[GEN] Continued Discussion Regarding the Moderator Selection Process

Yes but malkie there could be thousands of people who disagree with these choices. They are just too scared to speak up.

 

People who don't speak up obviously don't care that much.

 

"Maybe you wouldn't get the "drama" in a welcome thread if people were aware of who was being considered as a moderator and could have input."

Absolutely wrong. The drama would still be there.

Searah, you're flaffing around going on about people being scared and such, and yet you don't answer anything concrete. There *could* be thousands of users who hate the decision, but you don't know that, and it's simply common sense that if you genuinely care, you'll speak up or have to undertand your opinion doesn't count, by virtue of no one knowing it.

As for mod suggestions, it's an open policy that you can suggest mods at anytime. With teh turn over in YJCC it won't be long before there's an opening.

 

As I mentioned in the promotion thread, we've been down this road before.

Check out this thread and this one.

Simply saying "it's not going to happen" isn't a good enough reason or response, but that's pretty much what it comes down to.

 

Since those with a beef against the current system want regular users input and discussion of proposed moderators, and to help prove a point, I would like to state that I don't think Satimber would make a good moderator. I have reasons for feeling this way, and they have nothing to do with e-cliques. He has never jumped out as moderator material in my mind. His posting in Communications is sporadic at best, which makes me wonder how much he cares about bettering the JC. Also, his brightly colored manual sig annoys me. There are other reasons, too, but I think I've listed enough for now.

Okay, on to proving a point. Can anyone who supports Satimber for mod seriously say that their opinion of me did not change even the slightest bit while reading that (assuming there was room for me to move down on your list in the first place)? Can any of them seriously say that their opinion of whether or not Satimber would make a good mod has changed? If not, then what would be helped by having public discussion? Don't the moderators typically know more about a user's history than other users, thanks to admin notes and their experiences? Aren't the moderators the ones who should have some say in promoting someone who they think would work well as part of the team (and teammates don't have to be friends or agree on everything to be a great team)? Is anyone really better off now that I gave my opinion? Did the moderators really learn anything from it? Did it somehow improve mod/member relations?

The problem with public discussion is, as I stated in a previous post, that it would lead to airing dirty laundry. Nobody here is perfect - even if they have squeaky-clean admin notes. Do police stations have public discussion prior to promoting a new officer? No, because the current staff typically knows what qualities to look for, and they know about the past record of applicants.

Public discussion, by nature, can lead to public embarrassment. That's why there isn't a listing of which members are banned. If a potential moderator has had problems in the past, I think it's best left to be discussed with that member and the administration. I don't think that it's polite or necessary for regular users to butt in, especially since they rarely know the entire story.

That's just what I think. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, nor will it be the last time.

 

First off, Malkie thinks I sent someone to check up on him on whether or not he officially noted the recommended on Jedi_Satimber. That's entirely wrong. I can't believe this is starting to head in the direction of accusations.

I think I need to take a step back from this for awhile and go concentrate on RL.

 

What I have noticed lately is a much greater cycling of mods. A lot of mods in the past year or so have neglected to stick around for too long. Whether because of "drama" like the address thing, or because they don't like it, the number of long time moderators is pretty small.

Even look at the Administrators. They are all excellent, but Sapient and Raven are the only ones who have been moderators for a long time (I consider this at least before I registered here).

There's a need for more mods than ever before, but there's also a bad turnaround right now, with people staying mods for a few months and then ditching it. Look at JCC. Two are brand new, malkie is about a month or so into it? I think the oldest mod is either -_-_-_-_- or Katya, and I don't believe either was a mod starting 2004. It's not a knock on any of them, but there is a fast turnaround for mods, which is never a good thing, because you get shifting views, shifting rules, etc.

Maybe the process is flawed. Maybe just looking for sweet and innocent people who follow the rules isn't enough, and there needs to be a step added, making sure they actually care and will stick around for a while. I don't think that letting the members vote will help with that, though it may, because they get a general sense of who is around for a long time, but maybe something should be done.

 

Guys, to satisfy those in doubt, I shall sit down and write an outline on a CONCRETE manner to do this. You can then discuss it as you like.

I am not going to take five minutes to do this. I'm actually going to sit down and think about it seriously. If anyone wants to contribute, please PM me.

If a mod or admin could submit a written example on the complete process of choosing a moderator, I would be grateful.

We'll see if we can work together in a group, or a committee. Whatever you wish to deem it--I'm going to take time out of my schedule to do this.

 

Malkie thinks I sent someone to check up on him on whether or not he officially noted the recommended on Jedi_Satimber.

That was just a simple misunderstanding due to wording. I thought I covered that in the PM.

 

xie, I believe Kate has been a mod since around last November (aside from taking a while off during WiseGate), and she was promoted before Dashy.

Also, I wouldn't be too quick to blame high turnaround on the moderator selection process. There are many factors that go into it, and it may be better off getting discussed in another thread on another day.

 

What I have noticed lately is a much greater cycling of mods. A lot of mods in the past year or so have neglected to stick around for too long. Whether because of "drama" like the address thing, or because they don't like it, the number of long time moderators is pretty small.

