Plus, as seen in the current Adjunct Staff proposal there is a chance of another level of staff appearing in the future. This is why in this proposal I made the choice, for instance, at II.2.1 and in Section IV to explicitly say "OS+"in the hope that if some day, some way, another level of staff does appear there's no ambiguity in that respect. I don't think it's likely that, having eliminated the Moderator rank, a staff level between OS and Admin would pop up again (I certainly hope not) but you never know.

There's really no reason to separate the thread from normal promotions, I suppose. Figured it'd be cleaner if it was split, but merging would be fine too. I'll think on it.

Regarding the name, I think "modtools" is a better abbreviation to avoid the temptation of people calling it "moderator", with its associated past baggage.

An observation, since we are accustomed to saying "OS+" for everything, with this change we can shift to simplying saying "operational staff" or "opstaff" to refer to staffers who are higher than junior staff. Administrators being part of this group is evident, except when "opstaff only" is used (non-administrator staff).

When MAST requests a list of Operational Staff candidates for Winter Promotions from Acting Team Captains they will also ask Acting Team Captains for a list of their team members with the Moderator tools role whose role will be renewed. Acting Team Captains may only request Moderator tools renewal for members of the team of which they are Acting Team Captain. Multiple teams may request the renewal of Moderator tools for the same member of staff.

When MAST creates a Winter Promotions thread they will also create a Moderator tools Renewal thread. This thread will contain two lists:

1. The list of staff members to have their Moderator tools role renewed. This will also include which teams authorized the renewal.

2. The list of staff members to have their Moderator tools role removed.

This is a minor gripe, but why a separate thread from normal promotions? Does it not make sense to compile the renewal thread with the promotions thread?

Additionally, this is independent of the proposal but, where will you be putting this policy page wise? Actively modifying the charter? Making sure any separate pages are visible and well separated? I think we need to start being more thoughtful about creating a navigable site map, and this is certainly a good place to start.

Otherwise, I support the proposal in its current format.

Are you otherwise in support of the proposal?

Previous Threads:

Abolishing the Mod Rank

Abolishing the Mod Rank 2: Now it's Personnel

I've made a fair few changes to this policy. I would ask that Moderators and Administrators especially take a close look at the whole thing, so as to avoid any confusion if this policy passes when it is put up for a vote.

SECTION I: Policy Need

As staff as a body has changed in responsibility and culture we need to re-examine how we use the Moderator position.

I.A Moderator Role

Moderator currently exists as two married parts. One, the staff hierarchical role of Moderator. Two, the actual moderator tools within Wikidot.

Currently the functioning differences between the Operational Staff(OS) role and Moderator(Mod) role are that:

1.) Moderator serves as a social role and may be bestowed whether or not the staff member requires the tools it comes with. Moderator is a shorthand for "trusted user".

2.) Moderators can view AdCap Coordination in the staff Discord.

3.) Moderators can request that any disciplinary action against them only be voted upon by other Moderators and Admins per Section V.B.III of the Charter.

4.) Moderators+ are able to approve the creation of workbenches.

5.) Moderators receive the Moderator wikidot tools.

Do we have a need to keep any of these?

1.) No. As Mod is promoted via the same process as any other OS, there is no guarantee that the role reflects a trustworthiness above OS. This is a holdover from a time of much more striated staff structure which gave little weight to those at the bottom.

As time has progressed this has changed with the merging of rank segregated channels, removal of blackboxes and also a shift in culture as seen by the much decreased use of those still extant segregated staff spaces that allow only OS+, mod+ or captaincy+.

2.) No. There is no reason AdCap should not be viewable to all staff of at least OS.

While in the past it may well have made sense, currently adcap see limited use and when it is used, very little, if any, warrants a blackbox of this degree.

As in 1 this would seem to be a relic of when staff spaces were more segregated, when the dynamic was geared towards the staff role one had determining the weight of one's words and opinions on matters, a trend which has been reversing as seen with the merging, unblackboxing and even opening to the public of various staff channels.

I would like to see this as a continuation of that trend.

3.) No. As long as Moderator also functions as a social role, a jury of that Mod's peers may only feed into toxic power dynamics. Even without the Moderator role, the staff member in question can still request a jury of their peers; that jury will simply be broader.

4.) Yes. Workbenches are valuable tools for certain staff members to fulfill important tasks. However, they need not be tied to the Moderator rank.

5.) Yes. The healthy functioning of the site is heavily reliant on the Moderator Wikidot tools.

Of these, the only true benefits of the Moderator role is that Mods are given Moderator tools, and are able to create and approve workbenches.

Given this, I firmly believe we should divorce Moderator wikidot tools from our current staff hierarchy, and eliminate the social component from it entirely.

I.B Moderator Role Bestowal/Removal

As staff and the site have grown, teams have been added, as have subteams which have become more specialized. In some cases there are even teams that deal with offsite content rather than the SCP Wiki itself, such as the Discord Team and portions of Internet Outreach. We have even at times had staff who are not site members.

