A question for moderators.

[Calaber]

I readily admit my ignorance of a number of the mechanations of this forum, so my question may appear utterly ignorant. I hope not though.

Who appoints the moderators and what criteria are used to ascertain their suitability for the role?

[1991_Vn2nV]

I don't know the absolute answer here but I assume the site administrators choose moderators, and it would be discussed with other moderators in the mod forum before they make a decision.

They only elect new moderators when they have to (i.e. a current moderator leaves or no longer wishes to be a moderator). I dont think there are set criteria, but just certain people who appear to be suitable for the role. Most have been members for a very long time, longer than you or I and have shown themselves to be helpful to the forum and relevant sections of the forum over a number of years.

[Calaber]

That sounds pretty reasonable. I'm certainly not questioning their qualifications for the role, but wondered how they were selected. Doubtless, valued contribution over a lengthy period would be vital.

[Darren]

A few different methods have been used in the past which appears to have worked quite well.

a) Have a thread for nominations, once the nominations have been reached a vote is put to everyone.
b) Talking amongst other admins / mods on who we pick reasons for and against.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Anything else just drop a reply in.

Cheers
Darren

[Calaber]

Thanks Darren. Answered nicely. Much as Vn2nv had suggested.

Cheers