[GEN] Continued Discussion Regarding the Moderator Selection Process

So, it shall remain quiet until then.

 

Can we get a time frame?

 

Hi, Paul.

 

And lo, God did see another e-democracy thread die, and he saw that it was good.

UKS

 

Hi, UKS.

 

Hello Danny. Hello UKS.

 

Hello everyone.

But lets post ontopic, or not at all thanks

 

"Here's another idea for consideration. Seeing as nearly everyone belongs to a clique, and posts on at least one offsite board perhaps we could ask a representative from each clique to start a thread offsite with potential candidates then get back to us with their first choice. Say one from the SC, one from the FF, one from the BYS etc etc. I realise this doesn't account for those who aren't members of cliques, but its just an idea I'm floating. "

Malkie, I think this idea mixed w/ YodaJeff's suggestion of a new advisory council would be a great idea. The new advisory council could consist of some former mods and one representative from each of the major "groups" on the JCC. There could also be 2-3 at large representatives (non-mods) selected by the mods. This council could be used to obtain user input on selection, without it going or leading to public debate.

 

SLR...that was the question that I had asked...if it was conceivable to have something like that...but built specifically for this question.

 

It also needs to be fully representative this time containing a representative from all the major groups: BYS, Geriatrics, Awesome Council, Fecal Force and all the other major social groups on the JCC. The last time, the AC came primarily from only one segment of the JC population.

 

What group was that?

 

The last time, the AC came primarily from only one segment of the JC population.

Untrue. It simply didn't focus on social groups.

I think the point I made earlier has been lost. The people chosen for groups like the MS, Advisory Council and so on are going to be the most respected, well-thought of and best posters overall (with some exceptions at times, of course).

The last couple groups in the Advisory Council were chosen from a wide range of members from several different forums.

To use social groups for representation on any sort of council or committee strikes me as giving them importance and legitimacy that no social group should have on the JC, along with adding more politics and potential animosity into the mix.

If you're going to make a council or committee, just pick the best available members and go from there, regardless of social group standing or lack of membership of any sort in a social group.

 

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, there were complaints earlier in this thread about mods being chosen from any social groups. Now the idea is to have social groups pick who from their group they'd want to be a mod? I'm lost as to how that transition truly took place--as soon as malkie suggested it, it suddenly seemed like a good idea to choose members from various social groups.

That only makes things more complicated, because some people are in more than one group, some groups hate other groups (and therefore you still end up with the same amount of complaints), and, as I said: part of the whole issue earlier was that people didn't want mods from social groups, and I remember posts about "the best mod would be one who is not a part of any group, because you can have full impartiality" (not a quote, just a basis of the idea).

So, how many more times will people change their opinions in this thread?

Edit: KW, I agree. Adding social groups into the mix only makes things worse; especially if one group's suggestion isn't chosen for mod while their "rival" group's was. It would only create more drama, and lead to more problems. Simple as that.

 

The last time, the AC came primarily from only one segment of the JC population.

I agree with KW, and partly with this assessment.

The first 3-4 incarnations of the AC were 95 percent made up of people who not only stuck to the JCC exclusively, but were part of the same group of friends. This pretty much nullified the original purpose of the AC to begin with, and made it a group that didn't represent as broad a range of users as it could have. The last couple AC's were made up of members who came from a much bigger variety of forums where they frequently posted in, and thus, served the original purpose more effectively.

DamonD and TwiLek Jedi were two excellent ACers who I served with on AC6, and now they supervise the CT forum.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think there is a groundswell to revive the AC, in one form or another.

The "old" AC had three "permanent" members (Katya, UKS and someone else, can't remember) and five to seven rotating members.

My suggestion would be to have former mods be the permanent members of a "new" AC, since they have insight as to how things go on both sides of the fence. Then, I think it's paramount to have five to seven members who represent a true cross-section of the entire JC, not just the JCC.

Pick one person from 3SA, Lit., CT, fanfic, JCC, Senate and games/collecting to serve on the AC. Then say, have YodaJeff, Quixotic-Sith and jp-30 as permanent members.*


* - those are the first names that I think of when I think of former mods who are still active in the JC.

I think between the focus groups (that no one seems to remember existing) and the old format of the AC, we can come up with a hybrid that covers as much ground as possible, and that this group should be given "some" recommending power over mod nominations.

 

The first 3-4 incarnations of the AC were 95 percent made up of people who not only stuck to the JCC exclusively

I don't know about that, particularly in regards to AC3. That group was far and away the best of the six rotations, and both ReaperFett and Valiowk went beyond just the JCC. Dan posted beyond just Games in those days, but he was still more of a Games person than anything else.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think there is a groundswell to revive the AC, in one form or another.

