Why isnt there an election on Moderators?

Discussion in 'Communications' started by k3po, Feb 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. NJOfan215 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 5
    That's retarded. People should look at any opportunity to get more input into the decison making process here as a good thing.
  2. BobTheGoon Moderator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2000
    star 6
    Genghis12 posted on 2/13/05 11:33am
    "Besides people would complain that they weren't sampled..."

    Yep, that's a very accurate assessment. Take a look at how "you" ("you" being the vocal anti-AC crowd at the time of its existence) all treated the Advisory Council, or any other of your peers whom the perception was they got one-up on you for that matter. That group could have functioned in some sort of "sampling" capacity, but the whining about how/why they got "special privileges" was overwhelming.

    We don't have something like this that might be capable of doing what you suggest because some of you weren't mature to handle something like this and ruined it for everyone, putting the idea that some users got something you didn't above the betterment of the entire site.

    />
    NJOfan215 posted on 2/14/05 9:44am
    That's retarded. People should look at any opportunity to get more input into the decison making process here as a good thing.

    />

    Sweet, sweet irony./>/>/>/>
  3. CmdrMitthrawnuruodo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 1, 2000
    star 6
    k3po posted on 2/2/05 2:05pm

    />

    Stupid idea. Elections on the JC for Modship would become just a huge popularity contest and you'd end up with people like Wes_Janson or -Lord_Vader- as Mods. Do you really want naive puberty crisis trolls running your favorite message board because he happened to have a small following that gave him the votes he needed? I certainly do not. And even if the Mods selected the nominees, the forum as a whole is neither wise or smart enough to choose the right person for the job. I'd rather have the Mods select the people they know personally and best then a bunch of kids who don't even know the choices.

    Elections = popularity contest, nuf said/>/>
  4. sordidhumor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2003
    star 1
    It's fairly ironic that every rationalization against elections used by dictators & oligarchies has been repeated here. It sounds like the JC administation could have been the ones to come up with the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers didn't trust us either.
  5. Smuggler-of-Mos-Espa Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2002
    star 6
    First of all, I'd like to notify you that this is a Star Wars message board. It sounds flat out crazy to compare such things.
  6. Jesina_Dreis Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 4
    I'm with S-o-M-E...not to mention that that, in large part, the reason for the electoral college wasn't just about trust, but about the fact that it was impossible for people to know enough about candidates other than people from their own state.


    But anyway...hasn't this thread outlived it's usefulness?
  7. sordidhumor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2003
    star 1
    I disagree. It is easy to dismiss something as crazy outright & not deal with an issue. It is far harder to describe why you think something is an invalid point. Well, maybe it's not harder, you would just have to not be lazy.

    I can only assume you think it is crazy because you feel that the way we run the country is important, & the way we run these forums isn't. To a certain extent, I agree with you. You can't really choose to which country you are born. You can choose which Star Wars forum you visit.

    That said, I feel it is in the best interest for this site to provide a fair, democratic system for its adherents to enjoy. Elections provide the best way to create such a system.

    Outside of the sock issue, none of the other reasons posted here has much validity. I can only wonder who has a stake in the power structure & what they fear losing.

    Also, our President said he wants to see democracy spread everywhere. I can only assume he means that if we don't hold elections we will be overthrown. The JC occupation is upon us.

    EDIT: Smuggler - Usually 'first of all' denotes the beginning of a series of thoughts. I just thought I'd notify you.
  8. BobTheGoon Moderator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2000
    star 6
    sordidhumor posted on 2/21/05 10:51am

    />

    Apparently you missed the part where KK laid all that out:

    Kimball_Kinnison posted on 2/4/05 8:33pm
    As a moderator, I am not accountable to the users, but to the owners. Why? Because my job as a moderator is not to do what the users want, but to execute the wishes of the owners. Believe me, we are very much accountable to them. I have personally had my actions questioned by the owners on multiple occasions, both publicly (in MS) and privately (via PM and email).

    If moderators were accountable to the users, slash fanfic would be permitted here. It's not. Why? Because the owners want it that way, regardless of what the users may want.

    The list of prohibited words and phrases would be a lot shorter. Again, because the users want it a bit looser than the owners do.

    Many users seem to forget that this is not a democracy, nor is it a republic. This is a oligarchy-based dictatorship. The oligarchs (mods) serve at the behest of the dictators (owners). If the owners decided tomorrow that they wanted to turn this place into a disney theme park, the mods (such as would be remaining) would carry it out, regardless of the will of the users. If you don't like that, you are free to find other boards that operate differently.

    This is the principle of the Free Market in action. The owners are free to do as they wish with these boards, and the users are free to leave them if they wish. The mods are simply the agents of the owners.

    Kimball Kinnison

    />


    So it's not ironic at all, it's fitting./>/>/>/>
  9. Smuggler-of-Mos-Espa Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2002
    star 6
    sordidhumor posted on 2/21/05 11:37am/>

    Nice try, however, I think I made it fairly obvious I didn't want to bother saying anything else to you./>/>
  10. Jesina_Dreis Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 4
    sordidhumor - It hasn't been outright dismissed. It's been talked to death a hundred times before. And Kimball gave a lot of good reasons why it won't worked.


    Jes
  11. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    sordidhumor...
    "That said, I feel it is in the best interest for this site to provide a fair, democratic system for its adherents to enjoy. Elections provide the best way to create such a system."

    The only definition of fairness that applies to this board are the Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct which you agreed to. In case you haven't read them in a while (and under those terms, the very act of posting here is proof that you agreed with them), some fairly relevent points are:
      User acknowledges and agrees that the use of the Jedi Council Forums is a privilege, not a right, and that the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary.
    Several points.

    1. Fairness is not synonomous with democracy. Or, more importantly, democracy has a lot of unfairness inherent to it. Furthermore, you attack people who say its crazy as merely being lazy, but yet you haven't remotely begun to describe how and why an "election is the best way to create such a system," and even why a democratic system is good to have for a private internet message board based on a franchise spawned from a twenty-eight year-old fictional movie, for that matter.

    2. You'd disenfranchise all other "non-adherents" by settling on just one particular narrow scheme favorable to the "adherents." The current scheme is favorable to everyone who agrees to it abd those that don't agree aren't a part of it, so it's fair to them as well.

    3. Furthermore, your idea of "fairness" is not a right. All of your "rights" are clearing outlines in the Terms of Service, which you've agreed to by posting.

    4. Your ideas of what's in the site's best interests are interesting, but you need to also recognize that numerous people with far more experience with the best interests of this site also have ideas of what's in its best interests. They may be different from yours.

    5. If you don't think any of this is "fair," according to your definition, then you should have neither agreed to the Terms of Service nor made use of features of this site. But, that's past. If you really didn't understand that at the time when you read the TOS or made a few posts, then you have at least one way out of the situation that's entirely fair to both the site and its users and yourself: logging off your account.
  12. BobTheGoon Moderator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2000
    star 6
    Damn, Ghengis is a man after my own heart. Ruthless, but utterly truthful and with total conviction [face_devil]
  13. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    We need to remember where that post is for copy and pasting in the future when the same discussion gets started. Very well said :)
  14. sordidhumor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2003
    star 1
    Ghengis: You assume that because I mention fairness in reference to elections that I do not agree with the TOS. That is 1) a paper tiger & easy to refute and 2) incorrect. The TOS is completely necessary in order to maintain order on these boards, is well written, & serves us well.

    The idea of fairness I discussed is not whether or not we have the right to post, or whether or not I log off, it is in reference to who doles out the punishments.

    Also, I had not seen the page with Kimball's post. However, just because we state that this is an oligarchy, doesn't it mean it should be. Because something is, doesn't mean it has to be.

    Things can change, although I must say that Jefferson referenced this point in the Declaration, stating that men will suffer evils while evils are sufferable, as opposed to making marked changes. I suppose the current system is quite sufferable. I've posted here for quite a while & have had no problems.

    But, ask yourself, "is it in the best interest to have an election here?"

    If the answer is yes, I challenge you with finding a way to make it work.

    If the answer is no, then you would have no interest in finding a way to make elections work. You would only find ways to keep elections from working.

    Like I said earlier, I notice a large part of the arguments against elections come from mods, which makes a statement about the power structure.

  15. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Also, I had not seen the page with Kimball's post. However, just because we state that this is an oligarchy, doesn't it mean it should be. Because something is, doesn't mean it has to be.

    Ummm... Yes, it does have to be that way. This is not a publicly owned and operated site. It is a private site. It is controlled completely by the owners. You have no rights here, nor do you get any say in how it is run.

    Things can change, although I must say that Jefferson referenced this point in the Declaration, stating that men will suffer evils while evils are sufferable, as opposed to making marked changes. I suppose the current system is quite sufferable. I've posted here for quite a while &
    have had no problems.


    I'm sorry, but that is one of the most laughable things I have seen in a long time, and I moderate the Senate, so I see some ridiculous comparisons on a daily basis.

    Did you really just try to compare the operation of a private internet message board that refuses to let "the inmates run the asylum" with the oppressive actions of a tyrannical government that was actually violating the rights of many of its citizens? I'm sorry, but not only are you way off base, but you aren't even in the same solar system on that one. Seeing as you have no rights here, only the privileges offered by the owners, you have no rights being infringed.

    But, ask yourself, "is it in the best interest to have an election here?"

    The answer, quite simply, is no. That isn't going to change.

    Why is it not in the best interest to have an election here? Because that would go against the best interests of the ownership, and it is their wants and desires that are the controlling factor here, not yours.

    Kimball Kinnison
  16. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    If the answer is yes, I challenge you with finding a way to make it work.

    Why should we be challenged to do anything ? We've said on countless occasions that we're happy with the current system.

