Timeline for One of our moderators has not logged in since Oct. 23, 2015
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:36 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:23 | comment | added | user140086 | @KitZ.Fox Well, I lost my appetite to challenge this. I got my answers here and I will forget about it. I'd better spend my time for more productive and useful things than talking to people who think benevolent dictatorship is better. I could have ran for 10 miles while exchanging these comments. I will forget about it. Let the (benevolent) dictators dictate it if that's the SE policy. . | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:16 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony I am happy to discuss it further once you post your proposal on Meta.SE. I think probably a lot of community members are interested in discussing this topic. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | user140086 | @KitZ.Fox I read the post before. I think the fundamental problem is the life-time moderatorship. It's not about how to get rid of inactive moderators. The life-time moderatorship gives moderators some leeway that they don't have to be as active as they are supposed to be and that's why some moderators think they can take one-year off. If their terms are limited to two years or three, I don't think it would happen. I don't think users will vote to re-elect moderators who are inactive for a year when there is a re-election. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:12 | history | edited | Kit Z. FoxMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:10 | comment | added | user140086 | @ArtOfCode It will depend on how long I will be absent. If I were an elected mod, I would not mind handing it over to another person if I have to take more than six-months off. And basically that's exactly what I said. "We should elect another mod for the period of another mod's absence." | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:10 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony You may be interested in this question: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151606/… and this one: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/984/… as well as the theory of moderation post. There are several other posts out there about moderators and moderation. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:05 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Rathony More to the point, if you're an elected mod, why hand over? If your absence is planned, why not just say "I'm going to be away from X to Y", and elect another mod without stepping down? | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:05 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony No, I don't. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:04 | comment | added | user140086 | @KitZ.Fox Don't you think it is better to hand your job over to another user when you have a planned absence for longer than 6 months? | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:04 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Rathony That's on the whole correct, but there are still plenty of cases where it's possible that you can't get in contact with SE to resign. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 14:01 | comment | added | user140086 | @ArtOfCode Well, if you have foreseen or unforeseen issues to take care of (family, health, study, emigration, etc.), I think there is no reason not to resign from the moderatorship as there are other excellent members who can perform the task. That's my whole point. I think that's why there is such a clause that says a moderator who is absent for more than 6 months could be removed. Why do they have to keep the post as if there were no one else who can replace them and the job couldn't be done without them? | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:56 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony I don't see anywhere that I'm suggesting that moderators are above the rules. I am interested to see what you propose for getting rid of inactive and not-active-enough moderators. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:56 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Rathony Even that is sketchy. People need time out for different reasons; sometimes it just isn't possible to give notice. The community team understand that; no disrespect to you, but site communities and users tend not to. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:55 | comment | added | user140086 | @ArtOfCode I think you misunderstood my intention. I was saying I have the right to know whether the moderator gave the notice of absence before taking longer than 7 months off. That's all. I don't care to know what happened to him. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | user140086 | The reason why I found the absence was I was preparing for Meta SE post to question the legitimacy of "life-time term for moderators" where we can't get rid of inactive or not-active-enough moderators. Let me think about it. I don't like the way you explained the matter as if moderators were above the rules or any enforcements. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Rathony Your mistake here is we have the right to know what happened exactly. You don't. Nobody does, apart from the community team and the remaining moderator team. I'm sure if you needed to take a few months off from something due to personal, medical, or family issues, you wouldn't appreciate having your personal life spread around on the whim of a stranger on the Internet. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:48 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony I was talking about a different moderator. As I said, we don't discuss details of mod absences. It is for the moderators to decide and you don't have any business in it. You are welcome to post on Meta.SE to generate discussion about community involvement in moderator absenteeism. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:42 | comment | added | user140086 | I am sorry. Why is my opinion irrelevant? I am talking about the mod who is missing in action right now for more than seven months. Do you mean he was absent for a year before this absence? Then, I think it makes the matters worse. I see some point in making an issue out of it. You sound like it is something moderators should decide and I have no business in it and I respectfully disagree. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:38 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony Let me be blunt with you. Your opinion is irrelevant. We discussed his planned absence and worked out a solution together. The whole moderation team was fine with the situation. He returned over a year ago, maybe longer than that. There's not much point in making an issue out of it. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:31 | comment | added | user140086 | I am sorry. I don't get it. We have the right to know what happened exactly as he was elected by the general election. Let me be blunt with you. I think he is very selfish. He should have resigned for a year and let another member to take over the post. The quote in my question clearly states "if an absentee moderator returns to the site, they may be eligible for reinstatement". Then, we can have nine moderators when he returns and if he wants to continue his moderatorship. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 13:11 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox Mod | @Rathony We don't discuss details of mod absenteeism with the community. There is nothing wrong with resigning as a mod for whatever reason. The mod who chose to take leave for a year wanted to continue as a mod when he returned. He has contributed diligently to handling the workload since he returned to his post. | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 12:46 | comment | added | user140086 | Thank you for the answer. Does it mean the moderator gave you a notice of absence and it doesn't matter how long the moderator will be absent from the duty? What is wrong with resigning from the moderatorship and focus on his studies? I mean it doesn't make sense. Nobody is forcing him to maintain the post and if there is a more important thing or issue to take care of, why not just resign? | |
| Jun 13, 2016 at 11:48 | history | answered | Kit Z. FoxMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |