Not sure if this should be an answer in the linked question or not. Anyway, I think a question is better than an answer in this case.

In Do we need more moderators?,

[...] Let's say that the answer to the title question is "yes" if this post reaches at least 30 upvotes in one month's time.

Now the question is exactly one month old, and it has got 37 upvotes (and 10 downvotes). Therefore the answer is: Yes, we need more moderators.


  • As far as I can see, rudeness is reducing. The number of related posts is reducing. The domino effect (is it a domino effect?) is stopping, or has stopped.
  • Behaviours are only annoying if you get annoyed by them. — David Carlisle

  • In my humble opinion, we don't really need anymore moderators. Our three moderators are moderating the site very well. I can see that by my recent "moderator intervention" flags.
  • I think CarLaTeX's intention is 30 score, not 30 upvotes.

In short: I think my answer is No. We don't need more moderators. What do you think?


You guessed my intentions well, I intended score not only upvotes. Otherwise, I could have had 30 upvotes and 40 downvotes and the proposal would have passed.

I also agree with marmot, elections would be a sign of democracy, but there was a scarce enthusiasm about them. Hence, I think the Community doesn't consider them necessary.

Moreover, I also think the situation is a little better than at the beginning of April:

  • I saw just-do-it-for-me questions by old users downvoted or, at least, not massively upvoted as before
  • the TeXnical topics are prevailing in chat
  • last but not least, the trolls either left the site or calm down (it is likely the mods had a role in it).

Hence, the answer to my question is "no".


My answer here is not because I disagree with the main statements you make, which I do not, but because I do not feel that cancelling elections is an option in any democratic model. So my answer is

If there was an agreement that there should be new elections, we will have to make them happen, simply for the sake of democracy.

Of course, I do not know whether or not there was an agreement that if CarLaTeX's post receives 30 upvotes we should have elections. My post is only to say if this agreement was reached, in a democratic model there is no way to bail out.

  • 1
    On the other hand, holding an elections where the majority of the electorate are disinterested can be an excellent strategy for those who don't want democracy. See many Trade Unions for examples - get yourself in a position of power with a tiny minority of the total electorate actively supporting you. – alephzero May 2 at 0:04
  • @alephzero There are always examples of this type. I am a big fan of democracy, but not of BREXIT. Yet I would like to argue that abandoning public votes because they led to BREXIT is not the right thing to do. Nobody says democracy is perfect, but it is arguably better than arbitrariness. So, even if sometimes the turnout at elections is not really great, I still would say that one should have them. Everything else is IMHO a step in the wrong direction. – marmot May 2 at 2:08
  • 3
    I agree with this answer. I think the current moderators are doing a good job and the current team does not necessarily need to be replaced or extended, but if we want moderators to be endorsed by the community (which I think is something we want, or should want) then there should be an election every couple of years. – Marijn May 3 at 11:32
  • 3
    @Marijn The StackOverflow model doesn't include 're-election': one could argue it's a failure 'higher up' – Joseph Wright May 3 at 17:41
  • If we're going to do something, it should be for the benefit of the site's users, not for the benefit of some abstract concept like democracy. – David Richerby May 7 at 11:16
  • @DavidRicherby And who is going to decide what benefits the site's users if not the we users? And how are we going to find out what the users want if not in a democratic poll? – marmot May 7 at 14:55
  • At least some of the site's users are explaining what they want, on this very page, which isn't a democratic poll. – David Richerby May 7 at 15:09
  • @DavidRicherby Yes, which is why we need democratic elections instead.... – marmot May 7 at 15:13
  • I don't see the argument you're using to conclude "we need democratic elections instead" from "the site's users are explaining what they want". – David Richerby May 7 at 15:16
  • @DavidRicherby I just don't see how we know what the users want unless we ask them. Or are you suggesting that you know? – marmot May 7 at 15:19
  • No, I'm not claiming to know. I'm just pointing out that there are other ways for people to make their views known than through elections. – David Richerby May 7 at 15:20
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby You can take a poll. But if the poll shows that we need to have elections, we will have a poll and elections. IMHO it would be much easier if we just had elections, which will confirm the current moderators if they have the support of the majority of users. – marmot May 7 at 15:23
  • 1

You must log in to answer this question.