What's the Process for Picking Mods?

Just to prove dashy wrong:

Do you usually wait for almost every mod to vote, or is it just kind of whoever cares votes, and those who never post there just ignore the poll? Are mods required to vote in the polls unless they are absent or something?

 

I don't know if it's changed since I left, but for the most part, it was open for a few days, but there wasn't any requirement for mods to vote or anything. For the most part, once all the mods had at least signed in and had a chance to see the thread, it was assumed that if they wanted to vote, they would. But no one kept tabs on who voted and who didn't.

 

Moderators aren't required to vote, and some abstain (usually due to an unfamiliarity with candidates).

Some nomination processes bring out more votes than others. There have been heavily contested moderator votes before, while other forums breeze through and make things little more than a formality (which has occasionally been dispensed with).

 

Moderators aren't required to vote, and some abstain (usually due to an unfamiliarity with candidates).

Definitely. If I'm totally unfamiliar with a forum (like the RPF for instance), I'm probably going to abstain from voting. Unless, of course, I see a name of a poster that I do see around alot on other areas of the board and I have a good impression of them. But if it isn't the same person that the current forum mod or mods are in favor of, I would probably defer to their knowledge of their forum.

Some nomination processes bring out more votes than others. There have been heavily contested moderator votes before, while other forums breeze through and make things little more than a formality (which has occasionally been dispensed with).

Yep. Sometimes votes also are used because there is a general agreement about who is/are best for a forum and there is little to no opposition to them. This isn't how it usually goes, but it has happened from time to time.

 

If a vote is close, do you look into it to see if it's fixed?

 

Not usually. Most votes have on the order of 10-20 votes (not counting abstainers), so it's almost impossible to tell if it's rigged anyways.

Sometimes, if a vote is really close, we will look at the need in the forum and promote both candidates if there is a need.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It's rather hard to "fix" voting when there are only at a maximum 50 people that could possibly vote, and it can only be done through singular user accounts.

Do you usually wait for almost every mod to vote, or is it just kind of whoever cares votes, and those who never post there just ignore the poll? Are mods required to vote in the polls unless they are absent or something?

Previously it was a case that the poll would last a week unless an overwhelming majority of mods had selected a certain person (eg in one instance after 3 days even if the remaining mods all chose User X, User Y would still have the most votes). While not all mods were required to vote, those that would have had a vested interest in the decision or were fairly active mods that did not already indicate they had voted would usually be reminded, at which point they'd say something (even if it was that they were abstaining for whatever reason).

 

Is there any limit to how many times a mod can wield veto power?


The last time the subject was discussed in Comms there were differing opinions on whether that was something a mod could use just once or as often as he/she wanted.

 

It's rather hard to "fix" voting when there are only at a maximum 50 people that could possibly vote, and it can only be done through singular user accounts.

I think Administrators can tamper with the database.

 

Not through the JC. That requires separate access.

 

"It's rather hard to "fix" voting when there are only at a maximum 50 people that could possibly vote, and it can only be done through singular user accounts."

Well, I thought it would be hard, but DA was saying on another site how he fixed a mod vote, so I wondered if that sort of thing was checked into.

 

A mod vote can defintely be fixed by any manager. All they have to do is create a few socks, give the socks Mod Squad access for a few minutes, and place their votes. Then remove the Mod Squad access of the socks. Unless someone is paying real close attention, they'd probably get away with it.

 

Are promotions/demotions not logged in the admin action log?

 

Are promotions/demotions not logged in the admin action log?

Giving someone access to a private forum is different than a promotion, and yes, both are logged. Hence that bit in my above post about "unless someone is paying real close attention." For example, right now, the first fifty admin actions go back barely two hours. The odds that someone could slip a few socks in unoticed is pretty good, unless some other moderator got real lucky while looking at the admin action log or had a suspicion to begin with.

 

> Is there any limit to how many times a mod can wield veto power?

In the 2 years I was a mod, I don't recall this ever being used. Is the 'veto' power a real thing, or just some legacy term that isn't actually ever able to be used? It was certainly never explained to new mods as a 'power' they had the right to exercise in a mod vote.

 

Haven't been through many votes yet, personally...but if you wanted to get rid of the posibility that a Manager or above could "fix" a vote, couldn't you just require that all mods that vote must post their vote in the thread? A simple fix. Then it would be obvious exactly how many votes someone should've gotten and assumably keep things honest in the eyes of all parties. *shrugs*

 

couldn't you just require that all mods that vote must post their vote in the thread?

No, you have to keep voting anonymous so that people can vote how ever they want and not feel pressured into voting a certain way for fear of repercussion.

 

*shrugs*
Then it's a matter of keeping a really close eye on really close polls if that's the case.

 

We now encourage people to just say "voted." That way we have an idea how many have voted, but the nature of their votes is kept quiet.

 

I'm pretty sure the voting is fair, and anyways, you wouldn't be voting on a candidate that wasn't of merit anyways. I think its a side point to Ignants thread.

 

If by "rig" you mean "convincing mods to get involved and to vote who normally wouldn't do so" then yes, I like to think I rigged every MS poll I was ever a part of.

(Tangent: nice to see you follow my posts Ignant, we appreciate the kisses.... )

I wouldn't like to say that the JC promotion process was poor but from what I saw in my time as a mod the figures for an average promotion poll dropped by as much as two thirds. I think that has a huge amount to do with moderators being restricted to spending their moderating time in their dedicated forums and not really knowing enough about other forums, other forums regular users, the JC boards as a whole or even putting in the effort to research potential candidates to give a properly informed opinion either way....as Bria has clearly demonstrated above.

So when mod x says "I need someone new in my forum, I'm rushed off my feet. I suggest this person who I like because they're cool and send me e-flowers or this person because they look hot in their pic....which should we go with?" the average mod shrugs their shoulders and defers to the authors judgement. As with any group, there are vocal people and there are not-so-vocal people and in MS the vocal people seem to shout down the rest and discourage them from offering opinions (whether they know it or not, I dont pretend it's a conscious decision every time). Either way, I saw a poll once where one candidate lost a poll to another candidate and was promoted anyway. And I've seen mods not even offer a group of people as viable promotions, just a single one with the expectation that people will defer to their judgement and back them up.

So when we all say "It goes to a fair poll"....it doesn't always make it so.

But maybe all that's changed, what the hell do I know?

And I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that anyone could promote enough socks to swing a private poll. You have to promote, add to MS, remove from MS and demote each account individually without being noticed. Such a ludircous act would take up pages of installments in the admin log, rigging votes that way is simply impossible and not even vaguely plausible IMO.

 

A mod vote can defintely be fixed by any manager. All they have to do is create a few socks, give the socks Mod Squad access for a few minutes, and place their votes. Then remove the Mod Squad access of the socks. Unless someone is paying real close attention, they'd probably get away with it.

FYI, I can say with sureity that that never happened before April last year. There are easy ways to see if that's happening, and there are certain persons inside the MS that should already be doing that.

Is there any limit to how many times a mod can wield veto power?

In the 2 years I was a mod, I don't recall this ever being used. Is the 'veto' power a real thing, or just some legacy term that isn't actually ever able to be used? It was certainly never explained to new mods as a 'power' they had the right to exercise in a mod vote.

There has never been any formal form of veto available by anyone in the MS apart from a single position. There was talk by people that wanted that option, but it was never agreed to. Sometimes when strong objections were expressed, if they were backed up with the reasons behind it, persons were withdrawn from the consideration process.

However, the ability to veto nominations was introduced into the AC by a specific AC group, so that is where the confusion may come from.

 

FYI, I can say with sureity that that never happened before April last year. There are easy ways to see if that's happening, and there are certain persons inside the MS that should already be doing that.

Can you? Then you did check the Admin Action Log every promotion to keep an eye on who was being given private forum access? If so, then you?re right, it?s something that never happened before April last year. Otherwise, then you may very well be wrong. It?s something that maybe we should start doing in the future, but I don?t recall anyone suggesting that this to be done or saying that it was being done in the past.


And I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that anyone could promote enough socks to swing a private poll. You have to promote, add to MS, remove from MS and demote each account individually without being noticed. Such a ludircous act would take up pages of installments in the admin log, rigging votes that way is simply impossible and not even vaguely plausible IMO.

In a close race, all it might take would be two or three votes. Even five or six might easily slip through unnoticed ? it?s a large enough number to swing many votes, but small enough that the victory wouldn?t seem suspicious. To give and remove access for five people in the middle of the night would take up exactly ten admin actions ? not pages and pages of admin actions, but rather 1/5 of the page at 50 actions per page. And if the manager manipulating events went on a routine thread deletion spree to clear away old locked threads, those actions would be pushed down even sooner.


I?m suggesting that anyone actually used such methods to swing a vote in the past, just that if someone had used such methods, it?s doubtful that anyone would notice.

 

And where's that new Security Admin when you need him?

 

And where's that new Security Admin when you need him?

What, you volunteering your services?