Staff members who do not use Wikidot moderator capabilities obviously do not require those capabilities. Yet we are not in the habit of reviewing the frequency of its use by Moderators, or, if indeed they need it at all, nor do we currently remove Wikidot moderator capabilities from Moderators who do not require the role, which currently would essentially be demotion to OS.

Those accounts who do not use Wikidot moderation capabilities, be they Inactive, Reserve or active staff engaging in other work are security vulnerabilities, as there is always the possibility, however slight, of someone with malicious intent gaining access to a staff member's Wikidot account, or some other unforeseen event causing issue with the site.

While this is true for anyone with Wikidot moderation capabilities, when the account holder is not using these capabilities it is a completely unnecessary risk. We have in the past been in situations where accounts have been compromised, and while we have made changes to lower those risks I believe this is worth doing for the same reasons we typically remove moderation capabilities from retired staff.

On the flip side, it is entirely possible that a team, such as the Deletions subteam of MAST for instance would, despite having a healthy amount of OS and JS, not have enough active Moderators to keep up with a workload which requires Wikidot moderator capabilities. Given promotions happen every four months, it is easy to quickly fall behind on such tasks, going four months without sufficient Moderators on a given team or subteam can be disastrous.

SECTION II: General Policy Proposed

As such I propose

1.The elimination of Moderator as a staff rank and that all current Moderators become Operational Staff.

2. The creation of a "Moderator tools" role which exclusively confers Wikidot Moderator status on the SCP Wiki onto a staff member, and no other powers or privileges previously conferred by the "Moderator" role.

2.1. AdCap viewing permissions be transferred to all OS+.

2.2. The power to approve the creation of workbenches be held by Acting Team Captains as well as Admins.

3. The creation, implementation and utilization of processes for the conferring of the "Moderator tools" role on qualifying staff member, as laid out in Section III

3.1. All current Moderators will immediately be given the opportunity to be put up for the newly created role if they so choose.

4. The creation, implementation and utilization of processes for the removal of the "Moderator tools" role from staff members who no longer need them, or due to disciplinary reasons, as laid out in Section V

As a result:

All current Moderators would immediately become Operational Staff with the "Moderator tools" role.

SECTION III: Nominating candidates for Moderator tools

At any time, acting Team Captains may put forth one or more of their team members of Operational Staff rank or higher as candidates for the role*.

*Acting Team Captains may only nominate the aforementioned candidates for the purpose of aiding the candidate in accomplishing staff goals under the purview of the team whose Captain nominated them. However, those possessing the Wiki Moderator role may use these powers for any team they are members of.

Admins may at any time put forth one or more candidates for the role for the purpose of aiding in staff duties requiring the role.

SECTION IV: Obtaining the Moderator tools role

Nominating Administrators or Acting Team Captains will inform all Administrators and Acting Team Captains of their intent to nominate Moderator tools candidates.

(Optional) Though it is not required it is recommended that teams merge their nomination threads if they intend to nominate staff members around the same time as to prevent voter fatigue. However as one of the tenets of this policy is the nomination on an as needed basis do not feel obligated to do so.

Nominating Administrators or Acting Team Captains will create a voting thread detailing:

A. Their candidate(s)
B. Why the candidates require the Moderator tools role.

The thread will remain open for one week.

While the thread is open O.S.+ will be able to vote on whether or not each candidate should be given the Moderator tools role.

Requirement for a candidate to receive the Moderator tools role is a simple voting majority, with a quorum equal to that required for policy implementation (currently 30%).

There is no obligation for staff members to cast a vote in the thread.

Only votes for or against candidates are permitted.

In a situation with multiple candidates a voter may choose to cast a vote on the election of all, some, or none of the candidates.

Candidates may not vote in their own election.

Following the election process Administrators must review the process and bestow upon the elected the Moderator tools role and its associated powers.

In the event the process is deemed by Administrators to have been mismanaged, the results should instead be voided.

SECTION V: Removing the Moderator tools Role

The Wiki Moderator role should be removed from staff members at the following times:

When the staff member is Retired, Inactive or Reserve*.
By request of the staff member in question*.
As a result of disciplinary action.
By consensus of their Captains.
By Admin consensus.
At such time as the staff member's Moderator tools are not renewed.

ALL Moderator tools roles expire on the conclusion of Winter promotions unless renewed as specified in Section VI.

*in these cases the role may be obtained again with assent of admins and/or team captains (in cases where the staff member used the role for the purpose of tasks under this team's purview) without requiring a staff vote.

SECTION VI: Renewal of the Moderator tools Role

When MAST informs Administrators and Acting Team Captains of upcoming Winter Promotions, MAST will also inform Administrators and Acting Team Captains of the upcoming Renewal thread.

When MAST requests a list of Operational Staff candidates for Winter Promotions from Acting Team Captains they will also ask Acting Team Captains for a list of their team members with the Moderator tools role whose role will be renewed. Acting Team Captains may only request Moderator tools renewal for members of the team of which they are Acting Team Captain. Multiple teams may request the renewal of Moderator tools for the same member of staff.

When MAST creates a Winter Promotions thread they will also create a Moderator tools Renewal thread. This thread will contain two lists:

1. The list of staff members to have their Moderator tools role renewed. This will also include which teams authorized the renewal.

2. The list of staff members to have their Moderator tools role removed.

Acting Team Captains and Admins will have until the conclusion of Winter Promotions to issue corrections in the O5 thread. MAST is responsible for editing the lists upon being informed of these corrections.

Immediately following the conclusion of Winter Promotions, Administrators MUST remove the Moderator tools role and associated permissions from every staff member whose Moderator tools role was not explicitly renewed.

In the event that Winter Promotions do not occur on a given year, the Moderator tools Renewal process should occur on the dates of the most recent Winter Promotions.

SECTION VII: O5 updates and Recordkeeping

VII.A Mod Tools Primer

The text within the below collapsible will be put into a newly created page on O5. It will act as a guide for those receiving the "Moderator tools" role. It will be linked under the "Information" dropdown menu on 05command.

Candidates should be made aware of this document by their nominating acting team captain before they are voted upon.

VII.B Staff lists

The Master Staff List page will have its "Moderator" section removed. Its contents will be duplicated to the "Operational Staff" section. The "Operational Staff" table will receive an additional column with the name "Mod Tools". The Mod Tools field will contain an 'X' for each row corresponding to a staff member currently holding Moderator Tools permissions or the eligibility to receive them without review.

The Active Staff List page will have its "Moderator" section removed. Its contents will be duplicated to the "Operational Staff" section. The "Operational Staff" table will receive an additional column with the name "Mod Tools". The Mood Tools field will contain an 'X' for each row corresponding to a staff member currently holding the Moderator Tools role.

The Retired Staff List will keep its "Moderator" section, so as to preserve historical accuracy of the rank held by staff members prior to inactivity or retirement. However, from this point forward, no newly retired or newly inactive staff members will be added to the "Moderator" section. A note will be added above the table explaining that "Moderator" is a depreciated position. The "Operational Staff" table will receive an additional column with the name "Mod Tools". The Mod Tools field will contain an 'X' for each row corresponding to a staff member currently holding the Moderator Tools role. As they did not hold these tools prior to retirement or inactivity, those currently on the "Operational Staff" list will not be eligible for Moderator Tools without review and marked as such. Returning Moderators will be eligible for Moderator Tools without review as per Section II.3.1 of this policy, and their status will be updated to "Operational Staff" as per Section II of this policy.

The Tech Hub Tag List section on the workbench tag should be updated to reflect Section II.2 2 of this proposal.

All other staff lists or documents which explicitly reference Moderator as a rank will be updated to reflect the changes of this proposal.

SECTION VIII: Responsibilities

The following is a list of responsibilities regarding this proposal and which staff groups are responsible for overseeing them:

Acting Team Captains are responsible for correctly following the nominations process and voting thread as laid out in Section III. Administrators are responsible for reviewing and validating that the process occurred in line with current policy. In the event the process was mishandled it is the responsibility of the Administrators to void the results. In the event the process was correctly handled and a candidate receives the Moderator tools role it is the responsibility of the Administrators to confer the role and its permissions upon the staff member as soon as possible.

Acting Team Captains are responsible for renewing Moderator tools roles as laid out in Section VI only for members of their team who require the role to complete team tasks.

Staff with the Moderator tools role are responsible for requesting the removal of their Moderator tools role if they no longer require it to complete their staff duties as laid out in Section V.

Administrators are responsible for the removal of the Moderator tools role and associated permissions as soon as possible when required from a staff member as laid out in Section V.

MAST as the team responsible for handling promotions are responsible for the maintaining of a list of all staff members with the Moderator tools role and the regular enacting of the Renewal process as specified in Section VI. In the event MAST are no longer responsible for promotions, those who have become responsible for the promotions process will be responsible for the Renewal process. In the event MAST in unable to handle their responsibilities as outlined in this document it is the responsibility of the Administrators to ensure that the Renewal process occurs.

Administrators are responsible for using their powers (such as admin Fiat) to ensure that this policy does not unduly interfere with staff work. (For example, though it is intentionally not provided for in this policy it may become necessary to use Admin Fiat to create an exception to one or more portions of this policy to one or more members of staff.)

It is the responsibility of the Administrators to ensure that Acting Team Captains, MAST and their fellow Administrators adhere to this policy.

Thank you to Rounderhouse, torcsandantlers, stormfallen, Siddhartha Alonne and psychicprogrammer for their help with the proposal.

Thank you to Zyn and stormfallen for helping with the Mod Primer

Changelog/Commentary:

Discussion Timer: