# How should rotating moderatorship be implemented without hurting the site's administrative load?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
1373 views

In the past, we've agreed on rotating moderatorship as a way to ensure that moderators don't forget the experience of a standard user, and understand moderation from both sides of the arrow. This is an excellent idea, in fact I have already forgotten how a normal user experiences the site - if nothing goes wrong, I'd be resigning by the end of the year.

However, I do have some concerns about implementing this.

Certain tasks, such as management of community ads and user administration (access to the admin@physicsoverflow.org account), are quite tedious and delicate respectively. I'm really afraid that the future moderation team will not be able to take care of these issues.

For managing community ads, one needs to constantly monitor the community ads voting thread to check for new votes, and update the javascript code in the admin panel accordingly. This is a relatively easy task for me, really just because most of the community ads are posted by me, and because I wrote the script for the community ads. There are some other scripts and styles as well, which I doubt anybody else would bother to maintain.

As for user administration, it's a really delicate issue, and there's a tedious process involved in finding out if a reclamation request is genuine. I'm not sure, if anybody besides Dilaton and myself would be willing to invest much effort into this task.

The solution I have in mind would be to resign, but (publicly, transparently of coruse) create a new account type "admin.retired", for each retired moderator - the user history for this account would be completely public (every single thing, including things like votes, etc.), and the account would not be allowed to do anything except resetting accounts and editing the scripts in the admin panel. This means that the user history should be completely blank, and if it's not, polarkernel would always be able to investigate who did what and lock the violating moderator out of his account (or just ban the account).

Update: This user level has now been implemented by polarkernel.

edited Mar 7, 2015

great idea dim10, thanks for working out the problems!

@downvoters In case it's the idea of rotating moderatorship itself that you disagree with, then you shouldn't be expressing that as a downvote on this proposal, because this proposal is not a proposal of rotating moderatorship itself, but rather a way to prevent the site's administrative stuff from being affected despite rotating moderatorship.

Ok, I replace my downvote to an upvote for taking sensible measures to preserve functioning of the site in case the unwise moderator rotation is enforced.

@ArnoldNeumaier It isn't "enforced", it isn't "unwise", and it the vote has not been completely replaced yet : )

I saw +3-0 shortly after I commented.

I know that you meant it ''to preserve functioning of the site in case the wise moderator rotation takes place voluntarily" But so far everything is worded such that it is a strict policy for the future, I checked the current version of the moderator manual. I find this unwise.

+ 2 like - 2 dislike

Rotating modship was agreed by the admins as part of the compromise consensus to resolve the issues on meta regarding moderator misbehavior. It was not put up for a vote, because the implementation is simply by the moderators themselves stepping down for various periods of time, it doesn't require the users to do anything except voting new moderators. The users don't need to do anything to make this happen, as it does not require any user action. Only the moderators need to agree.

They all agreed to this already. Every moderator declared intent to step down at the appropriate time, and this would allow uncontested moderator elections in the future, because nobody would worry about a moderator being permanently installed. It is mostly symbolic at this stage, but it will stay if all the moderators do as they promised, and this is expected of course.

If users are happy, they can vote the moderators right back in. That was also expected.

The happiness of users, at least this particular user, is contingent on a somewhat regular procedure of symbolic resignation for a brief period, to reacquaint oneself with the user perspective, and then symbolic reelection. We certainly don't want something less symbolic, like contested elections, at this stage.

answered Mar 24, 2015 by (7,720 points)
edited Mar 24, 2015

@RonMaimon do I understand this right that moderators can resign shortly before the yearly election, and then in the upcoming election (almost directly) be voted back by the community, if the users have been happy and satisfied with their work?

@Dilaton; Sure, that's ok. If you want to do that, why not now? The election is coming up. That leaves a period of a month or two to get acquainted with the user experience. But I wouldn't like it if it were a day before, because then you won't be a user for a month. Trust me, when you become a user, you hear all sorts of things that you didn't before, just because people feel you are socially their equal now. Ten minutes after I resigned, Drake explained to me I was being a condescending son-of-a-bitch in my comments to him, and that I was stupid to resign. Now I hear about a crap review I wrote. It was revealing. It's nice to be a user for a month.

I just hope to avoid continuous uninterrupted moderation punctuated by perfunctory elections, without any period of step-down, because then people expect automatic reelection, and there is no free period for campaigning (not that there would be ANY campaigning between now and the elections, as there are absolutely no problems at all left). The election in that case would becomes pro-forma, a foregone conclusion, rubber-stamping, and other people would be intimidated from proposing other candidates or saying anything negative, because then the mod hates them. That would turn into Soviet elections, where the approved candidate was accepted 95% of the time. But you obviously will have no problem in the reelection because, after you step down, everyone will support you. If you want, you can also do it in may, and then come back in August. It's a rotation, it's simple, it's not difficult, and it's not punitive.

