oh, I support, I supported moves like this in the past, and I support it now. TWC is all about being a meritocracy, but I fail to see how being able to win a debate on the creation of man, or whether Hitler was really a scienologist better qualifies a citizen as a moderator in a total war area than someone who actually frequents those forums.

[Rhinosaur]

Hence the conscription idea...people will soon find out being a moderator is not all chocolate and candy (and rice crispy treats).

Oh, I support, I supported moves like this in the past, and I support it now. TWC is all about being a meritocracy, but I fail to see how being able to win a debate on the creation of man, or whether Hitler was really a scienologist better qualifies a citizen as a moderator in a total war area than someone who actually frequents those forums.

Sounds like Aristo is getting tired of diet food

ToS is ToS no matter the forum, TW, CC, W/E. A capable member should be able to understand that and apply the rules properly as a moderator.

[Simetrical]

I agree with this. Of course, someone fit to be a moderator should normally be made a Citizen at the first opportunity, but that's not because moderators should be Citizens, it's because someone good enough to be a moderator should also (independently) be good enough to be a Citizen.

[Scorch]

While I agree with the arguments, I worry. One of the rules the Curia serves is to narrow down the capable applicants for staff, and it does this quite well. The TW sections of the site already have close to equal representation in the Curia compared to the CC, and we should have no trouble finding the necessary candidates.

So why not use the Curia?

[iudas]

This time there is no argument for it, from my knowledge.
If a member is trustworthy enough to become a moderator, surely he/she has to be a citizen. Becoming a citizen isn't such a titanic goal.
And this time you can't say some members refuse to be citizens - if they apply for moderation, surely they are "elitist" enough for the citizen usergroup.

I understand the point, but IMHO there is no need.

[Perikles]

Just patronise them.

</quality contribution>

[Garbarsardar]

Being a Citizen (either as an Artifex or a Civis) means that the user has been reviewed by the CdeC, an instrument that has the sole purpose of reviewing users.

This way there are three stages (CdeC-CoM-Curia) that are necessary to ensure quality of moderators. The issue of modders is mute since the introduction of Artifex that made a great number of modders, Citizens.

Why this triple ordeal? Because this way we had only two examples of bad moderators in all the years of the site, which is a definite plus.

If we worry about "lost talent". well, patronise them!

The issue really is what happens after you become a moderator. Are moderators being reviewed based on their "hits"?

How many moderators were fired for underperforming or not performing, Tac?

The system we have in place does its best to provide the Staff with suitable candidates.

All CoMs were citizens, all Staff were citizens, all administrators were Citizens.

This system produced all the current hierarchy of TWC and we are satisfied with the people in charge, are we not?

The issue again is what measures are being taken by the CoM and the council to ensure that those multi-approved members live up to their promise and our expectations...

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

If we worry about "lost talent". well, patronise them!

so the answer is to just patronise people? That doesn't make any sense.

Citizenship should be given to people who contribute to the sight after they have contributed, not so that they can contribute.

Currently you can contribute to the site in many ways, good posting, mods etc being the traditional ways,

Since the new ownersip you can now contribute to the site by joining staff in the Content or Technical branches.

Yet we have the anomally that you cannot contribute to the site by becoming a moderator, you can only become a moderator after you have contributed We are both shutting down a potential route to citizenship, and reducing the pool of people we can recruit moderators (but not Technical or Content staff) from.

In no way am I proposing that moderators shouldn't become citizens, just that this can be a route to allow them to contribute enough to do so.

The system we have in place does its best to provide the Staff with suitable candidates.

but only for moderators - Content and Technical (and Librarians for that matter) have shown that non-citizens can contribute a huge amount to the site as staff, and earn their citizenship by doing so.

All CoMs were citizens, all Staff were citizens, all administrators were Citizens.

This system produced all the current hierarchy of TWC and we are satisfied with the people in charge, are we not?

so, your argument is that we have always done it this way and we are satisfied so we should not change.

my argument is that, although the current system has worked to a greater or lesser degree, there is an improvement we can make to it.

The issue really is what happens after you become a moderator. Are moderators being reviewed based on their "hits"?

The issue again is what measures are being taken by the CoM and the council to ensure that those multi-approved members live up to their promise and our expectations...

no it isn't, that is a totally different issue - and if you are truly worried about it you should raise a separate thread.....

but, to answer it, yes moderators are being reviewed (and I am brining in more formal processes to do this). It won;t be based solely on hits as that is at best a pointer but hits will factor. Mim has just given us a new tool for getting detailed moderating stats which we are looking at.

How many moderators were fired for underperforming or not performing, Tac?

in the past? haven't a clue but I would guess not many.

in the future? well you'll have to wait and see but it will happen if required

How can potential moderators prove their worth and not be a citizen? Really, if you are showing the potential to be a good moderator, then its almost impossible to not get patronised at the same time!

2 of the 4 best current candidates are not citizens

[Garbarsardar]

Yet we have the anomally that you cannot contribute to the site by becoming a moderator, you can only become a moderator after you have contributed We are both shutting down a potential route to citizenship, and reducing the pool of people we can recruit moderators (but not Technical or Content staff) from.

In no way am I proposing that moderators shouldn't become citizens, just that this can be a route to allow them to contribute enough to do so.

I wholehartedly subscribe to this. The anomaly is that the requirments for Citizenship remain essentially unchanged although the site has been completely transformed in the past 3 years.

That needs re-structuring.

so, your argument is that we have always done it this way and we are satisfied so we should not change.

my argument is that, although the current system has worked to a greater or lesser degree, there is an improvement we can make to it.

Scraping one of the 3 basic safeguards that have ensured high quality of moderation on TWC, is quite an "improvement".

As long as you put another independent safeguard there, I frankly don't care if it is disconnected from citizenship (because citizenship is flawed for the citizens not because it did not work for moderators)

no it isn't, that is a totally different issue - and if you are truly worried about it you should raise a separate thread.....

but, to answer it, yes moderators are being reviewed (and I am brining in more formal processes to do this). It won;t be based solely on hits as that is at best a pointer but hits will factor. Mim has just given us a new tool for getting detailed moderating stats which we are looking at.

That is a step to the right direction.