I think time is working its distilling magic. The AC was great while we had it, but the drama and controversy sapped its strength, and eventually it became too much work to keep it going against the tide. It didn't help that as long as things were going well, there were relatively few things to discuss, thus further calling into question its usefulness.

* - those are the first names that I think of when I think of former mods who are still active in the JC.

Dark Lady Mara, AmazingB, Carmen, Obi-Dawn Kenobi, Bria, and Dingo are other excellent members who have been active since their departure from the MS.

Still, though, I think it's academic, in large part because I don't see any way of avoiding the inevitable controversy surrounding the selection of any council or committee, and then any similar controversy surrounding its actions.

One could say that such controversy is no reason to stop such a good thing from happening, and that it's worth it, but that didn't seem to play well to people around this time last year, when the AC disbanded.

 

"The first 3-4 incarnations of the AC were 95 percent made up of people who not only stuck to the JCC exclusively, but were part of the same group of friends."

That simply isn't true, especially for AC3. While 95% of AC3ers may have posted in the JCC, it was far from the only forum the members visited (source).

Also, AC3 was chosen by AC2. There may have been a disproportionate amount of users from a specific group, but they were chosen by AC2, which I think only contained one member from that group. They were chosen based on their contributions in Comms and the rest of the JC.

 

They've been active - but I can think of at least one of them that dropped the F bomb in the title of a thread. I don't think having former mods on some sort of advisory board is a good idea. What we are looking for is input from the average poster. There's a reason they are an ex-mod, due to burnout, needing time for real life, or other reasons.

 

There's a reason they are an ex-mod, due to burnout, needing time for real life, or other reasons.

Burnout isn't a permanent condition. Some of us who were burned out (and I was certainly one of them) have recovered from it and feel better about things than we once did.

 

KW, the reason for including representatives from different groups is to try to reach as broad a spectrum of the users as possible. There isn't just one voice or opinion in the JC. By including reps from different groups you are more likely tapping into as diverse of viewpoints as possible to most accurately represent the users as a whole.

 

And honestly, if you make up this 'AC' of ex mods and the like, well, they've been there done that... I would think you;d actually want fresh voices.

 

KW, the reason for including representatives from different groups is to try to reach as broad a spectrum of the users as possible. There isn't just one voice or opinion in the JC.

Indeed not, but a high percentage of that voice is concentrated in a few places. That's simply how JC politics have been for a long time, and that should be kept in mind. It's not out of bad design, but just how things have evolved.

If people are interested in what goes on in the JC, they should post their thoughts in this forum, or contact members of the administration. Otherwise, how can we really account for which part of the spectrum is interested and which part is simply interested in posting about Star Wars and then closing their browser for the day.

By including reps from different groups you are more likely tapping into as diverse of viewpoints as possible to most accurately represent the users as a whole.

Simply put, social groups should never be given such legitimacy or influence over the JC. It's one thing to have various members of social groups have influence over how things go by the weight of their own voice, actions and accomplishments, but it's quite another to somehow give official status or control to social groups that ought to be existing for fun and social purposes, rather than controlling how the JC works.

Given that some social groups may have a disproportionate number of outstanding members, it might be logical to say that some groups should get more representation than others. You'll get jealousy between groups, possibly infighting as members jockey with each other and with other groups to be selected and then to influence events, and that's in addition to the regular controversy.

 

KW, I think we are talking past each other. I am not arguing that social groups are something special or should have a role in governing. I am arguing that there needs to be a way to make sure that as many differing opinions as possible are represented in the council. It shouldn't only be the opinions of those the mods or ex-mods consider "remarkable users". It should include voices from all over the JC. Social groups are a way to identify some over those differing voices and opinions in the JC.

 

"And honestly, if you make up this 'AC' of ex mods and the like, well, they've been there done that... I would think you;d actually want fresh voices."

Crap, my voice is stale now?

Couldn't one also say that ex-mods have experiences that regular users don't? That's part of the reason AC3 decided to include some ex-mods.

 

it shouldn't only be the opinions of those the mods or ex-mods consider "remarkable users".

People do have a voice, and they make themselves known by way of their posts on the JC. It's not that only former moderators or "remarkable users" are heard. It's that their voices tend to be the most articulate, thought out, and reasonable out of the mass of posts each day. They distinguish themselves by their actions and posts.

In short, they stand out and are the ones the administration sees and listens to the most.

Everyone can do that, but the chips fall where they do and what's left is what people see.

 

Well, as long as it is representative of as broad ranges of viewpoints as possible. I worry about the subjectiveness of "remarkable" because people have differing views about what is remarkable. We are influenced by our own beliefs, thoughts, biases and prejudices in making such determinations. Getting as broad range as possible recognizes that people have differing views on remarkable. The council should either be as representative as possible or it shouldn't be used at all.

Edit: just because one is eloquent or inciteful, does not mean their viewpoint is representative of the whole. Their viewpoints are still subjective and biased.