@RonMaimon if a moderator steps down shortly before the election and is then re-elected or not, depending on the votes of the users, it is exclusively the community who decides if a moderator gets re-elected (or confirmed). If people are happy and satisfied with the past work of the moderator, they can re-elect him, or if there are better candidates/people nominated or the community is not satisfied enough with the past work of the moderator, he does simply not get re-elected?

I just want to reassure myself that I understand the details correctly.

If I do understand it right, this is a in some democratic countries in the real world a well established and well functioning procedure called fixed periods of terms with the possibility of re-election.

Yes, I am considering such a thing for myself.

@RonMaimon if the step-down happens a day before the election starts (with nomination and subsequent voting), there would still automatically be a period of step-down for the duration of the elections (1,2,3 weeks?), and the election itself is also the most important time of campaigning as I have observed in the real-world and in online communities.

@Dilaton: I thought you wanted to step down voluntarily, that was the statement of intent. That was a presupposition behind all this reconciliation. The day-before thing was Arnold's silly idea, it was supposed to be for 3-6 months, but whatever, if you do it now, it's fine too. One month is plenty reassuring. But I didn't know you supported Arnold in this, you shouldn't. It's not about Arnold. It's your decision, and your decision determines how much automatic support you will get from others in the future.

+ 1 like - 1 dislike

I think it is a good idea to have the XXX.retired accounts such that retired moderators and/or administrators can continue to help with administrative tasks.

However, I am against the rotating moderation issue, in my opinion it should be suspended until the community is at least 10 times as large compared to what we have now. Holding yearly elections, while moderators who have no longer time for the job can step down any time is in my personal opinion the more appropriate procedure as long as the community is that small.

(I was against the rotating moderation issue already when Dimension10 sent out the original version of the moderator manual for approvement, correction, etc. to all moderators, but for fear of more harsh replies
I did not dare anymore to complain about it there. Now that the communication climate is finally improving I hope I am not penalized anymore for almost everything I say.)

On the other hand, I would support if we installed something like fixed terms of service for moderators as for example explained here and here, so that moderators valued by the community  can immediately be re-elected for the next term but would be out if they don't get in the election the required support.

This is independent of my promise to resign; but I am seriously contemplating to follow the suggestion of @RonMaimon

If you want to do that, why not now? The election is coming up. That leaves a period of a month or two to get acquainted with the user experience.

answered Mar 24, 2015 by (6,040 points)
edited Mar 24, 2015

However, because administrators are meant to have a purely technical role in the future, I did object in the Moderator Manual discussions with the other moderators already against the fact that administrators should rotate at all.

@Dilaton And you got agreement, right? Not about administrators rotating at all, but exclusive admins (like polarkernel and the admin.retired-styled ghost accounts) should never rotate.

+ 1 like - 3 dislike

As already mentioned in another comment, I don't think rotating moderatorship is a practical idea unless we have at least 10 times as many people active on Q&A and  at least 10 times as many people active on meta. Thus it should simply not be implemented and your concern is gone.

we've agreed on rotating moderatorship

'We' was probably the moderators only? Or where was it discussed and agreed upon on meta?

answered Mar 24, 2015 by (15,458 points)
edited Mar 24, 2015

Only the moderators need to agree to this to make it happen, as all it requires is that they step down and renominate themselves after a period. It's not a formal policy, it's was a resolution by a public promise of the moderators to each other and the site. All such promises are binding, they must be carried out, or how can there be uncontested elections? It is the only real acknowledgement of change we have from the previous period of 6 months ago.

@ArnoldNeumaier: Of course the elections are free--- I mean, Urs could come in and say "I oppose Dimension10", or "I oppose Jia", but we realistically know it's not going to happen, because we know everyone. the promise of uncontested election was due to the fact that we already know who is going to participate, and the declaration of intent meant that everyone was happy with Dilaton, including VK, so there would be no opposition in practice, in reality.

Of course, people are in principle free to change their minds and start to politically attack Dilaton, but that would be a totally dick move, and none of us would do that, considering we all promised to permanently put it behind us after the resignation went through, and Dilaton would be able to respond to any such thing by: "Look, I know I did shady stuff, I regret it, I did the user-time as part of moderator rotation explicitly to put it behind us, I went through a lot of grief over it, this was resolved to everyone's satisfaction including VK, and you're being a dick by bringing it up again", and that's that, it wouldn't go anywhere politically, and Dilaton would still be overwhelmingly elected.

Only the moderators need to agree to this to make it happen, as all it requires is that they step down and renominate themselves after a period.

This is fine for the current moderators who made the pledge.

But this is not enough for a policy that should bind moderators in the future. To be democratic, the latter must be discussed and decided publicly.

One of the moderators doesn't step down even when there is a binding vote demanding it.

I don't understand. As long as there are no publicly agreed rules for when a moderator has to step down there cannot be a binding vote demanding it.

@Dilaton, I can think of no other who can possibly downvote this, if you deny it's you, I'll take your words, but don't hide any of my comments.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.