Forum:The Vault Academy Chat Moderation Course for Discord Vote

Following the discussion on the topic of The Vault Academy Chat Moderation being removed from the discord, I am creating a vote on re-adding the Chat Mod program to the discord page and making it an "Official" program by Chads belief.

As the third ever graduate of the Chat Moderation program, i can say the program has benefited many users who have signed up for it and done it, it teaches how to moderate a discord server, which is a talent most do not have. It also teaches the user how to use certain bots like Dyno, and may lead the graduates to use the bots in future servers, i know i do. And it led to a graduate becoming a full fledged Chat mod.

Losing this program would not only make it so the wiki can not teach others valuable skills that they may use later on in their own pursuits, but it also makes it harder for potential chat mods to be voted in, it takes away having a way to prove to other staff and users you are capable of being a chat mod. Mug | Talk 03:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the TVA CM Discord program[]

Voting

• {{Yes}}
• {{No}}
• {{Neutral}}

Should The TVA CM Course Content be re-added to the discord page and it be run[]

Poll finished on 3:12 am June 4, 2022 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes[]

As someone who took part in the chat moderation course, I can personally speak for how well it taught users the role, its expectations and its tools. Letting this course die would lead to worse chat moderators in future. After the resignation of my fellow graduate, Rubbin. I feel this is something that the community can't afford. I'm not sure who could be brought on to teach people the tools apart from Aish, as everyone else who was familiar with them has left. But I'm sure this isn't too much of a problem.Zealous Champion (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No[]

1. As it currently stands, there is very little value to the program, with no resources on conflict resolution, effective moderation, maintaining impartiality, and so on and so forth. In its current form it serves no purpose Fandom Help pages do not already provide, and its results are dubious at best. If the program was reworked to provide actual resources and actual training however? That might be quite useful and an example to other communities. Тагазиэль 10:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
2. the ability to grant has its merits and maybe it should be a preference over other users to temporarily moderate, but there is much you can do as a regular user to moderate without moderating, which is the core of what a chat moderator does. You redirects, diffuse conflicts and set a good example. I remember there was an issue with "mini-modding" in the past, which boils to someone saying something along the lines of "you're breaking the rules and you're going to get banned" and users who do that aren't necessarily good candidates for moderation anyway as they are more interested in enforcing a rule that leading people back to the rule. Ultimately the reason for my saying no is Mug's own words "Without someone to mentor it its essentially dead". It sounds to me like the real problem right now isn't that the program can't appoint mentees, but that the program has no means of being mentored, so what benefit is there of this rule if there is no-one to use it? I'll also note the concerns about the structure (I haven't checked myself) and say maybe the whole of TVA needs looking at, reviving then seeing if there is a need to fix the ability? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 12:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
3. See comments. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral[]

1. Ignoring for a moment that this proposal does not appear to have correctly followed proceedure, I believe this concept has merit. However, it contains problemstic elemements that need to be resolved before I can support it. Specifically why is the grant of rights for 7 days if actions can only be taken if the mentor is there? why not apply and remove as neccesaary? what happens if rights are used inappropriately? I am of the firm belief my objections can be overcome witb redrafting. Agent c (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments[]

If anyone has any objection or possible changes to the program please leave them below. Mug | Talk 03:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this a vote or a discussion? What are we voting for? What changed?

intrepid3595/27/22 [10:27pm]

Vote, because of Chads multiple messages to me telling me to make a vote "If you think its useful to allow moderators to delegate their responsibility on a week to week basis for the purpose of training someone, go right ahead and call a vote on it.". This is a vote for the Chat Moderator info to be re-added to the discord page, what changed is that it was removed from the page and the Temp Mod info was re-added.

I'm not familiar with the chat moderator program. What was removed, exactly?

intrepid3595/27/22 [10:49pm]

Without someone to mentor it its essentially dead, but it would lead user through a 7 day chat mod course where they would get a mentee role with not exactly the same perms as the real role, but still moderation perms, and once the week or training was done (sometimes the course would be delayed) the user would have the role taken off of them and they would get a diploma, the course included knowledge about the bots and their commands, how to use discord perms like kick and ban on a dummy alt, as well as being taught how to record discord bans for the bans page, and how to calm down and defuse a situation. There was genuinely some good learning in the course. And the chat mod mentee info was removed the discord page explaining the course like a spark notes paragraph, and not just commented out, completely removed.

(←)  if you're willing to add the stipulation that the chat moderator mentee must first successfully pass a chat moderator rights request before getting rights on Discord, I'll vote yes.

intrepid3595/27/22 [11:12pm]

If they pass the chat mod request, why become a mentee, they already passed the vote, which means they become a chat mod, it defeats the whole purpose. Instead, i have an idea, make it so there is a mentee vote, and if they pass it, they're a mentee for one month, and if they prove themselves, they become a chat mod, or they can run for chat mod instead and skip the mentee part, but since there are more duties and things to uphold they might want to go for a mentee vote, which makes it so its less pressure on the mentee. Mug | Talk 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The chat mod mentee program would still be useful even for someone who passes a full chat mod vote first. It would help them learn how to use their rights properly, defuse tension, etc. Would it make sense to have new chat mods use the TVA as sort of on-the-job training? I do like the idea of a "mentee" chat mod rights request, though, to me, it seems like it's essentially the same thing as running for chat mod and then doing on-the-job TVA training.

intrepid3595/27/22 [11:34pm]

Hmm, we could do it like new or untrained users do the chat mod run, then become a mentee then a full mod, while having trusted and respected users like former staff members just run, like for example, if aish resigned, then ran again, he wouldnt be a mentee, because he is a trusted member of the community and someone we know will do right. Mug | Talk 04:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Could you tweak the removed policy wording and post it to the top of this page so that people know what they're voting for, exactly?

intrepid3595/27/22 [11:43pm]

(←)  yeah i can do that, how does the new version look? Mug | Talk 04:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

How does this look? intrepid3595/28/22 [1:49am]

That looks good. We can use that. Mug | Talk 18:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Given some of the feedback we're seeing, do you think it would be wise to cancel this vote, create it as a discussion to hash it out, and then bring it back to a vote?

intrepid3595/28/22 [4:37pm]

Sorry for not getting back sooner, but yes, i feel as if this would be better. Mug | Talk 20:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion phase skip[]

Now you know I don't have the authority to allow you to discuss the discussion phase, so why you're citing me as authorisation to skip it I don't know - have I been reappointed crat in my sleep? Can you demonstrate this discussion phase occured? I'm glad to see an attempt to follow correct process to make a policy change, but it appears you've allowed your passion to get in the way of following it correctly. I find it alarming that a recent chat moderator is this unfamiliar with our policies (both those correctly adopted, and those published on the dates that they were CM). Agent c (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am also confused. At first this seemed to be a vote, as the timer is still going, but now I see discussion on changing the wording or scope of the proposal. Could we put a pause on the vote timer until the exact wording of the proposal is worked out? We could then start the timer back up and continue the vote. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to do this. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, Chad, the rule on creating a new policy is poorly written. It says "the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote. The vote needs to run for a week at minimum."

If it had just said "the procedure... is" - that would be the one and only procedure. But it doesn't say that. By adding the word "normal," it affirms there are abnormal procedures. To wit, discussion phases have been skipped in the past. It's not wise, because such abnormal policy processes have a high failure rate, but Mug isn't out of line with precedent here.

intrepid3595/28/22 [11:22am]

I think a chat moderator menteeship program is very valuable to have, as running for chat moderator can be a big step and being familiar with the bots, moderative tools and knowing how to handle and defuse conflict situations massively helps, and for people who are hesitant to run it might just be the little extra push that they need. However, I don't think becoming a mentee after you've already passed your vote is the best way to go about it. If someone is not yet ready to be a full chat moderator and still needs to be trained, why would they need to run already? And if their actions as chat mod mentee are not enough to convince people that they are the right person for the position, what happens to the result of the vote? Does it get invalidated? Or do they become a full chat mod regardless?

What I would like to see instead, which is not too different from the process previously described on the Discord page, is that a user who wants to run for chat moderator should first go through an optional period as mentee (how long this period should be is up for discussion), and if successful, they can run at the end of this period and upon the vote passing they will immediately become a full chat mod. During this period, they will receive the moderative tools necessary to learn how to use them, and an active bureaucrat, admin or chat moderator (ideally the same person who endorses them on their application) acts as their mentor and is also responsible for their actions during that time. This way other users can form their opinions and base their vote on their actions as a mentee. The Appalachian 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This was the reason for the debate in the first place. Handing out rights to people by skipping the rights holder request process. I don't think this idea will gain much traction, considering who came up with and implemented it as unilateral policy. However, we could certainly run a vote on it.

