Why isnt there an election on Moderators?

Okay, I thought so.

Seems to me that that's a much better way of people having input into who becomes mods than trying to run elections.

 

I encourage folks to send me PM's of users they feel would make a good moderator should a position become available.

 

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.

Convenient that you've decided that the only good answer to your question is the one that agrees with you. Elections can only work when everyone who participates takes it seriously. Seeing as how this is an internet message board primarily about a movie, that won't be happening. Popularity contest + socks + cross-forum voting = pointless exercise.

For additional references, please read up on the JC Election game/debacle.

Amazing.

 

Could a simple poll be used that would lock out any usernames that had not been logged into for a certain amount of time, & not allowing any new users that were created within a certain amount of time?

EDIT: There'd be some sock use, but hopefully it wouldn't be much, not too much to warrant invalidating the system.

 

Technical reasons are a problem, but it's far from the only one.

Simply put, it's not going to happen (for a variety of reasons). The possibilities have been discussed for many years, and the same conclusions are always reached (either by a gradual dissipation of discussion or posts in writing by the administration).

It makes for interesting discussion, but that's about as far as it should or will go.

That's just my take, of course, but I'm pretty sure it matches reality here.

 

sordidhumor posted on 2/23/05 1:11pm

---

Could a simple poll be used that would lock out any usernames that had not been logged into for a certain amount of time, & not allowing any new users that were created within a certain amount of time?

EDIT: There'd be some sock use, but hopefully it wouldn't be much, not too much to warrant invalidating the system.
[hr][/blockquote]

If thats what you think then you obviously didn't take these people's advice and read through previous threads on the subject.

 

sordidhumor - People use their socks - that's why they have them. And a lot of people have old socks. Your idea wouldn't be very useful...even if it was POSSIBLE, which it may not be.

Before you make any more suggestions, you really should go and look at other threads about this. Can almost promise you, anything you suggest has likely been brought up.


Jes

 

Don't fault me for making a suggestion, I was challenged to. I don't even think I was told to come up with an original one.

 

Could a simple poll be used that would lock out any usernames that had not been logged into for a certain amount of time, & not allowing any new users that were created within a certain amount of time?

No, it wouldn't work. Firstly for the obvious technical limitations, but secondly because so many people have active 3rd or 4th accounts. Infact, many people in the JCC have as many as 10 active sock accounts.

Many people in the RPG forums have active socks, but conversely users from the collecting forum typically only have a single account. So yes, there would be a huge influence from sock accounts which would invalidate the poll.

Finally, where do you draw the line ? What defines a new user ? What defines a minimum number of posts ? How would you factor in a lurker who has posted 300 times since 1998 versus a JCC spammer who has 1,000 posts since the start of Feb ?

As others have pointed out, you obviously haven't taken the time to read the previous threads on the subject, as everything you've suggested has been covered at length before.

I don't even think I was told to come up with an original one.

um, why would anyone want you to come up with a non-original idea at this point ?

 

Because, for me, it is a starting point & I am not aware of the original or non-original natures of my posts.

It would discriminate against new posters, but I do not think that is necessarily bad. Those who post actively are much more likely to have an interest in who is a mod than who isn't.

A 500 post minimum, with the caveat that those users must not have received any infractions, might work. Convicted felons can't vote. Repeatedly banned people shouldn't either. I know, I would be excluded. Eh. If some people have active socks that have more than 500 posts, but have not had any infractions, they deserve to have more of a vote than others. They've worked for it.

 

If some people have active socks that have more than 500 posts, but have not had any infractions, they deserve to have more of a vote than others. They've worked for it.

So you value spammers over steady posters ? Wouldn't that encourage people to post wildly with socks to get more votes ?

 

Because, for me, it is a starting point & I am not aware of the original or non-original natures of my posts.

That is why people keep asking you to go back and read the previous discussions. Use those ideas (and their counterpoints) as a basis for discussion, rather than simply retreading the same old ground.

A 500 post minimum, with the caveat that those users must not have received any infractions, might work. Convicted felons can't vote. Repeatedly banned people shouldn't either. I know, I would be excluded. Eh. If some people have active socks that have more than 500 posts, but have not had any infractions, they deserve to have more of a vote than others. They've worked for it.

Earlier in this thread, I gave two basic criteria that any sort of election system would need to have. They were:

1. A manner to prevent fraud
2. Simple, low-impact, and low-manpower implementation. It can't significantly increase the workload for the moderators.

Your suggestion might cover criteria 1, but it doesn't come close to meeting criteria 2.

We couldn't automate it, because some people have been banned dozens of times because of games, like Mafia, the Gauntlet, Trivia Contests, and the like. An automatic system would not be able to differentiate between bans, and so it would require manual approval of each voter. This would significantly increase the moderator workload.

The simplest method (least workload) would to simply have a poll, but that would essentially invalidate criteria #1. However, as you increase the security against fraud, you make it more complex, and invalidate criteria #2. Until you can provide an adequate balance between the two, elections remain unworkable.

Kimball Kinnison

 

sordidhumor posted on 2/23/05 2:15pm

---

Because, for me, it is a starting point & I am not aware of the original or non-original natures of my posts.

It would discriminate against new posters, but I do not think that is necessarily bad. Those who post actively are much more likely to have an interest in who is a mod than who isn't.

A 500 post minimum, with the caveat that those users must not have received any infractions, might work. Convicted felons can't vote. Repeatedly banned people shouldn't either. I know, I would be excluded. Eh. If some people have active socks that have more than 500 posts, but have not had any infractions, they deserve to have more of a vote than others. They've worked for it.
[hr][/blockquote]

By that reasoning rich people should have more votes than poor people in elections, since they pay more taxes. It doesn't work like that. People would be up in arms because someone who sits and spams is "rewarded" with more votes than they are, or someone like Sapient or Bib Fortuna would be discriminated against because they keep their 50,000 posts under one name.

Also, there is absolutely no way to realisitically check every person who votes for "infractions" on their records. Elections would last for 6 months while a mod was designated with the sole job of doing background checks.

Logitically it just can't work.

 

sordidhumor...
"It would discriminate against new posters..."

If discrimination isn't bad per se, then would you have a problem if the administration went with your idea, but only allowed those users who registered between say, September and December of 1999 to vote?

 

I didn't take the time to read all of this, but the only way I can think for an election to work is for whoever is overall in charge of the boards to e-mail a ballot to anyone who's been around for at least a year and has X amount of posts.

 

Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

 

Only ex-mods should be able to choose the new mods. That's really the only fair way to do things.

 

I agree.

 

while you're at it...play Rock, Paper, Scissors or flip a coin.

 

We don't flip coins; we flip newbies.

 

Yes...your court case is next week, isn't it?

 

Or so I've heard.

 

Its the senate and you will change the system now!

 

It's the Senate and we will change the system now? Well, uh, I've not seen many Senators with the power to make such a command.

 

This board is worse then the empire. At least in the empire you had a fair chance of getting promoted.

Sith Historian