Actually, the turnover seems to be about the same. However, you have to take Wisegate into account. That event radically accelerated the normal evolution a lot of moderators, and there no doubt would still be many moderators from the group that resigned or were demoted if not for that incident.

Two are brand new, malkie is about a month or so into it? I think the oldest mod is either -_-_-_-_- or Katya, and I don't believe either was a mod starting 2004. It's not a knock on any of them, but there is a fast turnaround for mods, which is never a good thing, because you get shifting views, shifting rules, etc.

Not necessarily. It's just quite helpful to have older moderators around to help guide things, and that's what Kate and a few others have been doing. I think the real problem came during the month or so after Wisegate.

Kate was promoted in October of 2003, and has been a moderator since then, minus the time she stepped down earlier this year.

Maybe the process is flawed. Maybe just looking for sweet and innocent people who follow the rules isn't enough, and there needs to be a step added, making sure they actually care and will stick around for a while.

The process is as good as it's going to get. The real problem is the steadily decreasing number of potential good moderators, particularly in the JCC. That Satimber is getting serious suggestions for promotion shows how far things have fallen in terms of candidates.

Also, it's a good idea to take burnout into account. The best moderators tend to be the ones who get burned out the most (and sometimes the fastest). Those who don't care or aren't as good often stick around the longest.

I must say that there seems to be no acknowledgement that this subject that has been discussed at length in the past, and that things were ultimately left as they were (for good reason).

 

Just because a solution was not found in the past does not mean one cannot be found in the future. Knowledge is in perpetual motion. New users arrive daily.

 

Just because a solution was not found in the past does not mean one cannot be found in the future. Knowledge is in perpetual motion.

The issue was looked at with a far greater collection of minds than is present here, and there's little of substance that's changed in the JC that would somehow make the idea of public nominations/voting feasible.

 

Just because a solution was not found in the past does not mean one cannot be found in the future. Knowledge is in perpetual motion.

I'm still curious for you to share your knowledge with us though; thus far, you haven't provided one concrete identification of the current problems, let alone a concrete plan for a solution...

 

But nothing that has been suggested is new. It's all been gone over multiple times in the past.

"The best moderators tend to be the ones who get burned out the most (and sometimes the fastest). Those who don't care or aren't as good often stick around the longest."

Agreed. I know I've made statements similar to that in various places in the past.

Edit:

dp4m, here's my interpretation (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):
The "problem" is that there are people who don't love every moderator who is promoted.
The "solution" is to somehow have the general populace discuss these people before they are promoted, and to somehow weigh in on what they think. Somehow, this will correct the "problem".

 

Did you not read my post on the last page, dp4m?


Guys, to satisfy those in doubt, I shall sit down and write an outline on a CONCRETE manner to do this. You can then discuss it as you like.

I am not going to take five minutes to do this. I'm actually going to sit down and think about it seriously. If anyone wants to contribute, please PM me.

If a mod or admin could submit a written example on the complete process of choosing a moderator, I would be grateful.

We'll see if we can work together in a group, or a committee. Whatever you wish to deem it--I'm going to take time out of my schedule to do this.


I am getting a headache from repeating myself over and over again.

 

In general, the process goes something like this:

1. There's a need for a moderator.
2. Candidates are suggested by members of the Mod Squad, with particular weight being given to other moderators of the forum that's getting a promotion (if there are others in that forum).
3. A list of candidates is agreed on and a vote takes place
4. Winner is offered promotion.

Now there's an agreement to certain rules to consider, I believe, and giving your address to a data collection site.

Also, sometimes votes aren't necessary and things are a bit more informal. Just depends on the situation.

 

If that is official, that is what I will use.

 

No, that's not official, since I'm not a member of the administration, and definitely not an administrator.

However, that's just a general guide to maybe work with until someone gets you a more official version.

 

Thats basically it - although I'd add that these days users are asked in advance if they'd have any problems submitting personal data before we create the finalised voting list.

It is unfortuneate as it means people know they lost a vote, but they seem to be ok about it and give "the best man one" speech in the welcome thread.

 

In the meantime, my position is clear and so is my goal. I'll do the best that I can. In order to avoid a repeat of what occurred last time this was discussed and to avoid a similar response to the question at hand, assistance would be appreciated on past suggestions made and why or why not they were implemented.

Lawdy, I have a headache. This is why I've never gotten involved in this. And I hope those that PM'ed me will come in and speak their mind without any fear of retribution.

 

If you're getting a head ache you should have done what you said you were going to do and leave for a while. Bye bye.

 

That Satimber is getting serious suggestions for promotion shows how far things have fallen in terms of candidates.

So what exactly speaks against him?? I know him (yes, I know, I know, I'm biased), and I, too, would say he makes a good candidate for modship. It says something about him that so many people agree with me about that.

 

Why thank you for that rousing gesture of support. I would say something smart, but I am not going to stoop to your level, Darth_Ignant. I don't think I can get that low. I've got a bad back, you know.

 

That Satimber is getting serious suggestions for promotion shows how far things have fallen in terms of candidates.

That's quite a bit of contempt. What's the deal?