New moderators are needed for Discourse


Quite unsatisfied situation that we not having an active site Moderation. Only one Moderator (@montoyamoraga ) listed and not contactable at least for the last month+ by not accepting messages.

Also the issue that on changing the category or tags leads to spam classification and make the topic invisible therefore is a mess…

Would be great if the issues could be solved asap.

— mnse


If n1 curious, here’s the moderator list’s link:

Outta those 4, only @montoyamoraga is active. Others haven’t been seen for 1 or 2+ years. :see_no_evil:

The previous forum had more moderator folks (including me :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:) and solved issues quicker.


Hi Sir

Honestly you are one of the best to be our permeant moderator

And also there is good guys as you


@sableRaph is the Community Lead for the Processing Foundation perhaps he could raise this issue.
(he will receive a notification of this post)


Thanks @quark for the notification and @mnse for raising the issue! :slight_smile:

We could look at people with the “respected” badge as a good shortlist of moderator candidates. What do you think?

By the way @mnse could you change the title to be more specific to the moderation issue? Maybe something like “New moderators are needed for Discourse”.


Sounds good … :+1:



Yes, as suggested above, the Respected list is a good place to look first. However, some members of the Respected group may have been active in the past, but might not be in the present. Viable candidates should be currently active.

The Regular badge is based on a user’s activity and received likes during the past 100 days. If a user becomes inactive, they eventually lose that badge, albeit temporarily. They can gain it back again by becoming active. Users who have both the Respected and Regular badges might be good candidates.


Regular badge is permanent. We need to check last seen or last post for each user instead.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I’ve lost and regained that badge in the past.

See Understanding Discourse Trust Levels. This is included there:

Furthermore, unlike other trust levels, you can lose trust level 3 status . If you dip below these requirements in the last 100 days, you will be demoted back to Member.

No Sir you are true every 100 days

I have been browsing the forum every day for about two years
the best choice :



Oops, I was wrong. However, the regular badge also includes the leader badge list.
And most leader users haven’t been actual regular visitors for years!
That’s why we have to check last seen for each 1, regardless if they belong to “regular”.


It should be possible to get a list using the Discourse API :thinking: For example here’s a JSON of all the people with the “regular” badge.

1 Like

The API is cool! How about a list of users sorted by posts_read “order” over a quarterly “period”:;order=posts_read

Click this link to view the list beautified:


Who, specifically, within the Processing Community would officially vet and select new Moderators from a list of nominees or candidates?

Choosing a list of candidates and voting from members


Good points, @jafal.

@GoToLoop, what was the system for choosing Moderators back then, and in your opinion, would that be a good system for selecting new Moderators this time?

1 Like

I was simply chosen by PhiLho (some1 who’s not involved w/ the forum anymore) b/c he saw I’ve been helping beginners w/ tech stuff as I’m still am.

When we moved to this forum version, it seemed to me the leaders & moderators were chosen based on their affiliation w/ the Processing Foundation regardless if they’d pay any visits to this forum at all.

Just check some of those w/ the Leader badge for when they had last seen in this forum:

Most of them are absent for years!


Agreed. I have been out, but since my come back the people in this list and in this thread are the most active ones, they do actually moderate the forum already as one can see by this very topic here. And was alike in last forum under Philo’s watch. I would make all them moderators asap.


@sableRaph, would you or someone else in the position to do so be willing to formalize the process of making this decision? This might include officially soliciting further nominations from the Processing Community, and then conducting discussions and a vote, or some other mechanism of engaging the Community in proposing and finalizing the choices.