    However, we already have spent considerable time and energy trying to devise a system that would work on these boards. I've also had lengthy discussions with users and other moderators trying to come up with a reasonable solution.

    As yet, we can find absolutely no way to run a bulletproof voting system.

    So, rather than just ask us to create a system to keep you happy, how about you come to us with your solution and we can work through it together.
  17. sordidhumor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2003
    star 1
    Making a comment here (here being the entire JC, not just this thread) is like setting off a shrapnel bomb. Shards fly in every direction. Only rarely will something follow the same trajectory as the original post. Most of the time it is easier to claim the poster said something they did not, or argue against something that someone wishes they said. Some blame television for this lack of attention span. I blame the 3 minute pop song myself, but that's beside the fact.

    The sputtering vehemence to the proposition largely rests on one very big argument.

    This is a private site, and if you don't like it them leave.

    That is a true statement, but it does not proclude any idea of elections. It does not, in and of itself, argue against having elected mods. Note that, just because we have elected politicians, they are still accountable. Elected mods would still be accountable to the owners. No one is saying they wouldn't be.

    I'll post that again in a separate paragraph lest someone does read the last sentences of those.

    No one is saying that elected mods would not be accountable to the ownership of this site.

    Then, what would elected mods do? They would provide a sense of ownership on the site. That doesn't mean we will own the site. (I see someone making a stupid remark about how that's a silly idea, but read through). Rather, it would feel even more like a community. This can be in the best interest of the site because, even after Ep. III, we may continue to come back. That eventuality needs to addressed, as membership will drop off quickly after that event. The owners do still want to make money, do they not?

  18. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    Please answer my query regards how you would run a voting system.

    Secondly, what would you suggest should happen if a candidate is voted in that the owners particularly do not like ?

    Should the owners have final say ? If so, then there is zero point in having an election in the first place.
  19. sordidhumor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2003
    star 1
    Just because the owners have final say would not, necessarily, make the system not work.

    It would provide mods who might not otherwise be given a chance to have the job. As it is now, it it selected by the power structure. That is, essentially, what it would change in terms of schematics.

    If I am not mistaken, mods are chosen by other mods, correct? At the very least, they are vetted by the mods. And if you happened to want to be a mod (why you would, I don't know, but that's beside the point) you could, in theory, put your own name in the hat by contacting one of them. Elections would change that system.
  20. Dingo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    Then, what would elected mods do? They would provide a sense of ownership on the site. That doesn't mean we will own the site. (I see someone making a stupid remark about how that's a silly idea, but read through). Rather, it would feel even more like a community. This can be in the best interest of the site because, even after Ep. III, we may continue to come back. That eventuality needs to addressed, as membership will drop off quickly after that event. The owners do still want to make money, do they not?

    Wonderful rhetoric, but in the end it does nothing to actually add to this thread.

    Regardless of whether or not elected mods are a good or bad thing, the entire arguement is irrelevant if there is no way in which a workable system can be implimented. Some of us have spent 4 years look at and trying to devise various options for it, looking at the pros and cons of systems. And as yet, with as many people who have contributed to this on-again/off-again discussion over the years, nothing remotely implimentable has ever surfaced.

    So basically, I'm with malkie here. If you feel there is such a requirement for elected moderators, don't sit there and pontificate, quoting a piece of paper that holds not a single bit of worth to a decent portion of the population of these boards as if it should explain everything, but put your money where your mouth is, and try coming up with a system. If some of us can come up with mini-essays on the various options available and their advantages and disadvantages, find them in the previous threads on this (linked to throughout every thread that deals with this issue) and use them as starting points for further thought and discussion.
  21. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    To repeat myself for the third time, and to concise Dingo's well made point :- sordidhumor how would you run an election system ?
  22. DarthSapient Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 26, 2001
    star 10
    We do have some precedence set regarding an Election Game and it only validated what we're saying here.
  23. Jesina_Dreis Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 4
    I could be mistaken (haven't been around long enough to know for sure) but as things stand right now, is it acceptable for users to suggest to a mod another user who might make a good mod for the forum they frequent?

    If so, that's a fine way for users to make themselves heard on the issue of who mods should be...and eliminates the troubles associated with elections which would be defunct anyway, since the administration/owners would have to be given final say.

    Malkie - sordidhumor seems to think that it's your job to find a way. :rolleyes:
  24. YodaJeff Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2001
    star 7
    "is it acceptable for users to suggest to a mod another user who might make a good mod for the forum they frequent?"

    Yes. For example, malkie has mentioned numerous times that he is open to suggestions via PM.
  25. Katya Jade Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 19, 2002
    star 7
    Jesina, as Jeff said, it's very welcome for people to suggest users who may make good moderators. We're always on the lookout for mod candidates, but many times a user will suggest someone who we may not have crossed paths with. Actually, FamousAmos is a good example. I'd never interacted with him in threads but his name came up as a candidate. He was evaluated and promoted when we had a need.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.