tl;dr No changes right now.

The reason I am posting this is to respond to the ongoing chatter in the "new" chat rooms concerning appointments of new room owners after recent events. This is just to let everyone know that, after some discussion with the moderators, we feel that new room owners should be elected by meta, rather than in real time during chat.

If such elections happen, they will not be right now. There are still issues to be dealt with before moving forward. This does not preclude the appointment of temporary or deputy room owners during extenuating circumstances.

Let's leave this aside for now and enjoy our currently problem-free chats.

  • 1
    Be sure not to overstate or overthink the importance of room owners. They're usually useful to have, but as long as the current room owners aren't abusing their privileges, their only real job is maintenance. Of the description, name, feeds list, etc... and maybe, maybe, rarely, kicking/muting someone.
    – user14349
    Nov 30, 2015 at 6:21

2 Answers 2


On Mos Eisley Cantina

(Adapted from my statements in chat)

TL;DR: if we do what we did, we get what we got, which we don't want.

When old Mos Eisley was frozen, a number of alternatives popped up. The one that stuck around longer than a few hours, was Most Eisley, which was owned by @Axelrod. I have nothing against them, but that made it a room owned by one single low-rep user.

I created Mos Eisley Cantina as a reaction, and added a great number of regulars as room owners.
As not all those I wanted to add were available on chat at that time, I did so without consulting them, figuring they could remove themselves if they didn't want to be an owner.
I added someone as an owner who had been suspended in the wake of the Great Freeze, which I regretted doing but didn't want to roll back at that time. I also neglected or forgot to add some regulars who probably should've been. That had been fixed since.

Implementation aside, I intended to have this room owned by a greater number of people than the old Mos.
When yesterday the room owners were pared down to just the owners of the original Mos, I was disappointed, although I understand the user doing that thought they were doing good.

We tried few owners, that didn't work, so I thought we should try more owners. I do not know what the status of the old Mos is, but as long as Mos Eisley Cantina is its substitute, I think we should try alternative modes of "room modding", the most important of that being more owners.

I hope that by having more owners, more people will feel responsible for the room and more people will be available to moderate chat.


I didn't want to bring this up in chat since, well, we don't need to be talking about this there anymore, but:

I think the discussion you're referring to was around who should be owners in the new room @SQB created. I don't think anyone has proposed adding new owners to Mos Eisely if/when it is ever unfrozen. (At least, I have not seen any such discussions myself; others may be having them elsewhere.)

Am I correct in understanding that users creating alternate rooms related to SF&F:SE, other than Mos Eisley, can continue to set the owners as they see fit? Any other questions I have will be deferred until the resolution of the room situation :)

  • 2
    Hi Mike. There has been chatter and discussion by various (non-mod, non-RO) users in various forms about adding room owners to the main (currently frozen) room. As for your main question (about owners for the alternate rooms), I personally don't have an answer for you. I suggest you simply wait on that until more dust settles. :-)
    – Praxis
    Nov 16, 2015 at 22:31
  • 1
    @Praxis ok then, that makes more sense. I only know that when you entered MOC we had just finished switching room owners there, so it looked related. Thanks for setting me straight :)
    – KutuluMike
    Nov 16, 2015 at 22:33
  • No worries. :-)
    – Praxis
    Nov 16, 2015 at 22:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .