Improved Mod Nomination Process

[Guest]

Since the last mod nomination cycle, several people had brought up a number of concerns with how it works. We then began a discussion between staff about how to improve this system as these were the people who were a result of previous nominations so we could receive feedback from those involved on both sides.

 

Previously, the nomination process for new moderators worked as such:

1. A thread would appear in the private mod forum with a long list of names for discussion.
2. After input and feedback over a varied time period, a final list of names would be posted at the end of the topic.
3. A public voting thread would appear and the original discussion would be closed.
4. After the voting was completed and closed, the results would be looked into by the head admins, including any concerns raised that were not met during the initial discussions.
5. The approved list of moderators would be posted, requesting that those interested to contact an admin to begin training.

 

 

We wanted to turn this into something better for everyone involved by adapting suggestions into a few pieces of information which will in turn, reinforce how we handle the mod nomination process, introduce new changes and clarify further what we're aiming for. While we do not have radical changes to the mod nomination process, these are smaller changes that will make a bigger impact. Here is the result of our discussion:

 

Reinforce

 

We're seeking constructive feedback from the nomination discussions threads so that we can identify people suited to the responsibilities of a moderator, serving the community. While it is important to raise concerns and have them addressed, any derogatory comments will not be welcome. This doesn't mean we will be censoring any comments, in order to preserve the discussions.

 

Voting will remain within the (public) Mod Chat Forum to ensure we deliver transparency upon the final stages of adding new moderators to help the servers and more importantly, the people who play them. In doing so, we are extending the opportunity for anyone within the community to contact the head admins with any concerns that may not have been known about any particular nominee.

 

 

Change

 

Before we proceed with a list of nominees for voting, a head admin will contact each person to ask permission to put their name forward for the voting thread. It will be made clear to each and every person that we are not approaching to guarantee an outcome on the vote, instead, as a formality, to ensure that the nominee is interested and comfortable being put forward in a public voting thread.

 

There will be no restrictions on the size of the pool selected for the voting thread. We will co-ordinate the training across as many people available, particularly server admins. This way we can focus on meeting the demand and take away the large task of training moderators from such a small group of people.

 

 

Clarify

 

Ensuring that the list of nominees chosen by the community and moderators through discussion and feedback are a representation of a wide range of people so that everyone can feel more assured that the person will be able to handle the role of serving the community well.

 

During the voting thread, when voting 'No' for a nominee, this is a vote to state that you don't feel they are currently ready or that you do not know them well enough to feel confident bringing them aboard.

 

 

We'll be moving the original discussion thread which brought about this topic to the archives by October 12th.

 

Original discussion.