We have decided to open voting on a second additional chat moderator, to provide more well rounded coverage for users from all potential time zones. Viktoria Landers has been selected for nomination at this time due to the maintained trust that has been placed in her. Please share your support, opinions, and/or concerns below for the administration team to review.
Furthermore, traditionally we have not had a voting procedure because of the small number of chat users. However, with the increasing number of members, we are now proceeding with nominations and are considering normalizing the way moderators are appointed in the future.
 Tekka Ijuin | Talk |
19:28, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Voting on this nomination will be closed within 24 hours followed by a period of deliberation amongst chat moderators. -- tierrie talk contr 00:38, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
- After some lengthy deliberation with Viktoria Landers, the administrators, the chat moderators, and after taking into consideration the overwhelming positive support for the nominee, we feel that Viktoria Landers would make an excellent chat moderator. However, in subsequent discussions, she indicated that she has had a change of heart and she believes that the chat is adequately moderated for now. That being said, if there is a need for moderators in the future, this nomination will serve as a precedence and be positively considered as part of that process. -- tierrie talk contr 06:51, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Support
Throughout the nine months I have been a chat moderator I have come to find precious few people on our channel that I would trust with the responsibility of power. Many members lack the emotional maturity or even the common decency to be considered for the position. Viktoria, however, is not one of these people. She has demonstrated the correct mindset and the willingness to act against improper behaviour and peer pressure that make her an excellent choice in my eyes.
Some have voiced concerns over one or two things that she has said in the past which can be considered "inappropriate", none of which have been even remotely close to being a serious or credible claim, and in my opinion this is the result of little more than petty school yard drama. Not one single member of the chat, including myself and the other moderators, can attest to have a 100% perfect behaviour record, as I have personally witnessed the foibles in all of them.
Therefore, considering both her excellent record, and eagerness to contribute to the community, I find no legitimate reason why this nomination should not pass.
| Tekka Ijuin | Talk |
19:28, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
Well, she did earn the other's trust, and I'm sure that happened with reason. I'm surprised, but I support it too. --Margerard (talk) 20:46, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
I spoke with Viktoria prior to this nomination process as she expressed her concerns about her responsibilities. Her concerns were thoughtful and showed a cautiousness about the use of power. She is the kind of person who thinks about her options and those options' consequences before taking action. I find that compassion and empathy the kind of social consciousness that I want in a moderator. I wholeheartedly support her nomination. -- tierrie talk contr 20:49, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
--The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:38, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
I support this Jaeha (talk) 17:45, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
I support Viktoria. I've worked with her on editing and updating the wiki and have messaged with her and found her to be diligent, kind, very pleasant, well-informed, and very passionate about Dragon Age. She would be an excellent choice! LadyAeducan (talk) 20:00, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
I support Viktoria GhostWolf (talk) 00:52, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
I support Viktoria -Algol- (talk) 03:44, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
I've made up my mind so yes I support User:Edocrack - 127
I vote for Vikky simply because I think she's gorgeous! :D Believe it! (talk) 20:58, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like this place needs bodies in uniform. If my vote counts for anything, or twice, both she and Isolationist have it. RShepard227 (talk) 03:52, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
I withdraw my vote after a re-evaluation of my opinion on the matter. DraculaCronqvist (talk) 18:49, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
Most of what I see of Vik is a level headed and generally agreeable person, but unafraid to take action if it is required- good qualities for a moderator I believe. However, I have also seen her involved in situations in the chat where her actions, intentionally or not, have done much more to inflame a potential issue than alleviate it. This, coupled with others speaking of altercations involving her, strikes me as a cause of concern on her ability to fairly and objectively handle certain situations. As I said before, most of what I see of her most of the time is good moderator material, the exceptions to this norm however speak rather loudly and from more voices than just mine. After speaking with her in private I feel that some of these issues have been clarified but not completely alleviated. I find myself unable to fully justify either a yes or no vote, and for this reason shall remain neutral in this nomination. ----Isolationistmagi 17:17, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
As others have noted, most of what I've seen of Viktoria has been positive. However, I simply do not feel that I have had enough interaction with or have seen her demonstrate moderation skills to give either a yes or no. 
