Appointing of mods (archived)
This page is protected, so you know it's only been edited by the admin, ie: me (Cassolotl).
This is my approximate plan for appointing mods.
As things stand currently, February 2016, we've got maybe 6 active players. I would like to appoint 2 mods.
Powers, responsibilities, and other notes
I think these mods should have the power to:
- Be /blue
- Warn people who break the rules
- Ban people who break the rules and have previously received a warning
- Access CoreProtect to gather information and rollback any griefing
I think mods should not:
- Use creative mode
- Have admin powers in GriefPrevention
I think that mods should be known to be mods, but I don't think they should be required to be /blue all the time. I think this will mean a protected page on the wiki (Mods) listing mods and their chosen responsibilities and so on.
I will make some things clear in the rules:
- Mods will be mods only when they're /blue.
- The rest of the time they're just fellow players, who shouldn't be expected to take on any extra responsibility at all. They're just people who can be trusted to make an executive decision and act on it.
This is how I think the mod-appointing process should go.
- Player nominates another player as a potential mod. This should be done openly and publicly, and will be added to Talk:Mods by the nominator or someone else on their behalf for public record.
- Nominee says whether they'd consent to being a mod. If they do...
- Someone should second that nomination. If someone does this...
- I as admin choose whether or not I'm in favour. If I am in favour...
- We vote. For each mod nomination, everyone can vote either for, against, or abstain. Voting will be anonymous.
- I decide whether or not modship is a good idea based on how the votes go. It might be that enough "against" votes will override many "for" votes, for example. And it may depend on how many people are voting.
These are my thoughts. Share yours on the Talk page!