A Question to the Administration Regarding a Recent Issue

They certainly don't. As I've probably said before, I like the idea of people PMing a public mod sock with their nominations. It's still the same basic idea, just without some of the concerns I have with the member-to-AC-to-administration idea.

 

What I'm most interested in is the absolute assurance that all votes are going to be examined, regardless of who submits them. I'd be most in favor of an official public nominations thread in the forum that was looking for a new moderator. The mods would allow each voter to nominate one user, and contained within that very same post would be an explanation of why he/she/it would make a good moderator. THere would be no extracurricular chatting allowed within the thread, and it would be the mods job to make sure it stays that way. This way, my vote is cast for the public to see, with my reasoning behind it out in the open, and a much greater chance that my voice will be guaranteed to be heard.

JMA

 

It would definitely be a conflict of interest if an AC member was nominated and the nominations went through the AC before being handed off to the Mods. I'm in no way implying that the AC members would act unethically but appearance is very important around here. That would just open a whole new can of worms. As far as why you nominate someone, all that information could be in a PM to the public sock just as good as it could be in a public thread. Either way you get your information out which is more than you're doing now.

 

Sending a PM is better in my mind for one main reason: Less hurt feelings. That really is something that has to be considered.

You'll know if your PM is read by checking your "sent" PMs. And honestly, there's just no way for you to know that a private or public vote is being listened to.

You'll just have to trust that it is. I know that will probably be hard for some people, but I don't see a way around it.

 

...having the AC take the nominations with an AC sock would remove the ability of anyone to accuse the admins of tampering.

I just realized that it would also prevent us from being able to do checks on the people voting to see if they are socks. That could be a problem.

That?s why I suggested that only input from people who have been around the forum for a while would be allowed to have input. Say that a person needs at least 100 or so posts in the forum in question and has to have been registered for at least three months. Anyone can check that.

I won?t lose much sleep over the rare few who will take the time to get that many posts with a sock.

 

Sending a PM is better in my mind for one main reason: Less hurt feelings. That really is something that has to be considered.

I agree, hurt feelings are to be avoided at all costs Griff. But remember, this would be a nomination thread, not a campaign or voting thread. I think the chance for hurt feelings is really pretty small in that case.

JMA

 

I'm completely against a public nomination thread. There would be hurt feelings and it's just too much public politics.

If someone didn't nominate the person another member was hoping for or expecting, or any number of other factors, problems can happen. I can appreciate the idealism here, but I think realism needs to be mixed in as well. There's all kinds of private and off-board campainging that can and will happen, and a public nomination thread increases the chances of that.

You'll just have to trust that it is. I know that will probably be hard for some people, but I don't see a way around it

I agree. If we're going to trust members in a nominating process, there needs to be trust in the administration as well.

 

What is so idealistic about trusting the regular user to be responsible and post a simple nomination, along with reasoning behind it, without trashing someone else's feelings? Isn't this what we have moderators for anyway? To quiet that kind of thing? ?

JMA

 

Because too much idealism ignores human nature and the reality that people will privately talk amongst themselves about things and campaign in some way, shape or form, as well as the reality that there will be some who are upset or hurt. A private method is much better, in my view.

Moderators cannot quiet talk that happens in private messaging and off the JC.

The best laid plans are the ones that often don't work out. So, I prefer a mix of idealism and realism.

 

Well, I think you're seriously underestimating the competence of the average user, especially in the Lit forum. But in response to your argument, then we implement Gandolf's plan, in which only established users are allowed to nominate people. Users whom the mods know and respect as a responsible poster. Doing that reduces the chance of trashing or campaigning to virtually nil.

When you say that the private way is better, are you still referring to the current way, where only the elite have a say in who gets picked as the next moderator? Or are you including in that private PM's to the Mod Squad?

JMA

 

I've personally sent PM's to Mods stating who I felt would make a good Mod and those PM's were welcomed.

 

I am not disputing or underestimating anyone's competence. Intelligence has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying. Human nature is what I'm talking about, not competence.

I'm just saying that I'm against public nomination threads, not necessarily in favor of something else.

