Forum:Establishing RfCM

hi

I was originally going to propose this instead of proposing a noticeboard, but since the noticeboard is really just for community/encyclopedia-related issues, I decided to propose for an actual RfCM.

Basically, we currently have no actual system on who gets chat mod. And since we operate via community consensus, it would only make sense to allow the chat community to have a vote for chat mods if a need for a new chat mod rises. The format for nominating users for chat mod would basically look like the voting process for the Improvement Drive (unless, of course, we can find a better format/system that would be way more efficient).

Discussion
Support - as nominator. -- 07:32, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support We really need something like this, I can't believe we haven't for a while. Anyway, per nom. Our consensus needs to be followed on chat mods. Random admins come up to a "worthy" or deserved user and asks him. That doesn't follow consensus. -- 07:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment We should have it's structure simiilar to the Rfa's. -- 07:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I chose ID because it's basically the same as RfA except we don't need to create a separate page for each individual user. This way, we could just use sections and it would be much easier since the discussion for nominating chat mods would much much shorter than a discussion for adminship. -- 07:39, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean like this: Call_of_Duty_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship/Archive_2 -- 07:44, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically. Except it would be archived more often so it doesn't get to 30+ sections. -- 07:49, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment For RfCM, would there be a limit, similiar to how Blog Patrol is. 10:38, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there could be, or we could just oppose any nominations with the reason "enough mods at the moment". Personally, I'm not a fan of locking nominations with the reason of there not being a need for them. We did the same thing with the RfA page - and it was re-opened out of protest by a few users due to there being a need for a new admin because of a vandal attack happening when no admins were around. -- 10:54, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * With "enough mods at the moment", since we got rid of the "enough admins at the moment" make this reason null? 11:03, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that's up for debate in a chat mod nomination. They aren't the same tools. New chat mods (not just one mod) should only be needed when there is a time in which the chat doesn't have a moderator. The reason there's a difference is because adminship is also for maintenance tasks, while chat mod is (obviously) just for moderation. -- 11:10, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea. Also, would this be a correct nominations format? --MLGisNot4Me talk 10:50, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * With or without the sections outlining "Support" or "Oppose", yes. -- 10:54, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Just one thing, do chatmods keeps their rights under a Grandfather's Clause or do they all have to reapply? 10:56, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say the former. --MLGisNot4Me talk 10:59, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose Hasn't this idea been raised before? I'm certain that the reason we choose not to have a RfCM was that it was at admins digression who got chat mod rather then community. Or something similar. 12:19, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also another issue, while admins can be on at any time really, there is a degree of how many chat mods we can have. As it stands chat gets enough admins and chat mods in chat there's rarely a point when there isn't one. So putting in a RfCM now seems somewhat redundant as most Chat Mods have covered every area we need covered. While saying "We have too many X" may be unfair on the applicant, in this case it's rather true, especially now it's back to school and traffic has dropped down again. 12:26, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Back then we had enough chat mods. Now, normally at night time, or in the mornings, there are no chat mods. We need to reinforce more, thus it is time for people to choose when they want to via nomination. It makes it easier to choose, and it also makes chat mods more active late at night, activity would be a theme for being a chat mod. -- 18:16, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * May I ask what's your morning or nighttime? --MLGisNot4Me talk 18:21, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * At the night shift there is about 4-5 mods at that time, problems that occur are dealt with and very rarely are no mods in at that time.18:22, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support-A much more organised idea that would actually let the community have a say in it. 14:15, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Pointless, we have admins who are trusted enough to make the right people chatmods. It's not like chatmod flags are ever given to people who are unknown within the community. Chatmods are also under constant monitoring considering every action they do is seen by everyone else (well maybe not that big-brother-ish, but if they do something wrong, it's going to be picked up on pronto) so if there is any problem it's always addressed quickly. We also barely ever give people chatmod flags... and especially when we have enough chat moderators it seems a bit too irrelevant to have RfCM now.

If we are to do this though we need to make it so requests cannot be submitted when there are enough chat moderators. And considering we already have enough, if we do decide to make RfCM we'd need to lock it pretty much immediately. Would we do it in the same style as RfA too? 16:27, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support The community should have a choice as who gets to be made a chat mod. Qw3rty! (talk) 18:32, August 6, 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Per CoD4, also the admins are picked and choosen to be admin sby the community. They are to be proven people who are trusted enough to decide on the right person a chatmod.18:36, August 6, 2012 (UTC)