Why is public voting for moderators not viable? (A plan)

Why is public voting for moderators not viable?

It?s perfectly clear that many members on this board don?t have confidence in the abilities and judgement of many on the current moderating team. The actions needed to be taken to correct these issues is out of the scope of this thread, yet, it?s obvious that this same moderating team assume the role of choosing other moderators when needed, and those same shortcomings may manifest themselves in that choice and we end up with ? yet again ? another mediocre member of the administration. Why, then, can?t the members of this board nominate and then vote for a candidate to be put into a position of power?

One of the other boards I frequently visit on the net has around 22,000 members and a rate of posting not too far off that of the JC. When the time came for new moderators, it was clear to the Head Admin that people chosen by him and his ?elite few? alone could, in fact, be the wrong choice. Therefore, he put in place a 3 step system of nomination and voting that worked flawlessly and eventually gave the board a group of moderators that everyone agreed on and had confidence in. Here is how it would work:

1.) When the time comes around for new moderators in Community ? around 4, say - a nomination thread is posted, stuck to the top of the forum and left for a week. Each member would simply nominate a member or two that they feel would do the job well. In order to progress to the next stage, each nominee would have to be seconded by another member. If the member doing the seconding is a sock, then that would nullify it. At this stage in the election, I would think that around 30 nominees would have arisen.

2.) The 30 nominees would then be presented to the Mod Squad for revision. I feel that this is the step that most members would have trouble accepting, so let me make this clear: Nominees can only be rejected on a proven and justifiable unsuitability for the job. If a member has trolled in the past or is known to be a spammer, then the Mod Squad can justify this and remove that member from the running. If any of the members of the JC have a problem with a removal, then they are fully entitled to PM an admin and receive the evidence stating why that member was not suitable. Nominees can not be removed on the basis that the the Mod Squad feels that they are in some way ?unsuitable?, but without any firm justification. I feel that the current administration has enough honesty to pass this stage without any problems.

3.) By this stage around 10 ? 15 candidates should be left, from which four have to be chosen. Because Snowboards sucks, and more than 10 people cannot be placed in a poll, and more than one option cannot be voted for ? this final voting would probably be have to be done on a web page with a poll option set up. Obviously, the new sticky thread in Community would have a link to this page, and would ask as many people as possible to vote. Each member would vote for as many candidates he feels would do the job well ? if that means he votes for all of them, then that is fine. After a week of voting, then the votes are counted and the top 4 candidates become the new moderators ? chosen and voted for by the membership ? for the JC Community.

So, what are your thoughts? Is there any reason why this could not be implemented by the administration? I think that this could very well fix much of the angst many amongst the general membership harbour towards those in the Mod Squad.

 

nice idea. If it comes to a vote to see if we can vote I will surely and vote and I will vote yes infact.

Seriously, I've wondered about this for awhile, I think I even posted something like this in the "hear me out" thread. I would like to see this happen!

 

Simply put, the system is fine as it is.

There are politics now, but if you introduce public voting and nominations, the amount of politicking and campaigning will rise dramatically.

Is the system perfect right now? Nope. Should there be public voting and nominations? No.

In general, the admins know the best people for the job and choose them accordingly. I know I always have my eyes open for potential candidates, and I'm sure that goes for most others as well.

 

Nope. In general, the admins know the best people for the job and choose them accordingly

That's the sort of arrogance that gets the administration in trouble in the first place. Don't assume your judgement is infallible - instead, try to understand that the moderators are chosen from amongst the general membership and placed into a position of power, and therefore there is no reason why they could not be chosen by the General membership.

 

At this stage in the election, I would think that around 30 nominees would have arisen

I'm 100% sure that there would be the triple or more nominees and by the way its to hard for the administration to do this. Its easier to just disgust amongst them selves then tell us.

 

My judgement is certainly not infallible. Far from it. However, the judgement of a few dozen admins regaarding one person's fitness for being a moderator is, in my view, reliable.

Before someone brings up LMM, I would note that the administration was given no option to approve or disapprove. It was announced to the administration in the same manner it was announced to the public.

 

Polls are easy to rig.

 

Not polls like that. Polls where you simply post the name.

 

I'm sure setting up a reasonably secure poll wouldn't be impossible. Perhaps a criticism of the idea, not the technicalities, would be better?

 

I'm just not a fan of choosing people publically.

I believe the way the system works at present is the best way to go about things. It avoids some of the politics that would ensue (both before and after) if people were able to publically vote for candidates they wanted to be admins. Also keep in mind that moderators are part of the administration, which is an extension of the ownership of the site. The site does not belong to anyone but the owners, and technically, members have no rights to choose who they wish to be a part of the administration. The administration chooses who it wants.

That's just my take on it. If I'm in error, feel free to correct me .

 

"The site does not belong to anyone but the owners, and technically, members have no rights to choose who they wish to be a part of the administration. The administration chooses who it wants. "

Oh, absolutely. The administration can do whatever it wants, but if it wants to ignore suggestions about how to improve this place then they should expect to see many long-time members leaving in droves.


It avoids some of the politics that would ensue (both before and after) if people were able to publically vote for candidates they wanted to be admins.

Of course there would be the inevitable bit of drama, but there would be no basis for it. The candidates would be ultimately chose by the general membership, and any idiots who want to create unfounded bits of drama would be ignored.

 

Instead of public voting, I suggest PMing an admin about someone you think would make a good moderator for a particular forum. Give feedback/input. I know I am always open to hearing positives in addition to the negatives .

 

Ultimately, the administration would choose who they feel is good for the job. Sometimes they make the right decision, sometimes they promote someone who is completely out of touch with the general membership. A voting system prevents these common unfortunate promotions from happening.

It's sad how many in the general membership would be much happier choosing a moderator for themselves, yet the administration won't touch the idea...

 

KnightWriter we don't know when the Mod Squad thinks tehy need a new mod. So when should we PM you with suggestions ?

 

"Oh, absolutely. The administration can do whatever it wants, but if it wants to ignore suggestions about how to improve this place then they should expect to see many long-time members leaving in droves."

I don't see how popular vote of an admin would improve the JC. Future admins need to be judged on many criteria, not on how popular they are.

 

Sometimes, new moderator discussions are mentioned in Mod Squad updates. That has not been the case with the past two major promotions, but it has been at times in the past. But in general, I suggest PMing an admin with your thoughts about a particularly outstanding member.

I would lean more toward a compromise of moderator reviews that happened after a certain period of time (and not just once). That way, it could be much more assured that there are truly good admins on the job and not those who don't belong.

 

I disagree with public voting for the simple fact that "popular" people would end up being voted in rather than someone that could actually do the job.

Every board has politics and problems but putting it down to a public vote is not the answer.

 

Carter, I would have to assume that in jediguy's mind, many of the popular people considered would also fit some or many of the criteria needed to be a good moderator, and that people who voted would vote for people who would truly make good admins.

 

I hate to say it but it's still the popular members that become mods

 

I hate to say it but it's still the popular members that become mods

I think many people who would make good moderators happen to be popular in the community for some of the same reasons that they would make good moderators. Friendly, helpful, thoughtful and so on. Those qualities often make popular members.

Make sense?

 

KW, I think likeability is certainly a criteria the admins would consider for moderator appointments.

 

No our RSA (No offence to him coz I like him) we had never heard of really until he was made RSA there were in some of our opinion "more popular" people that were to be picked but infact it went the opposite way.

 

I disagree with public voting for the simple fact that "popular" people would end up being voted in rather than someone that could actually do the job.

Funny you should say that, because it is highly likely that:

A) Those 'popular' people are the ones that catch the administration's eye and put them into the running for moderatorship.
B) I believe the General Membership has enough maturity to nominate those who they feel will do a good job.

 

A) Those 'popular' people are the ones that catch the administration's eye and put them into the running for moderatorship.


Is there something wrong with that? Yes, some of the popular ones will catch the administration's eye, but that's certainly not all that it takes, or even close to it. There are also people who aren't necessarily popular but still stand out to the administration.

 

I disagree from past experience.

People will always nominate they're friends to be in a mod position even though they may not be a very good mod.
Normally mods are very good at noticing who will make a good mod, while general posters we will tend to vote our friends in. Its just how human nature works