Why is public voting for moderators not viable? (A plan)

i dissagree with public voting. however, i do like the idea of public nominations. would it be possible to try, just for one or two mods, with the understanding that after 3-6 months, they will be re-evaluated?

the idea would be to have nominations go as jediguy suggested, and from that, the mods can chose the new moderators. in the end the mods will have final say, but it will be from a pool that the community creates.

 

If I may quote Padme Amidala....

"Popular rule gives people what they want. Not what they need."

Having the entire jc vote for moderators would be a disaster.

Example: Say they need a new fan force mod, I myself have never posted in that forum. But what would prevent me from voting on who I think should be the mod? I as a voter would have no idea what that place would require.

Not to mention all the newbies who would vote not knowing all the facts.


The system they have now works okay. Though as of late, popular posters have been getting into office. Hopefully in do time that will be fixed. But not with voting.

 

Though as of late, popular posters have been getting into office. Hopefully in do time that will be fixed.

I see no problem with ye olde moderators promoting popular people, as long as they do their job well. That?s the important thing, isn?t it?

 

the idea would be to have nominations go as jediguy suggested, and from that, the mods can chose the new moderators. in the end the mods will have final say, but it will be from a pool that the community creates.

Yes, good idea. If the JC isn't suitable for member voting, then why not nominations? That - at least - allows us some input.

 

let's be honest... among the people nominated there would probably be the people that the mods would nominate themselves. j-m-t, for example, was highly suggested as a mod in the "who will be the next mod" thread, and now she is.

so while it probably wouldn't make much of a change from who the mods themselves would consider for the job, the commuinity would at least have the illusion of having some input.

 

I think nominations wouldn't be a bad idea. We couldn't really regularly schedule them, or else the JC will end up looking like the road side during the weeks before an election. There will be campaigning in threads, profiles, PMs, and sigs. It would have to be sudden and quick, so no one would have a chance to make a push to get all their friends in to nominate them. Maybe even just open a thread for a few hours, and cut it off.

I dunno, it seems like it might end up being more trouble than it is worth. :/


And Jon_Snow, would you give the sock a break?

 

"Popular rule gives people what they want. Not what they need."

Exactly

 

I agree with the adminstration on this issue.











And I really mean it!

 

A couple of things:

1. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned more (and I think this was one jediguy's original points): If regular members chose the mods, we'd have no right to complain when they do a bad job. It would prevent a lot of "drama."

2. Why not have the administration compile their own list and let the regular users vote on that? It prevents the "popular" thing most people seem worried about.

Amazing.

 

2. Why not have the administration compile their own list and let the regular users vote on that? It prevents the "popular" thing most people seem worried about.


You'd still have people campaigning and politics, with people trying to get votes for each other or the candidate they liked.

 

if the nomination thread were open for 24 hours, stuck to the top, and given no advance notice, then i think a lot of the campaigning wouldn't happen, just from sheer lack of time. 24 hours would give enough time for good nominations, and people wouldn't have enough time to start really digging or screwing around.

 

If regular members chose the mods, we'd have no right to complain when they do a bad job. It would prevent a lot of "drama."

If a member chosen mod. did a bad job, that would still create problems for everyone and there would be drama regardless of who chose the moderator.

 

I've got to agree.

After all, I don't see how voting for president makes the bitching any less.

 

After all, I don't see how voting for president makes the bitching any less.

Bitching? I thought everyone loved George Bush?

Seriously, though, I disagree with your assertations that there will still be ?drama?, in the sense that we have it today. The only reason there is drama is because we are in an ?Us vs. Them? situation, and the general membership will always be suspicious of what happens behind the scenes in the administration. We have been able to pin things on the Mod Squad because of what we think, and you ? as with all good conspiracy theories ? cannot provide evidence to disprove those claims. For example, if we were to raise an uproar over a current moderator, saying ?He?s plotting against us, we?re being treated unfairly, it?s all the administrations fault for promoting him!? ? you would be hard pressed to convince us otherwise, because ? even though it may be untrue - you simply cannot provide evidence to suggest otherwise. However, with a member-nominated mod, although we still get pissed with a few of them, any attempts to pin anything on the administration would be useless because it would be the fault of our lack of judgement, not the Mod Squad?s.

