[GEN] Continued Discussion Regarding the Moderator Selection Process

I think there's a fundamental disagreement between us.

I'm not interested in broad representation or diversity for its own sake. I'm interested in decisions being made in the best interests of the JC.

I simply don't see broad representation as something that will somehow make things better on its own.

I'd rather see input from everyone willing to give it, and then go with what makes the most sense. Complicating it by structured representation or diversity is unnecessary.

In terms of what's "remarkable" or "articulate", it's not entirely subjective. I think there are certain members or messages that they post that can be objectively considered articulate, respectful, eloquent, etc. by most reasonable people.

The content of of the messages is often beside the point, and goes back to an old view of mine. It's not just what you say that matters, it's how you say it.

 

I do not understand why the MS would not support more public discussion of moderator candidates?

Frankly? Because only a mod knows what it takes to be a mod. I wouldn't presume to tell the IRS what kind of person they should hire to do my tax audit.

You look for certain qualities in posters that users who are not mods don't even know to look for. That's why mods always will and always should have say in who gets promoted. They know the qualities needed to do the job.

 

SLR:

You say that the members of the council should be as diverse as possible, and that they should be 'average joe' posters, not necessarily the ex-mods and other well known comms posters. That's all good, in theory. But how would you decide which average posters participate on this council? Surely you couldn't just pick random members from various forums- many are not informed on the issues, and as a result can't contribute to the discussions. Also, many average posters here simply don't care about issues such as this one. As a result, you'd only be able to select members who show that they are both informed and care about the JC. Which members are those? The members that take the time to read through Comms and try to find ways to improve the JC. As a result, only a small percentage of JC'ers would be qualified to serve on such a council.

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.

I have to disagree. Having their knowledge of MS would be an invaluable resource for such a council and could make their job much easier. In my mind, they'd be great advisors to the other members of this council. Also, according to royalguard's post, the ex-mod's would be outnumbered three to one anyways, guaranteeing your fresh voice

And about the various social groups making up the council, I too think it's a bad idea. It would probably lead to too much infighting between rival groups, and more drama than we already have, as was mentioned above.

 

Why should the ownership (who has ultimate decision making powers over moderator selection) want to allow someone other than their chosen representatives to select moderators?

I would have agreed with that... before the dark times... on the old JC. But during Wisegate, the ownership demonstrated it doesn't give a damn about the moderators and sees them as expendable. Why would our beloved majority owner take the mods' opinions more seriously than those of other users? I suspect P.W. doesn't pay attention to how democratic the selection process is, anyway. I bet he's still not even posting in MS, is he. :\

All right, I'll try to avoid taking my rage at him out on you by subjecting you to more melodramatic words. I just don't see Philip Wise's sensibilities as an adequate excuse here.

Stats were based on the recent promotion threads. Zacparis and driodeka received positive comments from 50 users, and negatives from 7 (basically 9 to 1). H_C received 16 positives and one "meh, ok choice".

It just doesn't scream that people are unhappy with the results of our selection process.

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, you've got a volunteer bias in your stats, which makes their validity questionable. The people who volunteer to express their opinions aren't necessarily representative of the general population.

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.

I've been trying to tell people this for, like, the past three years. It was my experience both posting as an ex-mod and talking with other ex-mods that the retired mods often have novel perspectives and can see with greater clarity than current mods. Think of it this way. When you're moderating, you spend most of your time focusing on day-to-day matters. Lock this thread, warn that guy. What's happening to the boards as a whole usually has to be on the back burner because you have other responsibilities as well. But this sort of meta-moderating, developing a global view of what's good and bad about current policies and the system in general, actually comes pretty easily when you're not actively moderating and you get to spend all your time watching Comms.

 

Famous, I said the council should consist of both ex-mods as well as active users, drawn from as broad based of range as possible. I said nothing about of average joes. I said people of as many different viewpoints and interests as possible. Obviously, if users or groups don't care or want to participate, they don't have to. I suggested using groups because they are the easiest way to find users from all across the board on viewpoints.

 

I'll comment on that last...


If it's decided to bring back the AC, I think that's great, but I feel the rotation of members should change more often then they were in the former council to allow a more wide range of people to be heard all over the site.

It always seemed that the users and mods in the old AC were only from the one forum on the site *JC community*.

I don't know if that's true for certain, but it always seemed to be, and that doesn't give the rest of the users that don't post often in that forum much of a voice to the administration.

