People can easily lie in appeals. People can turn out to be completely different to what they say they're like. It increases the quality of staff if we judge them on how they usually act and how they would do overall, not on how well they can write an application, as writing applications isn't a skill needed to be moderator, some really good mods may not be good at writing applications, but they could be a good mod. Also, some of the best mods are the ones who never thought of themselves ever getting mod. Skills that is needed is knowing the rules, being able to deal with player, being active and many more, isn't it better if we judge them on how they usually do these things and how they would do these things if they were mod rather than judging them on how well they say they can do it? People often think too little or too much of themselves, people who think too little may think they don't deserve mod, even if they would make a great one. Then there's the people who think too much of themselves that may be put down by a rejection of a mod app, and may rage and cause problems, creating multiple mod applications and spamming. Also, imagine how much work it would create. I do enough comparing and contrasting of written pieces in school, I don't need to have to compare and contrast multiple extremely long mod applications. Then there's the people who may be too shy to apply, who would make good mods. Also, people don't tend to state their flaws in applications, but if we judge them on how they usually act we have a better view of how good of a mod they would be. I say no to this idea, the system is fine as it is in my opinion.