[GEN] Continued Discussion Regarding the Moderator Selection Process

I find it amussing that everyone here is expending so much enery trying to make saerah look like an ass, because she wants to improve something. I will try to help her. Hopefully we will be able to come up with something solid to initialy present to the relevent people.

I find the arrogance surrounding this topic funny. The attitude seems to be that if i haven't found a better way to do it then it must not exist, so don't bother trying. Since many people have tried to come up with some type of inprovement to the current system and have been unable to do so, we may not be able to also. It is our time to invest in the attempt. Why do you people care? The other thing about this that makes no sense is that some of the same people who have basicly said don't bother trying to fix it have criticised saerah for not coming up with anything in a day.

Mr. 44, Instead of all of the mods fighting it out why don't you simply codify the requirements for being a mod and show that the people who are picked to be mods fit the criteria. Also i would like to see what goes on when you guys choose some one to be a mod. Would you guys care to make a transcript of one of those discussions public? Perhaps one from a few years ago. I do not mean that as a tuant or an accusation. If i did, i would've asked for a current one. I know there are more then two people on tfn that are Interested in how the process works.

If you think this is a veiled bash against tracy you're wrong. Her and i have talked over pm a few times about math and engineering. She got on my nerves once a few mounths ago, hardly something worth mentioning, but considering how people act i figured i might as well admit to it.

Lastly to who ever infered that trying to make an improvement was being melodramatic, i have a quote for you.

So what, so what, you boring little ****.

Well, who cares, who cares what you do.
Yeah, who cares, who cares about you,

metallica so what

 

If I am expected to come up with a feasible theory on how to overcome this situation, it ain't gonna happen at the drop of a hat folks. And if you expect me to do it fairly I require the input of others. This isn't a one-woman show.

If the MS comes up with solutions from just one person in a matter of a day, then I see why there are so many problems.

 

I find it amussing that everyone here is expending so much enery trying to make saerah look like an ass, because she wants to improve something. I will try to help her. Hopefully we will be able to come up with something solid to initialy present to the relevent people.

I think one of the problems is that it isn't really clear what exactly needs fixing. This whole thing started because a few people didn't like the latest selection of one of the mods. Does this really constitute as a reason to completely change a policy that has been working for so long? Not only has no one provided a solution, I don't think a real problem has even been clearly pointed out here.

Like I said before, we are lucky that the administration cares about our opinions because as a private organization, they certainly do not have to. In my opinion, the current system works fine. The administration obviously puts a lot of thought and consideration into which users it promotes. If you don't like their promotions, they have made it clear that we are welcome to suggest users we feel would be good moderators. Basically, don't fix what isn't broken.

 

Wait, I thought this was questioning (yet again) the mod selection process.

 

Mr. 44, Instead of all of the mods fighting it out why don't you simply codify the requirements for being a mod and show that the people who are picked to be mods fit the criteria. Also i would like to see what goes on when you guys choose some one to be a mod. Would you guys care to make a transcript of one of those discussions public? Perhaps one from a few years ago.

First of all, when did I say anything about all the mods? I merely illustrated that the process is continually evolving, and by recognizing differences, improvements are made.

My illustration was in direct response to the assertion that the MS is not objective when choosing potential mods. In most instances, the MS is tougher on candiates.

The requirements for being a mod are as codified as they are going to be.

However, I echo the sentiment that I haven't seen a illustration of exactly what the problem is.

One can't go to the doctor and simply say "I hurt," and then expect the doctor to react.

Additionally, even if one then specifies "I hurt in my foot," one shouldn't expect the doctor to immediately start to amputate.

After all, the pain might not even be medical in nature, it might be simply that the patient's shoe is on the wrong foot.

 

The problem: The current modus operandi on choosing moderators for forums at the JC is not considered adequate and impartial by some users.

The real problem: Many users are offended by the apparent cliquish behaviors shown by many moderators on the JC. Some believe that impartiality is not practiced in choosing new moderators because of htis. As a result, hostility is fostered between these groups.