 

I think a rotating membership is a great idea Sara_Kenobi.

 

SLR, maybe it wasn't you that mentioned average joes(or maybe I'm just crazy), but I don't think it changes my point. Many users on this board don't even know that comms exists, much less post in it. The members who are knowledgeable enough and who care enough to participate in this council make up a small percentage of the JC's total population. As a result, your goal of a representing as many different viewpoints as possible is limited, at best.

 

The membership rotated at 3 months. Any less, and it would have been too quickly for them to get a lot accomplished. Much more, and it would have slowed down too much.

"It always seemed that the users and mods in the old AC were only from the one forum on the site *JC community*."

That isn't true, and I linked to a thread that proved otherwise earlier in this thread.

"I don't know if that's true for certain, but it always seemed to be, and that doesn't give the rest of the users that don't post often in that forum much of a voice to the administration."

Even if a forum wasn't "represented", they could bring their ideas or thoughts to an AC member, or to Comms.

 

I think there are certain members or messages that they post that can be objectively considered articulate, respectful, eloquent, etc. by most reasonable people.

I completely agree. I especially agree with the "respectful" part. Being respectful to other posters seems to have gone by the wayside for a lot of people around here, and I wish that was a standard employed more often to determine someone's contribution level to the forums.

Thanks also, to KW, for refreshing my memory on the AC3 roster. I was perhaps getting that group mixed up with AC4, which I think had a more narrow focus among its members. I remember seeing some of those people "representing" forums like the prequel forums or the Lit forum and laughing uncontrollably, because they rarely - if ever - posted in those forums.

And yes, I know where you post isn't a 100 percent gage to determine where you lurk. That excuse is often used to justify a shaky argument anyway. But it is what it is - where you spend most of your time reading and posting.

I don't think having a cross-section of posters in a future version of the AC should come at the sacrifice of someone who is intelligent, interested in making the forum a better place, etc. But it's still supremely important, IMO. An AC that is made up of 6 JCCers (regardless of social group) and two others is absolutely pointless.

 

Another possible suggestion is maybe the MS can let the users know who is being considered for an open mod spot.

Letting the users know that new mod positions are being considered is a good thing and something that should be included in MS Updates as a matter of course. However, publicly naming them will lead to more problems. The rejection thing has been addressed, which, depending on the person's maturity and temperment, may or may not be a problem. But also (which malkie mentioned), members who know they're being considered for modship may go out of their way to prove their "mod worthiness," trying to redirect threads and generally making a nuisance of themselves. We all know how annoying mod-wannabes are, just imagine them knowing they're being considered. And I've seen people legitimately criticized (in this thread even) with others chiming in that the comments weren't warranted and were over the line. How can you get constructive criticism if it'll only be followed complaints of flaming?

I said to AmazingB he's got my ear and I'm ready to work together to flesh it out.

My idea pretty much is what it is. PM polling really should be done as a matter of course (it's something I always wish I had done for the JCC, but never got around to) just to see how forum regulars feel about the state of a forum. When new mods are being considered, regardless of the forum, a quick note in the MS Update to let us know will go a long way. Then people will know they can PM potential candidates to the appropriate mods. Now, I don't think you should go PMing people with the names of people being considered and asking for specific thoughts because that sort of thing is bound to get out before long. Just find out who people think would be a good mod, why, and what they want from their mods.

Why should the ownership (who has ultimate decision making powers over moderator selection) want to allow someone other than their chosen representatives to select moderators?

That vastly overstates the ownership's interest in the JC's day to day activities. The Administration is chosen to act on their behalf, so rather than asking why the ownership would want to allow that, a better question is asking why the Administration would. So, would you? Without the regular members the JC is nothing, so working with them, wacky as it may sound, is in the best interest of the JC.

The problem is, most don't want to post here due to the 'drama.'

Then it really can't be that important to them, can it?

By not admitting that there may be a problem with the process (this is a possibility with the number of posts dedicated to the topic)...that fits the medium of intent...then there is no need for the Community to stand up and make bold statements/ideas.

First of all, I think almost everyone who has posted anything worthwhile in this thread has prefaced their comments by stating that the current system isn't perfect. And secondly, your comment might be the single most common theme in User vs. Administration Comms threads. There are always posts to the effect of "Why can't the Administration just admit it's wrong?" without the consideration that A. it may be you (general you, not anyone specific) who is wrong and B. maybe, just maybe, the administration doesn't think it's wrong and doesn't want to change just for the sake of change.

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.

To be fair, those last couple of AC's also ended up in the disbanding of the AC. The first several AC's were selected based on people who had shown a general interest in the running of the JC. But there were complaints that they weren't representative enough, so despite the success of their predecessors, the final two AC incarnations were made up of a wide cross section of users, but not necessarily users who were particularly interested in getting involved in some

 

Ahhh.... the AC. A wonderful bastion of actually preventing user input into board issues.

There is nothing, nothing that can be accomplished by a group like that which can not be done here in Comms if only the users and administration actually sit down and be mature about the discussions; bring issues into here without either labelling this unnecessarily as "drama" or none of anyone's business, and then actually going forth with something rather than just sitting around after the discussion has wound up. Not to mention that doing it here in Comms allows for more than a handful of well-informed and involved viewpoints.

But if people want to try and revive the AC, unless it's purely for the purpose of moderator nominations (to which I say yet again, needless bureaucratic level that does little), go start a separate thread on it rather than sidetracking this down another path.

 

I agree with Dingo. What's wrong with just talking about issues in Comms? There's no need for a special group: anyone can come here and give their opinion.

 

That certainly makes sense to me.

 

what Cheri said, I think its fine this way. If you bring ideas on how to make the JC better to comms, then basically you can get the real feedback on whether or not it's a step in the right direction.

and about openly naming the person who is being considered a mod is a bad idea. It can cause problems. I agree with not putting the poll into place, the mods should be the one who should chose on who they think makes a good mod because the mods and admins have been there and they know what it takes.

 

Ah, but that's the issue isn't it?

There is a system already in place that allows all members of the community to equally voice their concerns, regardless of "e-clique" or social group.

It's called comms.

However, review some of the replies in this very thread...

A few people are afraid of some sort of retaliation, so they only communicate through proxy. This of course, self-limits those individual's own views.

We have a couple of other posts that claim that comms isn't representive of a "majority" of the forums, even though comms is equally open to all.

The simple reality is that if people did feel strongly enough about an issue, they should be posting their opinions about it.

But perception doesn't always work that way.

 

In conclusion, there is no great way to get everyone's honest and open opinions.

 

Exactly.

So the issue becomes what is the simplest, most efficient way.

We could debate the merits of coming up with a system of "proportional user base" and apply all sorts of mathematical formulas and speculation of who is being represented, and the result isn't going to be any more representitive than what is already in place.

In fact, the extra layers of administration would be less effective.

Or, we can discuss what needs to be fine tuned with the existing system.

For example, if comms is a forum where everyone has an equal voice, why do some people feel the need to speak through others?

 

In terms of the "representation" issue, because I've actually argued the "we need more representation on the AC" angle until my face was blue in the past...


... it doesn't work. I was very, very wrong -- and I'm not afraid of admitting I was wrong in this instance.

Believe me, I've tried. G-d knows that when AC, ummm, 4? was being selected I was adamant about there being some representation from EU Literature, as they may have a perspective on things than a Purist or JCCer or a Senate rep, etc. You know what? Sometimes there just isn't good representation at any given time from any given forum. The "any given time" part is because the EU rep ended up being a moderator later on, because circumstances had changed.

The lesson: relying on making sure you get representation from everywhere at the expense of quality is detrimental to the greater good. Less representation by a core group of people who actually DO care is *better* than more representation by a larger group of people who don't have the time to care as much.

Now, does this mean that the moderators and only the moderators are in this "core group?" No. But the system we have, of anyone being able to PM us about any situation including good promotion candidates, works just fine. It means that the people who care are the ones providing input, rather than an arbitrary group of people who may *not* care. Believe it or not, there are some people here who could care less about Comms, the JC as a whole, etc. and who just want to stay in their one forum and have a good time and/or discussion. Again, G-d knows I was one of those people. SWNYC and EU Literature were all I knew of the JC; I didn't even know what Comms was for probably more than a year. Then I became more interested in the board dynamics as I became more ensconsed within EU Lit and less so within SWNYC; then branched out to Games: RPG, then the JCC, then the Senate, then the Amphitheater...

And the lesson there: "at any given time" matters. Some people are GOOD people, but not necessarily great at "big picture" stuff -- for which moderator selection is a large part of or for which board improvement aspects are at least a medium part of. It doesn't diminish the portion of the person's value to the boards as a whole, because this place needs every great poster we can find -- and every forum's got them; I'm sure you all know who the best posters in your respective "top forum" are. But those people aren't necessarily the best people for board dynamics or moderator selection, sometimes even within their own forum, as those issues typically range beyond a single forum. As an example, I'll use farraday because a) he's locked up and can't respond here and b) because I want someone in the damn house to write me a message!

So, let's say I'm Joe Literature, a fairly well-known poster in Literature but never, ever venture outside of Literature. On one hand, I'd likely not make a good moderator because I don't have any concept of Comms or what goes on outside of Literature. On the other hand, I've noticed this guy farraday. His posts in Literature are well thought out, cogent and insightful. I've also heard that he posts outside of Literature so I (Joe Literature) think that he might be a good moderator, so I pass that along to that dude who spells his name wrong. Now, would Joe Literature add any value whatsoever to a "group" of moderator selection? Not really. Would he necessarily add value to even an EU Literature moderator selection process? Maybe not.

Hence, guaranteed representation isn't as cracked up as it's thought to be...

EDIT: Errr... arrrrr! Matey!!!

 

For example, if comms is a forum where everyone has an equal voice, why do some people feel the need to speak through others?

Thats an extremely good question, maybe they don't really want to get involved that much and let the person who does like jumping in represent their voice. I've spoken with others who are afraid to approach mods and admins because simply, they're afraid of what the mod or admin will think. They're afraid they will be shot down with their ideas of improving the boards or bringing in complaints, sometimes a mod is so set in their ways it makes it harder for some users to approach the mod. This is why I can't stress enough that a mod needs to be very open minded, it helps when the mod is very active with the community at large because sometimes you just don't know how people react and thats the biggest fear of approaching someone with a ban button at their finger tips.

They're scared they might say something wrong and get banned for it.

 

They're scared they might say something wrong and get banned for it.

I've seen that comment a few times now and I'm pretty amazed every time I see it. No one has ever gotten banned for speaking their mind. If they decide to break the TOS while doing so by flaming, baiting, etc., that's one thing. But simply coming in here and offering an opinion? That's what we want.

Just because someone doesn't agree with an idea doesn't mean you shouldn't bring it up. No, not everything that's suggested is adopted, but if you aren't willing to come in here and put up a good argument or a good case for your proposal, then you shouldn't expect change to ever happen.

The administration isn't perfect, but I'd like to think that we're open minded enough to look at new options for doing things.

 

Friday, I had a short PM discussion with one of the "quiet" users who has not been participating in this thread. Below is an except from one of my responses:

HAve you read that thread? It's mostly name calling, harassment, and pointless bickering. Why would i want to post more in that thread? I also have a realife, which is were my focus is. I enjoy tfn, and very much want to be involved in some constructive changes. That thread is not my idea of contrsuctive.

Answer me this: what are you doing then to help make the thread more constructive? By avoiding it completely, you aren't making it better, even if you are discussing things with other users via PM.

If you want Comms to work, you can't avoid it. The only way to improve it is to participate. Set an example for others to follow.

As one of the dedicated moderators for Comms, I can promise you that I'm not going to ban someone for simply stating their opinion. From what I know of Katya, Raven, and Sapient, they aren't going to do that either. We're all here because we want to improve the boards. As long as we all keep that in mind (about ourselves and others), and all work towards that goal, we should be able to work anything out.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Now Kimball, lets be honest. You did in fact ban me for my opinion regarding you in that mini-skirt. You don't have the calves for it, and that's an opinion I still have.

 

Now Kimball, lets be honest. You did in fact ban me for my opinion regarding you in that mini-skirt. You don't have the calves for it, and that's an opinion I still have.

Ignant? Come on, it's time for you to take your medicine. The madness is returning.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The administration isn't perfect, but I'd like to think that we're open minded enough to look at new options for doing things.

Katya

I meant the minor details, I was talking about a few things that I brought up here but was shot down then a year later its implemented

I was scared to bring that idea about putting the mod online in the YJCC because I thought we could use something like that incase there was an attack because it would take less time then to go through profile after profile trying to find an active mod.

I brought that up about a year ago and it was shot down saying we didn't need it, it a took a year because a few of the mods had it set in their minds that they didn't need it. It was implemented after the troll attack back in April. I feel that I wasn't taken seriously enough until it happened.