I do think it makes sense to offer training after passing a rights request. In the career world, almost everyone must go through an interview (rights holder request equivalent) and then get on-the-job training from someone experienced (TVA).

intrepid3595/28/22 [11:22am]

Are you suggesting that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government? Where does this madmess end? Agent c (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I would caution anyone from citing the policy role back discussion as the discussion for a particular vote. Does it fulfill the discussion requirement for policies which were rolled back? Technically, yes, but doing so works to the detriment of passing the best possible version of whatever any specific topic is. Rather than fielding responses dedicated to individual issues or policies, with focus on only one targeted conversation, that forum’s comments are a bit of a mess, tangling and twisting several issues together. Just because you can do it, does not mean you should do it.

Looking specifically to the proposal here, I am not militantly opposed to every detail. Providing a guide, which available to browse or reference as needed? Fantastic idea.

But I would not bake the content of the training itself into policy. The tools we have now are different than those used 5 years ago, and are likely to be as different as those used 5 years from now. Hell, in 5 years referencing Discord at all could be as timely and relevant as talking about Skype, and newer users could be looking back at the Discord UX, asking if this is the fabled teamspeak of yore.

Policy is sticky, and Discord moves far too fluidly, with elements out of our control, to carve a mandatory program into stone. For example, music bots were removed somewhat recently(ish). It’s not far fetched to believe other bots with specific uses or primary features of bots which have multiple uses, have them removed from the platform. The music bot happened to be all fluff, but we have as little control over the important bots.

Would existing mods have to retest on new bots to maintain their role, similar to real world continuing education requirements which many professions have? Does adding a new bot require a full policy change, complete with a discussion forum and vote, since it would reflect a change to the training course which is locked in by policy? Does phasing a bot out require something similar? What happens if a vote to adopt a new bot passes, but only after passing, we find out there are conflicts or other issues which make the bot a problem rather than an aid? Knowing full and well that given the chance, when least opportune, something will break. What are the sorts of “oh, shit” emergency provisions for tooling with bots?

Existing mods and admin should offer help as needed, and a reference guide is a win for everyone. Neither of those rely on policy to have as good, general practice.

If establishing probationary staff positions is something worth discussing, it should be spun-off as a separate issue. If someone clearly does not workout in the first few weeks or months, having a mechanism to remove them quickly and effortlessly is worth considering. Way too large of a discussion to have piggy back along as part of chat mod training, though.

Also, as a note about the trainee having rights being a factor in building trust, this has not been the case in my experience. The duration of the mentee ship is too short to build trust enough to wipe clean existing doubts or concerns. As others have said above, building that trust can be done as user with no special roles. But I can firmly say no one I have voted for or against was swayed me by pointing to the course. If I trust someone can make a good mod, I have absolutely no issue with them needing some time to learn the particulars of the tools or having the occasional hiccup with the variety of bot commands. Perfectly fine. But no amount of familiarity with the platform or tools is more impactful than the faith I do (or do not) have in them to act as a mod. Not burning the place down when given temp rights should be the expected bare minimum, not a point of praise. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it may also be worth considering if Fandom's A+ initiative (announced at Community Connect yesterday) would be worth considering in place of this as a broader community management course that you can put on your CV. Anyone who takes that course has a verifiable qualification from an "expert" in community management that shows they have the theoretical training. Then as Dyre said, getting rights themselves are based if the community feels they are trusted and capable, things which need to be demonstrated in the self, not some course. Managing bots, channels roles are all useful, but are a minor part of community management; these are tools and (should be) rarely used ones that can be picked up "on the job". When we moved to Discord it took maybe a day tops to get to grips with the core tools, bots about the same. Individual bots themselves all have different requirements and I would consider those used as abuse filters could go from simple to complex depending on the level of complexity offered. Learning and understanding the community, situational handling and dispute resolution are core skills that take significant time to learn.

As the other concern is that no-one is running TVA and this isn't the first time it has happened, would it be better to simply outsource community management training to a dedicated resource rather than tackle it in-house? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 13:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)