King Cousland | Talk 18:46, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
EzzyD (talk) 22:23, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
Considering we already have a candidate nominated who has received unanimous agreement, I believe it would be better to wait and see what happens. The other candidate has not been involved in any of the verbal altercations in the chatroom. It is my belief that there are some issues that need to be addressed considering this candidate in regards to her recent activities. -
23:33, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. There appear to be things that need sorting out before any sort of candidacy can be properly discussed. EzzyD (talk) 00:06, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- One of these supposed "issues" was caused by a misunderstanding. It's a non-issue, and should not be treated as more than it is. Hitokiri Akins (talk) 02:22, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
And now, after a recent comment in the chat, I now actually agree with the objections, and I have withdrawn my vote for her, and now actively oppose to her appointment. Hitokiri Akins (talk) 16:20, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
Comments, questions and discussion
To the people who oppose (excluding Dracula, as I talked to him about it and both of us saw each other's point), it seems this is rather about personal feelings for them. But if I see her actions objectively (and I needed that when I ticked yes, because we had some issues on our own too) I still say, she can be professional enough to do her job. She pays attention to the rules, and she has proven herself trustworthy so far. That some people have their own grudges against her, is a whole different case. She is an individual, just like any moderator on the chat, so there will be people who either like or dislike her. But I don't think these should be made as reason of objection. One thing I realized, is that two people changed their mind quickly. EzzyD, I can understand, as Gabrielle and Ezzy are related, that does not mean anything big, of course, but still they will most likely agree. But then again, I get the feeling there are rather personal issues that would not really affect Viktoria's behaviour, as a moderator. About Hito, I cannot say anything for sure until I know the very reason why he changed his mind so suddenly. Anyway, this was my observation - that personal issues between the nominated and the opposers are present. But if we watch her objectively, it is certain that she is more than capable of moderating properly, playing by the rules. --Margerard (talk) 18:10, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to address several points. First, none of the voters are required to give fair votes; we are just voting. Whatever our motives are, that shall be our prerogative to keep, and if I voted for Obama because I thought he was gorgeous, then that is my prerogative. Same applies.
- Second, the reason I am opposing this motion is due to the rather emotional responses she has given. I expect a moderator to be cool-headed, logical, and reasonable - cold, even. A moderator should be the arbiter and mete out consequences where it is needed.
- Third, the timing is very inopportune. We just recently had a new moderator, and unless there was a sudden influx of chat users - which we do not - I believe the new moderator would suffice for now.
- I have debated this decision with myself and a select others, and this is my conclusion. Please do not stick your personal views onto others. We do what we do for whatever reason we see fit, and it is not anyone but the candidate under the scrutiny here, for better or for worse. If the community finds her to be fair, cool-headed, objective, reasonable, and does not meddle any more then required, then she will receive enough votes. If not, then let it be said that the community decided the outcome. -
01:47, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I changed my mind because of some inappropriate comments that she made that are unbecoming of a chat admin. That's also why I deleted my defense of her behavior, because I no longer agree with my defense. Hitokiri Akins (talk) 18:14, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- I did not stick my personal views to others. And most of it what you wrote, is obviously right. I still had the feeling that I should say something - as I think that is also obvious if you can express your concerns, so can I my opinions. It wouldn't be fair if only your opinion could be expressed and seen, now would it?
- Also, I can say it from experience that even if she ever got involved in arguments or situations like that, she could still deal with it in a cool-headed manner. You may experienced it otherwise, but then again, I mentioned above why I have said all these.
- And another thing, you might not know that her nomination was discussed earlier, even before Iso. This does not change much, but still it wasn't out of thin air at all and at least more than one moderator agreed on she is needed too. All in all, her nomination is quite understandable, however, you're right that still the community decides. --Margerard (talk) 14:50, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- @GabrielleduVent, I strongly disagree with your first comment. This wiki is based on community participation and consensus. Good faith and dialog. You are welcome to take a stance, but if you are unable to justify your opinion then it matters less than someone who is able to articulately lay out the pros and cons of a choice.
- In your example, you said that you voted for a person because you thought they were gorgeous. This is antithetical to the rational debates that this Wiki prides itself on. And in that sense, this Wiki is not a popularity contest because the strongest voices goes to those with the best arguments.
- Your second point on the other hand is the sort of description I would expect with a opposing vote. So I am glad you listed it and that will be taken into consideration.
- Thirdly, the request for two moderators was made by Michael Largness. The proposal was meant to cover multiple time zones so the channel is covered by moderators across multiple time zones rather than sheer quantity. I thought his proposal had merit so I asked that he put forth a nomination.
- Lastly, I do agree with you that there is a difference between arguing your case and imposing your views on others. In this nomination, the former is welcome.
- In conclusion, I hope the people supporting or opposing this nomation are not merely checking boxes. I encourage every one to cite, no matter how brief, their reasoning for their support or opposition. -- tierrie talk contr 16:24, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I thought the strongest voices rested with those wielding the power to actually grant rights? EzzyD (talk) 17:17, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I understand what you are implying here. However, we have traditionally kept an open mind and eye towards the community and chose to listen and act as guides. For example, Isolationistmagi's nomination was well received and the community have overwhelmingly supported her as a moderator. In this nomination however, there seemed to be issues that need to be addressed. As such, I have stepped in to see if these issues can be rationalized, or, if they are irrational fear.
- What I have not appreciated is the insinuations that you are casually throwing about. I ask that you keep your comments relevant and on topic. Thanks! -- tierrie talk contr 19:09, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I thought the strongest voices rested with those wielding the power to actually grant rights? EzzyD (talk) 17:17, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
- In conclusion, I hope the people supporting or opposing this nomation are not merely checking boxes. I encourage every one to cite, no matter how brief, their reasoning for their support or opposition. -- tierrie talk contr 16:24, November 15, 2012 (UTC)