Thread:Hackey5/@comment-27022259-20160530165918/@comment-5645428-20160602101623

It's good to see that this has been brought to attention.

From what I understand, the root of this issue lies in there being a lack of moderators active at given times. Touching on the subject of harsher punishments, this is ineffective disincentive, reason being that fools will be fools for the sake of being fools, regardless of what policies are implemented because those fools probably wouldn't be so foolish if they read the policies, this unlikely being the case. Such individuals may periodically visit our site to make a nuisance of themselves for no particular reason other than being bored. After being banned once for 3 days or a week, they may return two and a half weeks later to post gibberish when they're bored again, or they may not because they weren't initially successful the first time; longer ban durations will not specifically disincentivise them as any substantial ban would act to the same degree, at that moment, they have to go somewhere else to spread their foolishness.

As it goes, the presence of a moderator discourages foolish behaviour and the appeal of satisfying one's boredom with it, that sense of freedom to act immaturely dissipating rapidly. The most obvious solution is promoting more moderators so that the chat can be monitored for as long an extended period as possible. IceKane, whom I know is active and has demonstrated he is fit for the role has been promoted by the recommendations here accordingly and will be formally announced soon. I have bundled content moderator abilities so that he can assist in unnecessary page and file deletion should he be interested in doing so (Special:Listgrouprights). As goes without saying, any breach of trust will see a quick turnover of user rights.

It is a consideration to promote more moderators, although we all know what happens when there is an overabundance of staff whom are not necessarily experienced enough to act responsibly in heated situations. Worse, that conflicts develop between them. I think it is possible that we could have additional moderators elected by the community, either formally as we successfully did so originally, or from unanimous agreement, given that there is enough thought and discussion prior.

I agree with primetime's statements and also his suggestion of a staffing schedule. A chat bot is also an option, although this shouldn't really be necessary if we are able to have moderators on during the populated chat periods.