Forum:Inactive mods



Topic
To me, it has come to terms that several of the recent demotions seemed a bit bias. Honestly, I believe mods who go inactive should just let be, and not be demoted unless it is clear they aren't coming back.

I have seen demotions of mods who are just occasionally inactive (as per Mia's recent demotion, which was quite a catalyst), and frankly, I see no reason to demote them. Does it bother anything really just keeping them around? It's not like they're abusing their powers. I would say that replacing inactive mods with those who are more active would be fitting, but some particular admins have already supposedly made it official that there will be no more promotions; so that isn't an option here.

If it's unnecessary to have any more promotions, then why all the demotions? The more you demote, then the more necessary it will be to promote. We currently have five chat moderators - which is quite a fair amount - but I feel it's only going to lower if we keep demoting mods for things that aren't even important. I brought this up in chat and I shall bring it up again: What if someones computer breaks and they have no way of telling us they're inactive, or more extremely, not being able to reply to talk page messages about inactivity? Should they seriously just be feverishly demoted like that? I believe not, and if anything, they should have a limit to prove they're still active. For example, if a user does not reply within three months, then they will be subjected to demotion - that would seem fair since three months of no activity would be enough to consider the user completely inactive.

Recently we've been demoting some users who are actually still active, just not too active. Those are the demotions I'm against, and we should only demote them once they've passed a certain limitation - I'm sticking with the "three months of no activity" rule I mentioned. -- •• • • +  DeviantSerpent  06:10, March 6, 2014 (UTC)