 

Wouldn't someone of intelligence be able to curb this irresistible urge of human nature that you speak of, to backstab and secretly campaign?

I'm sorry, but I can't see any of the Lit forums more responsible denizens doing anything of the sort.

JMA

 

How do you propose to control what people say via PM and off the JC (like in instant messengers and other forums)? I'm not even saying people will backstab or anything necessarily that negative. Just that people will talk amongst themselves and campaign to some extent and possibly turn it into a mess, whereas a private system of some kind largely bypasses that.

Also, I'm referring to all members, not Literature forum members in particular.

 

How do you propose to control what people say via PM and off the JC (like in instant messengers and other forums)?

Again, isn't it within the scope of the moderator's powers to view the private messages of all users? Were this private talk and campaigning to go on, wouldn't you guys know of it? And if you do discover it to be rampant, then close down the project as a failure, no harm done.

But at least you would have tried to let the public have their say, rather than elect those who have authority over us behind closed doors.

JMA

 

I'm completely against a public nomination thread. There would be hurt feelings and it's just too much public politics.

The closest thing YJCC has to that description is this thread.

GO 'CLONES!

 

Again, isn't it within the scope of the moderator's powers to view the private messages of all users? Were this private talk and campaigning to go on, wouldn't you guys know of it? And if you do discover it to be rampant, then close down the project as a failure, no harm done.

You would actually have admins go through people's PMs and check to see what people are saying? I don't know about you, but that seems just a bit on the invasive side (not to mention time-consuming). Also, only administrators can log into accounts to begin with, so it's a moot point.

No matter how much you might like to believe otherwise, JMA, there is nothing we can do to prevent campaigning and any kind of discussion of nominations, either here via PM, in instant message conversations and off-board discussions. We could stop campaigning on the JC itself, but I seriously doubt you would see much of that even attempted.

Edit: I'm heading out now, so I'll reply later on.

 

Bicker, fight, fight, bicker. WE'RE GOING IN CIRCLES!


I agree with KnightWriter. A public nominations thread would be a bad idea. I know certain JCers that woudl use it as a flaming board.

However, I would like someone right now to state exactly why having JCers send votes to the AC, then having the AC whittle it down, then having ModSquad decide would be such a terrible idea.

If no one can state unrefutable reasons, then why the heck aren't we giving it a try?!

 

I'd just like to agree with those who don't want public nominations. As much as some people might be able to handle it there's some who wouldn't, and the pain and anguish caused wouldn't be worth it. (Not to mention the annoyance of looking in your inbox and finding "Why didn't you nominate me?" pms) .

 

No matter how much you might like to believe otherwise, JMA, there is nothing we can do to prevent campaigning and any kind of discussion of nominations, either here via PM, in instant message conversations and off-board discussions.

*shrug*

Perhaps you just don't have enough faith in human nature KnightWriter.

Maybe it's not my problem with believing too much in the members of the board. Maybe it's your problem for not trusting them enough.

JMA

 

There's no need to be so defensive, JMA.

We're just discussing a messageboard.

C'mon, let's keep some perspective here everyone.

 

"Perhaps you just don't have enough faith in human nature KnightWriter."

If anything, Knight seems to have too much faith in human nature. If you know you're up for a position of power (even if it is just a message board moderator), it's human nature to do what you can to attain that power.

Personally, I like the idea of PMing a mod sock, just so long as there's some sort of check on it. I'd hate to think many of us would take the time to nominate people, only to have the Mod Squad pick someone we didn't nominate.

Amazing.

 

There's no need to be so defensive, JMA.

We're just discussing a messageboard.

Sorry DA, but I sort of take offense when I feel that my ideas are being trivialized, which is exactly what I felt KW was doing.

I haven't seen him be anything other than extremely negative in this thread, without anything really positive to say, so my patience with him wears a little thin.

JMA

 

You should cut KW some slack. At least he's in here discussing the issue. Don't knock him because you guys differ.

 

It is not my intention at all to trivalize your ideas. I'm simply pointing out what I see as flaws in them. That's all.

I don't believe I've been "extremely negative" in this thread, or in any recent thread in Communications.