Rogue Jedi

@Mithrandir We can't go against the policy, but what stops us from holding ourselves to a higher than required standard?

@Mithrandir What stops us from holding ourselves to a higher standard than the Stack Exchange's official requirements?

The Sci-Fi Stack Exchange has plenty of its own unique policies. To say that an internal policy change is impossible is ridiculous.

And if avoiding drama is the objective, we've clearly gone beyond that point either way

@Randal'Thor If they aren't doing their duties, by definition they're doing something wrong

@Randal'Thor It became a misdirect when Null kept ignoring elements of my concerns and focusing entirely on something that, while important, I never brought up

@Randal'Thor That's what the original question was about, mods not "actively participating in the site as users"

@Null There are reasons why someone in your position would lie. Maybe you're "protecting your own." Maybe you enjoy the increased power being one of the few active mods gives you. I don't believe any of these particular reasons, but it's completely incorrect to say you have "no reason to lie."

@Null That's a bad faith question, but I'll still answer it. As a stranger on the internet, I'm not going to believe you wholeheartedly without evidence.

I'm not saying the moderators should air everyone's dirty laundry, but the community needs some evidence everyone is doing the job they were elected to perform.

That's it. You keep asking that question when it's not the issue most community members care about. I do think flags are being handled reasonably. However, the issue is that either certain moderators aren't active, or the community has no way of knowing they are.

It's difficult to get upset at someone questioning your activity when they legitimately have no way of knowing

Additionally, certain comments critical of the moderator response have been deleted and there seems to be an active movement to set up a strawman that the issue is only about flag response times.

All of these statements seem intent on shaming the community or individuals for even raising the issue.

"do you want to see deleted gibberish, spam, obsolete comments, etc.? What matters is that the moderation team is sufficiently large and active to handle flags in a timely manner. Do you not think that is the case? "

"If the community's biggest complaint about the moderation team is that they're not posting enough, that's way better than most sites."

"The community team takes into account the community's view and complaints, of course, but "they're not posting enough answers" is unlikely to be taken seriously."

"You've all heard it before and may be tired of hearing it, but that doesn't make it any less true or relevant: a lot of what mods do is not easily visible to the community"

I've found the manner in which some have chosen to reply rather condescending

A concern I have is that most of the moderators don't seem to be taking this very seriously

@Ward I'm not sure what you mean by "long after the fact." The answer was posted yesterday. This is a serious issue and the heat should be on until a satisfactory response is given.

All comments discussing the suspicious number of upvotes the answer received in an extremely short amount of time were deleted without response. Given this entire issue is a result of a lack of transparency, it's really bad look.

And while I completely agree that mods should participate in the conversation, using unscrupulous means to make it seem like their response was incredibly popular, which appears to be the case here, is something I, and it appears others, have major problems with.

@Randal'Thor A mod being inactive is failing to perform their duty and therefore "doing something wrong."

Also, getting your mod buddies to rapid upvote a post about how the mods have done nothing wrong is incredibly suspect and arguably corrupt.

If a mod is so far behind the scenes that no non-mod has any way of knowing they're active, that's an issue

The moderators were elected by the community, not appointed by each other. We should have some level of say as to what kind of mod conduct is appropriate

@Mithrandir When a meta post is about mod behavior or policy, it would be ideal if more than the same one or two mods participated in the conversation.

@Mithrandir I also believe it's very unlikely any of our moderators would abuse their powers. However, it exists as a possibility, and there is no reason to keep them on that makes up for that possibility. There is no reason for anyone to have major powers that they could abuse if they aren't using those powers for good. "No one has done anything wrong yet" isn't a good enough justification for the needless risk.

"What matters is that the moderation team is sufficiently large and active to handle flags in a timely manner. Do you not think that is the case?" How would I if the mod team is apparently so predisposed to secrecy?

If every moderator is performing the expected amount of work, it's not unreasonable for the community to expect some evidence of that fact.

If certain moderators are doing the bare minimum, or even less, they should be replaced by qualified individuals who are actually willing to perform their duties.

@Null While managing flags is very important, it is not the only thing expected of a moderator. The article that the most recent moderator election page linked to stated that moderators should "try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action." This has clearly not been going on.

@Null The point remains that if the majority of mods are so far behind the scenes that the public has no idea they're even on the site, that's a big issue.

@Null You just stated that certain mods are "relatively inactive." Is that not problematic?

@Null Why do certain moderators have to be asked to do their jobs? Shouldn't they be performing their duties regardless?

@JohnP Replacement is not necessarily the objective here. If the active moderators can handle the workload, what is the point of keeping inactive moderators on the team?

@JohnP I'm not sure what you mean by "swath." Only three moderators are being accused of inaction.

@JohnP As outlined above, at least one moderator has repeatedly caused problems by coming in every once in a while and not following current policies. Additionally, the possibility of misuse, however unlikely, is a strong enough justification to remove powers from mods who aren't using them for the benefit of the site.

What is the benefit of allowing inactive moderators to retain their powers?

@Kevin The issue isn't you being able to contact them, it's them keeping in consistent touch with you, which seems to not be happening with one or more of the mods.

According to this article, linked to in the most recent elections page, mods have the responsibility to "stay in communication with [their] fellow moderators." It is not the responsibility of the active mods to make their inactive associates do their jobs. The article also states that "There is a process in place for a team to remove moderators who are unable or unwilling to cooperate." Have all our mods been fulfilling their duties by keeping in contact with each other?

@Adamant I'm also confused as to how a response to such a controversial question got 19 upvotes in an hour, without a single downvote.

The person whose comment you linked to is not the same person who wrote the top answer

@Edlothiad That is merely one user's interpretation of the policy. His account's age and rep level doesn't mean anything. If that was how he felt, he should have expanded his idea and posted it as an answer, so as to receive full feedback from the community.

@edlothiad The question in question is not "not ready yet." It pertains to a released work. Closing it is just failing to follow the 'Questions without answers" policy under the disguise of the Future Works Policy.

@thelethalcarrot Again, I see no evidence that the policy makes any mention that questions without an answer should be closed because they might be answered at some point in the future.

@thelethalcarrot Which future work is it related to?

@edlothiad Please see above. Additionally, that is not "the best answer" I'll get, as it isn't an answer. It should be expanded and posted as an actual answer so the community can fully react to it.

@thelethalcarrot That is not how the future works policy is meant to be used. Every problematic question listed here is clearly either asking about a specific unreleased work, or a hypothetical future work. The question being discussed does neither, has it is asking about the backstory to a released film.