[GEN] Continued Discussion Regarding the Moderator Selection Process

But's that how progress is made.

Maybe at the time, your idea about the mods online wasn't adopted, but you registered your concern, and it was noticed.

The power comes in to play because you weren't the only one to make that suggestion. Collectively, a group of users who made their opinion known planted the idea for an improvement.

Now granted, it wasn't a drastic idea, but it represents the idea of workable, minor improvement to the system.

As the saying goes, it's the small things that add up.

However, it happened because people provided the suggestion.

Not every idea can be physically adopted. But it certainly doesn't hurt anything when suggestions are made.

In my opinion, having "Online?" links in the header is still a waste of space, but that isn't really the topic of this thread.

So, um, how's the proposal coming?

I believe we were discussing the idea of a group of JC'ers to assist in the Moderator selection process.

I feel that if the mod feels this person is worthy of a position then why consult jcers because opinions can easily turn into bias pits of jealousy.

thats my view on it.

Because it's the JCers who eventually have to deal with said person as a mod??? As I said, it can't be good if people feel that decisions are always made above their heads. In a way, I understand it that the mods don't want to change a currently existing system completely, but why not make small changes that make people feel a little more involved at the place they like spending their time at??

I'm sorry if I missed it, Csillan_girl, but has it ever been enumerated exactly *why* folks think that a "select group" of people is better than anyone having the opportunity to PM a forum mod with a suggestion?

See, it does not even have to be the "select group" you're talking about. Of course, it would be best if the majority of users could be involved, but I understand that it won't happen here.

As I said, start with simple things to get people involved more:

-announce it openly if you are searching for a new mod.
-let the regular users see some of the secret discussion in the MS (stuff that won't cause trouble, there has to be something that you discuss that won't lead to trouble!!)
-take complaints seriously and don't disqualify them as "drama", or even less people will post in Comms!
-create sticky threads in each forum where people can post their thoughts about what they think could be made better (I've seen it in Literature and at the Senate - why aren't such threads everywhere, I ask myself??)

Just some examples.

I'm sure others can come up with even more ideas.

-let the regular users see some of the secret discussion in the MS (stuff that won't cause trouble, there has to be something that you discuss that won't lead to trouble!!)

It's all or nothing, unless a moderator saved a thread on a personal website for everyone to view.

-announce it openly if you are searching for a new mod.

This is going to cause excessive campaigning. That's one of the cool things about the current system... usually people aren't aware that they are being seriously considered for a position, so they act 100% normally. That allows the mods that are unfamiliar with the poential mod to follow their posts and get to know them before voting.

There's a simple way to avoid that. If you follow around a potential user who was proposed , just take into consideration those posts he/she made before the announcement. And if one changes his/her behavior, that's a reason not to consider this person.

99% of the time it's blatantly obvious we're looking for new mods. In the MS updates you'll see that someone stepped down. You can almost assume the position will be filled.

99% of the time it's blatantly obvious we're looking for new mods. In the MS updates you'll see that someone stepped down. You can almost assume the position will be filled.

You should still announce it. There are often times when a mod steps down and there is no replacement or when extra coverage is needed without anyone stepping down. I'd imagine that as we grow nearer the release of the trailer and then next spring when the Episode III rush really kicks into high gear, more than a couple of mods will be promoted whether anyone steps down or not.

Amazing.

Well, as part of what I do in my forums I'm always searching for new mods. (Mind you, the fact that such a search is perpetual does not mean that there are positions currently available.)

The way I see it is that those wishing to be considered for an open moderator position for a given forum simply needs to post according to their own taste/style and when the time comes, it will be readily apparent if you need to or need not to be considered.

I never really agreed with that whole "there's no good candidates" assertion that's been put forward in Comms on more than one occasion. There's tomorrow's mod candidates out there posting in every forum on this site. And I think it's certainly one of the "duties" of being part of the administration to recognize them when they come along. Regardless of whether there's a need for them to become a mod, or even regardless of whether anyone knows there might be a need for a new mod.

When the time comes, though, I certainly agree that such news ought to at the very least be communicated to the forum that's impacted.

-create sticky threads in each forum where people can post their thoughts about what they think could be made better (I've seen it in Literature and at the Senate - why aren't such threads everywhere, I ask myself??)

Why not use Comms for this purpose, or if it's something specific, PM a mod in that forum about it?


This is going to cause excessive campaigning

Considering how much campaigning goes on anyways, I don't see how it would get too much worse if you simply announce that you're looking. As Sapes said, sometimes it's obvious that the MS is looking for new mods, anyways.

I agree with Amazing, though, it wouldn't hurt to let us know when you're looking to promote someone, especially when nobody has stepped down/been demoted.

Genghis:

That's a good point. All moderators should do that, ideally. Although it seems intuitive that most already do

You should still announce it.

Yes.

