I agree with having more detail about expected mod conduct laid down in the rules. In the discussions about moderation thread, it bothered me when (I think) Septimus said they didn't have procedures for disciplining a mod, and also said there weren't rules about when mods can check P Ms, just individual mods' guidelines and interpretations (the latter issue may have been solved in the administrivia thread, I haven't been following it).
Whether rules and procedures will be enforced is always an issue; but to not have any at all for reasonable, foreseeable situations seems like setting up for failure, and encourages people to kick the situation down the road (as we have seen) rather than dealing with it.
Also, when it comes to collective mod statements (not every mod-hat statement necessarily, but the bigger ones at least, and defined as to which ones this should apply to), I would like each mod who agrees to the statement to have their name on it, potentially with an option to list those dissenting and those absent. Although this is partially about individuals taking responsibility for the statements, it's also about making sure enough different people have been able to weigh in, because we often see remarks about how someone wasn't online when that decision happened. Like 1/3 of the mods or 4 mods or something need to approve the statement and put their names on it before it goes out.
This isn't just about extraordinary situations like recently, but could include (for example) mass-posts in the Edit Banned thread that are stated to reflect the collective mod voice. Usually these aren't controversial, which is the point; it should be no big deal for people to put their names on the whole statement, just to reflect who and how many have looked it over. And then hopefully they would catch something strange or snarky or confusing before it went out. You assume "a statement put out by the group, that reflects the group's beliefs" has actually been looked at and approved by multiple, even a majority, of members of the group; but it seems like lately, this has been called into question and should no longer just be assumed.
![]()
![]()
For a start, I think a better and more public process on choosing mods. Obviously, the mods make the nominations, but there should be a chance for the userbase to weigh in with good faith on them.
Likewise, allegations against the mods shouldn't just be handled behind closed doors. There needs to be some kind of public process to deal with allegations and a written code of conduct for moderators. Mods also need to promise to step down if they break the rules too many times, abuse their powers, or have otherwise good reason. Otherwise, they're unaccountable.
When the latest five mods were announced, it was a pleasant surprize, but from an organizational standpoint they should probably announce they're looking for a new (unpaid) hire and who is most likely to get it.
Know the Staff has a lot of mod-exclusive actions, but an elaboration on which "Word of Mod" are acceptable and are not would be helpful.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup^Candidates are talked through and voted on privately. People who pass the voting/evaluations get invitations. We send out invitations so we can't exactly people on the spot when we don't know if they want to mod in the first place. I think announcing that we are currently looking for mod candidates is fine though.
As for last four nominations, the mods did make a post stating that they are looking to give people they considered for engineering a mod stick after several concerns about understaffing was raised.
That being said, how mod nominations are done is a separate conversation from how to rein in poor mod behavior.
Edited by MacronNotes on Jan 5th 2023 at 6:45:51 AM
Macron's notesFeel free to come up with the policy, like if a mod post gets thumped three or less times, they get a week, month, then permanent relief of modding duties.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupI’ll Think about it. But in all honesty? I don’t trust that alone. The mods have shown they’ll close ranks and shield one of their own from accountability as what happened from one mod for years. Think it needs to be less loophole abuse worthy than that.
I’ll think of some policy for a draft here. But some kind of “good for the goose,” where what would send someone else to Edit Banned should be enforced with their strike system. Allegations of neglect of their duties, abuses of power, dickery, etc. should be assigned some kind of strike system at place.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jan 9th 2023 at 7:47:14 AM
Right, the "if a mod gets thumped" rule doesn't really work because it assumes that the other mods will thump them.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall"if gets reported" then.
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 9th 2023 at 11:03:22 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupI agree. The reason why all the recent headaches happened wasn't just because of mod misbehavior, it's because any attempt at a response takes days if not weeks, even if (in the case of something like crazy) it involves something as supposedly simple as an apology. We need honest opinions from people, not committee based answers that all get proofread as a group - otherwise, there's no way to take anything a mod says as their actual opinion.
I worry the admins could go "so that's how it is" and either shut down the site or replace the entire staff with someone who's not even familiar with the website.
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 9th 2023 at 11:52:52 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanupyou know they wont lol
also to clarify wasnt trying to attack you, more that there really really really needs to be a stronger response to minimodding because i saw at least two, three different posts doing the 'i know ur not here to support the mods so u will get banned :)' shit
either way per this and the mod thread, i dont think contacting the admins should be a last resort, esp since they dont have anything to do with fighteer or the remaining old guard. they need to know wtf is going on
Edited by MsOranjeDiscoDancer on Jan 10th 2023 at 9:03:07 AM
i may be dead inside but at least i have Mystery :,)Crossposting from moderation discussions thread
:
Moderator Code of Conduct (site wide)
- Moderators, whether in "troper mode" or "mod mode", are expected to abide by the wiki's behavior policies and conduct themselves accordingly.
- When posting in "mod mode", moderators are expected to maintain a professional tone. Wit is not discouraged, but excessively snarky, mean-spirited, or tangential commentary is not permitted.
- While private messages can and will be used as evidence in disciplinary actions as needed, moderators will not otherwise inspect tropers' PMs.
- Moderators will recuse themselves from mod action in any situation they are personally involved in, aside from being allowed to defend their actions as needed.
Infractions of any of the above can and should be reported, whether by holler, ATT topic, or PM.
Edited by Willbyr on Jan 10th 2023 at 11:10:06 AM
Macron's notesGenuinely a wonderful statement, and it's appreciated.
I would just add that if a mod breaks the rules repeatedly and their behavior becomes an issue, we should treat it like folks would in the Edit Banned thread: if is chosen they step down, they must abide by that, so we have ways to create accountability when we didn't before.

The admins' care for the site in general is pretty limited, tbh. Outside of fixing bugs and making weird updates, they pretty much don't pay attention to us. I'd like if they were more involved just in general, but it's not gonna happen, and we need plans that don't involve them.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall