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.