(The only response that comment requires, I think. )

Perhaps consider putting up a sticky thread in the forum as well. Ask people to PM you any suggestions they have, and if any mod-harrassing or excessive campaigning goes on, just ignore it.

That would be simple enough. It would be great should that happen, DLM. It would give users a little more feeling that they get to speak up and be apart of things.

Hey mods: time to get on your feet and tell these uppity users that they have no say in who gets promoted and never will. Letting them continue to think that they have any input, or can acheive the implementation of a system that will allow them input, will see the inmates running the asylum soon enough. You think the verbal sarring in MS during promotion discussions are bad? Wait until the users get stuck into it!

You guys obviously don't want that, the system that is in place has worked well enough (with a few slight perversions from time to time) for what 4yrs? 5yrs now? Why change it because the users think it's a good idea? You guys know better than them what should and should not be done in regards to promotions. That's part of your responsibility. Users are here to enjoy the site, not dictate terms for use and site policy.

Now this whole situation will go away if someone puts their foot down and say this conversation is over, no new systems of promotion will be considered.

//waits expectantly.....

Now this whole situation will go away if someone puts their foot down and say this conversation is over

But evidently the situation doesn't go away as it keeps resurfacing about once a year. The problem is that regular users can't see the flaws in having open elections, or majority input in selection. Perhaps by dragging this out until people realise that we currently *do* operate the most effective system we'll have this discussion regularly.

Our (the mods) stance is that we *are* open to change if someone workable is presented.

Presumably if (when) nothing workable is presented we can lay this out to pasture.

"But evidently the situation doesn't go away as it keeps resurfacing about once a year."

Only because the grass is always greener malkie.
People always want what they can't have.

Someone should have locked this thread at the second post with the reason that this topic is not open to discussion. This is not something that users will ever have input into, not should they.

Done.
Problem solved for another year.

This is not something that users will ever have input into, not should they.

I'd prefer to be part of an administration that is happy to listen to their membership. I honestly can't see anything changing, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to suggestion.

Never listening, or being open to suggestion would just lead to an increasingly unhappy, probably dwindling membership, and no-one wants that.

You never know DA - someone might come up with a brilliant idea thats been missed by the hundreds of other people who have discussed the mod selection process in the past.

Had Galileo never put pen to paper (or was it quill to paper), we'd still be at the centre of the Universe.

The current system really works and I think users and mods have that well-documented in here. We are always open to suggestions. One of those suggestions is user input for candidates. Another is announcing as a thread, sticky or not, that there's an opening. Users could post in the thread who they think would be a good mod or they could PM the forum mods. But an election is out. Way too many issues with voting. I ran the Election Game and it taught me really valuable lessons.

The overall process won't change insofar as ultimately mods in the Mod Squad discuss who's been recommended and they vote them in. What could change is how those names are brought forth. What I think we will end up doing is leaving this up to the discretion of the individual forum mods. I'm not going to force them to change the way their system works.

I tried the recommendation thing once in the 3SA and overall I really didn't learn anything I didn't already know. So in terms of the spoilers forum, I don't see us doing this. I can definitely tell you that every single time someone's stepped down, people in the 3SA PM me and ask why and will typically recommend names, including themselves. I don't mind that, even if it's a self-recommendation.

What we can start doing in the 3SA, maybe, is announce a mod stepped down just to keep everyone in the loop. I think what we can do is make this an option for forum mods to:

<li> Announce a mod stepped down and general reasons as to why like an MS Update would state
<li> Start a thread seeking recommendations via a post or PM.

What won't happen:

<li> Elections or any kind of public voting.

What won't change:

<li> The overall process where mods discuss the nominations and then vote on them.

What we will try to do as a group is hopefully make you feel more comfortable in suggesting names. You're always welcome to do that. The only thing up for discussion is whether that invite is going to be implied, through a thread, or a PM. But this thread can't go on another 600 posts.

"Users could post in the thread who they think would be a good mod or they could PM the forum mods."

I think it'd be best to leave nominations to PM, and not posting them publically. When names are suggested publically, it starts public discussion on whether or not that person would be a good candidate, which can turn into an 'us vs. them' type of situation, as evidenced by this thread.

I was thinking about that later. If we post a thread announcing the opening, it would be a sticky thread not allowing replies. In it, it could say PM's are welcome and to PM a forum mod.

I think overall thats a great idea Sape.

edit It might be an idea to have an official line on feedback for suggestions. ie do we give feedback or not ?

Giving feedback would basically involved us highlighting the shortcomings of their suggestion which is probably a bad thing. Alternatively not giving feedback could result in "what was wrong with my suggestion, huh?" backlashes.

I agree with that. Our feedback should not really go beyond a thank you for their suggestion and an acknowledgment that we did receive their nomination.

It would be a great thing if you listed the qualities the candidates should have as clearly as possible in the sticky thread. So at least a certain amount of those who pm you will think about it beforehand if their user of choice fits the description and has the desired qualities.