Shortly become coming a mod, I posted a huge manifesto written in a secluded cabin and dictated to my secretary over ham radio to be posted here. One of the things I implied was that in order for mods and admins to be part of the community, rather than above it, is that they should be rotated in and out on a semi-regular basis.

While I don't think it's realistic to apply this globally just yet (nor is it my call), I can voluntarily step down from my moderator position after a set period of time. It would be hypocritical if I did not. But the question is...how long should that be?

So I'm going to open up this poll for 48 hours, gauge the will of the people, and set a term limit for myself.

What do YOU think?

I voted 1 year, but 6 months would be my second choice. That time period allows for mods to get a good (or bad... or lack of any...) reputation with the posters in their forums.
3 months is far too short.
Indefinite is... umm... let's not talk about that.

Indefinite, but users can petition to force you to leave.

Indefinite. But a mod or an administrator should be ready to step down if it's not working anymore.

This.

Also, a mod or admin should be removed from their duties if there is a prolonged absence.

I think 2 years is more realistic.

I say indefinite, because if we stick around long enough, I hear JC Penney gives us a free tea kettle!

I agree with this. It's a thankless job and so putting a year or two term limits on it means you'll be getting rid of your most committed members and making it harder over time to recruit quality mods.

"Lifetime" appointment combined with a clearly defined recall option (with a high bar to clear: some percentage of participation combined with some high percentage of the vote) seems like the way to go.

If designed correctly, this would ensure quality and consistency in moderation.

Indefinite as long as you stay active.

How about the mods switch forums they are responsible for every 6-12 months?

Depends on the mod

I agree with this. Mods that disappear and come back rarely and then hand out warnings is really, really lame.

I vote 1 year. As an active member for over 13 years, I would have gladly spent a year of that time as a mod. But I wouldn't necessarily want to keep doing it forever.

It depends. Someone who's active and enjoys doing it (and generally has the support of both the ownership and the community) should go as long as they feel they are able. The thing I worry about personally is burn out. You have to be the bad guy a lot and I don't really enjoy doing that. You also have to keep a lot of things close to the vest for various reasons. Both of those things can be stressful.

I've seen requests go the other way too though. One of our posters suggested that mods recuse themselves in thread from making any calls on posts within the thread. One thing I am certain of is that you're never going to make everybody happy. All the mods do get the RTP emails. I trust they know the community enough to read the thread in question and make a decent moderator call on what to do with the post/posts in question.

And mods that don't come around any more should bow out and be replaced. I brought this up years ago and was given the Donald Sutherland point and stare.

What I was getting at was a particular mod who hasn't posted in the Politics forum in over a year suddenly appears and hands down a warning and then PMs me telling me he may have jumped the gun.

On a related note, as I was telling another mod, it seems that some warnings and suspensions are handed out while not fully bothering to digest the full context of the thread. So if you are never around, that's difficult to do.

Generally you become a mod if the Administrative team thinks you can be fair and that is judged by how you conduct yourself in the forums you post in. Once you are a mod, the main goal I'm interested in is do you moderate well. I get what you're saying that mods should be active, but it's also a relatively thankless, volunteer job. (Over the years there have been times we've asked a poster to become a mod and they've turned us down due to time constraints, or the just didn't want to take on the burden) Ideally a moderator should be posting a lot in the forums they moderate (they should have an interest in the forums they moderate). If they're being fair in their moderation and responding to RTP requests I wouldn't necessarily say they have to be kicked out as mods because they don't post regularly. You can't always have everything you want.

You can email me or PM me if you feel like a specific mod is not giving you a fair shake.

You should be able to read the thread at the very least if you get a RTP email. In a perfect world, yes they should be posting often. I'd expect them to at least read the thread in question if they get a RTP message. If they're not responding to RTP's, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Lots of food for thought here

I voted indefinite, but mainly because I doubt that most Mods want the job for life. This would allow the best ones to stay on though.

A better ordeal would be to step down moderators that are inactive for awhile say 3-6 months.

A year, but i'm ok with them re-upping for a second year after that, but then, they are outta there. I like the idea of them changing regularly, and also some people might be much more willing to sign on for a limited term.

Until the day ya die.
I don't even see a reason to set limits. A yearly review would be good to see if someone's tired of doing it or just not holding their own.

I voted indefinite but would be fine with a rotation as long as there is a big enough pool for proper coverage.

Back in the day, if you hadn't logged in and posted in a month or two, Geoff would remove you as a mod. Today, there are mods listed in the list of forum leaders who haven't posted in years. Literally, years. You can't effectively moderate the community if you're not part of the community.

I'm not even a fan of the moderators whose posts are now ONLY about moderation. i.e. they were once an active part of the community, but now they visit the board only out of obligation to fulfill their moderator duties. If you're not invested in the community, how can you be expected to act in the interest of the community?

I see 5 moderators who should be removed immediately, based solely on lack of activity (most > 1 year). Another 1 or 2 who are questionable. Thank you for your years of service. In order to maintain a high service level, we need moderators who are active in the community.

Agreed. There doesn't need to be a definite term limit, but I think there should be a mechanism in place to remove moderators when they become troublesome or disruptive.