 

i think voting for mods is a good idea & of course a mod will say the system is fine. what are you mods afraid of if we were to vote on the issue anyway? are we too stupid to make such decisions? ?













DarthTunick,
you can't ignore the San Fernando Valley!

 

Did you read more than a few replies for making your post, Tunick?

I think your question has been answered by several people.

 

While I personally see no problem with you having the vote Tunick I see no way to keep or to make sure socks, trolls, and newbies can't vote.

 

I would really like to think that as a whole, the JC would be able to handle public voting of moderators. But the problems are what others have mentioned. There would be no end to the politics of people trying to get in, the rigging of the polls no matter how hard we try to keep them secure, and the efforts of the people from all the spin-off boards we have trying to get "their" people in. There are a lot of people who would take something like this seriously, and put a lot of thought into the choice of moderators, but there will also be a large number of people that won't. With all the complaints about the current crop of mods, do we want people coming in that are not suited for the job?

As to the point that there would be less drama, yes, there would be less drama of the sort that there is now. But we'd then get a new crop of drama. One where there will be calls of "We promoted him, we should be able to demote him".


Is the system we have right now perfect? Hell no. There are always ways that things can be improved. I do like the idea of being able to give nominations for mods when we are considering them. We'd have to come up with a decent system for it, possibly that we announce that we are deciding on new mods for X forum, and have people PM mods with nominations, which we then screen. I don't like the idea of a thread because it can cause problems with attention seeking. But this is something that can be considered.

 

hmmm, that is a very good point. anyway, i would edit my previous but for some reason i can't edit.













DarthTunick,
you can't ignore the San Fernando Valley!

 

Couldn't the nominated users be IP Banned for the period of the election so that there would wouldn't be any campaiging by the nominees?

 

I may just be slow, but could you explain how that would prevent any politics?

 

It wouldn't.

 

Well there's rigging anyways without the benefits of the jc voting.

 

Screw public elections of mods.

Heck, screw the current system of choosing mods.

Screw mods period.

I say the best and brightest minds that TFN can offer should program a sophisticated auto-mod that is capable of banning problem users and locking problem threads.

 

Firstly, I would like to say that I agree with Kadue.

1. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned more (and I think this was one jediguy's original points): If regular members chose the mods, we'd have no right to complain when they do a bad job. It would prevent a lot of "drama."

There would be two problems on this: if regular members chose the mods, we would probably find the members grouping themselves up into "I voted for [so-and-so]." Worse still, if the mod who is chosen does a bad job, the members who did not vote for that mod would start complaining and say that the system does not work. There is still bound to be drama, but worse still, this increases the probability of a feud within JC members. Also, if this were to happen (hopefully not!), who decides about a demotion? The members or the mods? As Kadue said, it may turn into "We promoted him, we should be able to demote him".

jediguy, in response to your post

However, with a member-nominated mod, although we still get pissed with a few of them, any attempts to pin anything on the administration would be useless because it would be the fault of our lack of judgement, not the Mod Squad?s.

Yes, we cannot pin it on the administration, but it will end up with those who were firmly opposed to that mod being angry at the other users who voted that mod in. And if they have a good cause to be angry if it is found that the mod seriously abuses powers, this is going to cause a serious problem between JC members. It's a classic case of "If I voted the guy in, there's nothing I can say; if I didn't, I have a right to complain."

2. Why not have the administration compile their own list and let the regular users vote on that? It prevents the "popular" thing most people seem worried about.

In fact, I think that this idea may not be as good as it seems. Firstly, it is still going to be a popularity vote in the end between whichever users are on that list. Worse still, this creates a very awkward situation for users who may not get selected to be admins later on. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I would rather not know that I was once considered to be an admin, than to know that I was considered and it was felt that I did not have the required capabilities.

Whatever happens, there will be politics, there will be rigging of polls, but worse still, it may just split the JC up. And I think that the bottom line is to avoid that.