[Amendment]More efficent Moderation for Political Mudpit

[Farnan]

Article 2 - The Moderation Branch

The Moderation Branch is responsible for maintaining order within the Site Forum and enforcement of the Terms of Service. Staff Officers of this branch are the only members of Staff invested with general moderating powers.

Senior Staff Officers - Strategos

The Strategos are Senior Moderators, led by the Chief of Branch, in charge of moderation within the Forum. They will all have Global Moderation powers, and some may have additional administrative powers depending upon their duties.

Senior Moderators are appointed by existing Senior Moderators from among the Staff Officers of this branch. Each appointment must also be ratified by the Curia in accordance with Section 2 Article 2.

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.

Special Moderators for Political Mudpit

Special Moderators for the Political Mudpit serve to foster intelligent debate in this most contencious of forums by removing off-topic posting, personal attacks, and other obstacles. They are drawn from the Citizens and are elected by the Curia subject to the approval of the Senior Moderators. They serve for a term of six months, but have no term limits. They shall number four and shall reflect the diversity of intelligent posters.

Not perfect, but how is this general idea?

[Thanatos]

I like it.

[Scorch]

To be honest, I think it's terrible. Staff are already dealing with and putting into place strategies to deal with this problem, and realistically, this is exactly the opposite of what we need.

[Thanatos]

To be honest, I think it's terrible. Staff are already dealing with and putting into place strategies to deal with this problem, and realistically, this is exactly the opposite of what we need.

Because?

[Scar Face]

I don't like this idea. If we really do need four moderators specifically for the Pit, then does that not show that Moderation is simply not doing their job? If anything, we should be calling for Moderation to be more strict for this subforum-or all together- but not this. Beyond that, I don't think diversity is really required. I mean, a Moderator is suppose to be non partial, he is suppose to view everything objectively. If we don't trust the members we elect to not put bias on one particular group, then why did we elect them in the first place? All together, a resounding No.

[Scorch]

Because?

Because many of the issues stem from the distribution of moderators and how they use their power, and have less to do with the amount of moderators. It's an internal attitude adjustment that needs to be made, and more moderators - let alone moderators elected by Curia at an inflexible rate - are not what we need right now. Also, there will be problems between the distinction between staff moderators and these moderators, and in the end, this seems to be just a round about way for the Curia to elect moderators.

[Thanatos]

So instead you propose a change not in the quantity, but the quality, of our moderators.

And by these changes in quality, I am of course assuming being MUCH more heavy-handed?

[Scorch]

So instead you propose a change not in the quantity, but the quality, of our moderators.

And by these changes in quality, I am of course assuming being MUCH more heavy-handed?

I'm not proposing anything. It's not quality, necessarily, as the rest of the guys are very, very good moderators, it is more of an attitude adjustment that is necessary. Assuming that we plan to be more heavy-handed would be inaccurate.

[Farnan]

I'm not doubting the quality of the moderators, but I believe a group of moderators focused on the Mudpit will allow more intelligent debate while allowing the primary moderators to deal with the rest of the forum. I know how hard it is to find all the problems. This is understandable, however even one bad post can destroy a thread within minutes, thus have 'Mudpiters who are already there assisting in the moderation we can keep that place under better control.

I would like them acting more as local moderators, able to edit post and give direction, but not able to hand out infractions.

[Scorch]

I'm not doubting the quality of the moderators, but I believe a group of moderators focused on the Mudpit will allow more intelligent debate while allowing the primary moderators to deal with the rest of the forum. I know how hard it is to find all the problems. This is understandable, however even one bad post can destroy a thread within minutes, thus have 'Mudpiters who are already there assisting in the moderation we can keep that place under better control.

Yes, but in this case, we have the quantity in staff, just check the amount of moderators. As I said, it's an attitude shift, but one that would just be complicated by the Curia electing moderators. As I said, it's something that has to happen internally.

I would like them acting more as local moderators, able to edit post and give direction, but not able to hand out infractions.

Well then they will be nigh-on useless. Infractions are an integral part of record-keeping and staff-policy. Also, in this, they will not be staff moderators and will be outside the influence of staff policy. All in all, they will simply get in our way.

To be honest, I would not be surprised if this was vetoed.

[Hotspur]

Clearly there needs to be more supervision in the 'Pit and if the Moderation branch us unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary, then the Curia should step in.

[Scorch]

Clearly there needs to be more supervision in the 'Pit and if the Moderation branch us unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary, then the Curia should step in.

The Moderation branch is both willing and able to take the necessary steps, and is in the process of doing this. I can assure you that if this proposal is not vetoed and it actually passes (two massive, massive ifs) then all it will do is hinder the staff moderators in doing their job.

[Erich von Manstein]

I don't believe this step is necessary. I can assure you that the issue is already under discussion in the Staff forums; furthermore, the Moderation branch has had little difficulty dealing with this type of situation in the past and I can't imagine it will be incapable of doing so in the future, particularly now that it has been brought to Staff's attention.

Should this problem persist over the next few weeks (particularly once Christmas break ends) then I wouldn't blame the Curia should it desire to take matters into its own hands. I suggest we give Staff more than 12 hours to deal with the problem, however.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Against. Too many cooks.

[Hotspur]

Should this problem persist over the next few weeks (particularly once Christmas break ends) then I wouldn't blame the Curia should it desire to take matters into its own hands. I suggest we give Staff more than 12 hours to deal with the problem, however.

Agreed.

[Garbarsardar]

Although I agree that there is a (kind of) crisis in the pit, I don't see how this would solve the issue.

If you really want to go for elections of "special moderators" then why the Curia and why the Citizens?

Make a committee of dedicated mudpiters and let them take over the election process. Why an Artifex who has never posted in the 'pit gets a say on how it's moderated?

The OP has been a moderator and he is aware that the allocation of moderating resources includes criteria similar to the ones proposing in his bill.

The Curia retains an overview of the moderating staff and frankly, given the present state of the Curia, that's all it can handle.

[sapi]

To be honest, I would not be surprised if this was vetoed.

Section 1 of this document and the procedure for a vote of No Confidence lie outside the remit of the Curia to modify or amend, unless such amendment is commenced and wholly authorised by the executive. The only exception to this is where an amendment changes the name of an Officer

Whoops

Even if this were within the Curia's remit, staff policy is decided by staff, not the curia. We are more than capable of dealing with this issue ourselves

[Erich von Manstein]

Whoops

Even if this were within the Curia's remit, staff policy is decided by staff, not the curia. We are more than capable of dealing with this issue ourselves

And Sapi points out why this particular proposal won't be moved to a vote regardless of support - it's unconstitutional. I'll leave this thread open for discussion but this bill won't be going anywhere, at least not in its current form.

[Farnan]

That's what you get for being out of the Curia for about a year and trying to get back in.

[Garbarsardar]

That's what you get for being out of the Curia for about a year and trying to get back in.

Or you can wait until it is unconstitutional no more.



Still, I don't think you thought of it very well.