The Solution: To try to modify the current process of choosing moderators for forums at the JC that would involve more input from general users. Unfortunately, many users believe that simply PM'ing nominations is not adequate. Therefore, a group of users from various backgrounds will brainstorm to propose an amendment to the current method of choosing moderators in the hopes to improve relationships between the MS and general users.

Was that good enough? I hope so as it's almost time for me to retire for the evening. I don't know how specific you all want me to be at this time. I can go on and take out my thesaurus and dazzle you with ridiculously long words and quote various passages from esoteric, wordy books, but I'll spare from that.

 

The real problem: Many users are offended by the apparent cliquish behaviors shown by many moderators on the JC. Because of this, hostility is fostered.

Can you give some examples (either actual or hypothetical) of this "cliqueish" behavior?

People tend to form friendships with other people they like, respect and have similarities with. If these friendships represent cliques, there's not much to be done about it. It's just human nature and interaction at work.

 

KW are you serious? Where have you been all these years? Which forum are you hanging out at?

I refuse to backpeddle on these issues. Please read the edits in my above post.

And I think it would not wise of me to post specific examples of nepotism in the MS as I am sure I have already blacklisted myself.

 

"Hey look, I have proof that this happens!"

"You do?"

"Yes!"

"Well... what is it?"

"Oh, I'm not telling. People hate me already."

Kinda hard to get anything accomplished that way, don't you think?

 

Yodajeff, you'll get your proof, don't worry. If you think that I am going to just post off the top of my head without detailed facts on a forum like this you're crazy.

And what do you have against Nashira anyway? I know that is who you were referring to in your post on the last page?

 

Ok now- but be fair, your initial posts in this thread certainly indicated that you already had a specific problem identified, and that it wasn't being listened to.

I believe you even directed a comment to Malkie that said he shouldn't be "threatened" by your suggestion.

However, it now seems that you really didn't have a concrete suggestion in the first place, and you are now calling for members to "brainstorm" over an issue that may or may not exist.

I certainly don't want to single you out, but I am still simply confused over what you want.

Even now, you hint that you have all of this evidence of bias, but you are too "worried" about being blacklisted to provide it.

Well, action can't be directed unless you are willing to go on record with what your concerns are.

I certainly want to hear what issues you have, and I don't even know you, let alone what "clique" you are afraid of retaliation from.

But realistically, NOTHING can be implimented if all you indicate is something about a percieved problem over some bias that may or may not exist, that might be solved by a undefined group that may or may not work on its own.

It's only fair, eh?

EDIT: Yes, basically what YJ just indicated, except using much fewer words that I did...

 

So what are we even discussing at this point? This thread seems to have gone all over with no real direction.

The current system isn't awful, but it's clearly not perfect as bad choices are and always have been made.

A system whereby members are allowed to nominate users is essentially already in place because you can nominate anyone via PM, but for all we know they'll never even be considered because there's no MS auditing or anything.

You could create some sort of advisory group (crazy, I know), but the selection process for that would be just as dramarrific as this. Maybe moreso because for whatever reason the AC always stirred up some insane feelings of elitism among people.

There could be an election, but really, let's not even pretend that might work out well.

Here's what I think the mods should do. When the need arises for a new mod (or better yet, whenever you feel like it), PM some of the more active, quality members of your forum. You (should) know who they are, so see what they have to say. Get their advice. They'll be more likely to express their honest opinions on someone in private and if you pick the right people, you'll get relatively unbiased opinions. And since it won't be some sort of private forum thing, the claims of Ivory Tower elitism will be kept to a minimum. Keep a running thread in the MS with some clever title like "Potential Mods" and add in comments you receive from your polling. And then use this when nominating and ultimately voting on new mods.

It's so simple and crazy it just might work.

Amazing.

 

"And what do you have against Nashira anyway? I know that is who you were referring to in your post on the last page?"

Actually, I was referring to multiple moderators, past and present.

Frankly, there are those who don't pull their fair share of the weight, and I feel it is detrimental to the community as a whole. I also feel that it causes good mods to step down or get burnt out quicker.

Also, that isn't really related to the topic at hand here (I only mentioned it in reply to something that was brought up with the current discussion), and I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if we could focus on the selection process, not the demotion process.

Edit:
To slightly expand on what B said...
Go as far as to PM those who you think would be potential moderators, and ask them who they think would make a good mod. See how many of them mention each other. See if any have huge egos and say "I would!". If nothing else, it could prove to be slightly entertaining.

 

I am indeed afraid of retaliation. And is it right of me to post people's emails and personal messages to me so that you can see them?


The basis of my suggestion for clarification which will be expanded upon:

-Choose, in some form, a group or committee of users to give direct input on nominating moderators. Basically these members' opinions and votes would carry the same weight as current moderators. These people could be past administrators, past moderators, regular users, VIPs, etc. This group shall be well-rounded. The selection process for this group is what shall be expanded upon. I am saying this is 100% feasible as this board has grown to a large size where something like this can and indeed will work if done in a proper manner.

-From this group of users and the current MS, the selection of new moderators will be decided. This will include full histories of each nominee to be taken under serious consideration.

-The nomination and all discussion of nominees and related processes will be handled outside of the MS forum.

-It is indeed possible to allow this amended process to take place for choosing just ONE moderator for each forum.
This is all that I can get out of my head at 12:29 AM.

 

Just to add, I'll go on record for my brother, since he is Hurricane ridden, with the following:

"The AC should have never been disbanded.."

I know it is not as witty as he would have put it, but the sentiment is still the same...

 

"I am indeed afraid of retaliation."

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

 

I edited my post guys..sorry i keep doing that. At this hour, my carpal-tunnel-syndrome-ridden hands have a hard time keeping up with my mind.

 

Not only that, but you can certainly see how most mods here can't, and really wouldn't, act on concerns that don't have any factual support.

That would apply anywhere.

And your edit is better in the sense that it at least outlines some concerns..

 

So, now, instead of arguing over how mods are picked, the arguing will turn to how the mod selection committee is picked. Which will just add another layer of bureaucracy, without fixing the initial percieved problem.

 

What more do you want me to give you tonight? There's a beginning, a middle and an end..I am giving you the beginning. Next comes the middle and then the end.

And I know this will all be picked apart in the end anyway, thus revealing the true nature of some individuals. I will have to accept the fact that if I put work into improving the current status of the relationship between mods and users, I may end up back at the beginning.

Yodajeff, you just love to criticize everything, don't you? Back up your statements.


And if I didn't care about this mess, why in the hell would I still be here at this hour?

 

"And I know this will all be picked apart in the end anyway, thus revealing the true nature of some individuals."

That we care enough about this place to give our opinions on suggested changes to policies and procedures?

 

Yodajeff, please stop. Do I have to ask it in a different way? Will you just step back and realize that everything you've been posting is only to truly upset me?

Let's get it out here in the open, folks.

 

Jeff and others are simply pointing some logical and practical problems in what you've said.

No one can or should fault your desire to better the JC and to create positive change. However, there are some problems with what you've said and suggested, and the above-mentioned people who've been responding are veterans of these types of discussions.

Will you just step back and realize that everything you've been posting is only to truly upset me?

Why would he do that? I'm quite certain he's posting as honestly as you are, with the same end goal in mind (the best interests of the JC).

 

Did you not read my last posts? We are going in circles.

Constructive criticism is alway welcome..however it's just that--constructive. Don't assume what is going on in this head of mine and what true agenda I have. I've remained impartial for all these damn years and I don't plan on changing that anytime soon. I don't belong to a clique!! And I can read between the lines.




Yeah, I am sure Yodajeff has the best interests of everyone in mind.

 

I don't understand how a moderator can get burned out.

No offense to you guys and gals, but you don't really do anything, besides type and click. If you get burned out that easily, even if you were a good mod before, you're not a good mod. Sorry.

I'm making an analogy, not equating the two, but if a President worked really hard for a year and then resigned, he would be a bad President. He couldn't handle it.

Part of being a good moderator is sticking around. Anyone can be a good mod for a day, week, month. But if after then you need to step down or take a really long break because of a Star Wars message board, then nope, you're not a good moderator.