Public Moderator nominations/voting thread

This is a continuation of the old thread. Feel free to place your plans, ideas an thoughts about nominating or voting in moderators.

Due to the new thread on this same issue, I'm locking this one. PM me with any concerns.

 

I'll re-post my thoughts from the MS Update thread here, since I think my original intention got lost shortly after I posted it.

How about trying to utilize the Advisory Council in the mod-nominating process?

Regular users can PM an AC member, stating who they think would make a good moderator. The AC would compile a list, and this list would be given to the Mod Squad. This way, it would be harder for regular users to claim that this is just a diversionary tactic, meant to make it look like the moderators care what we think, while the mods will just vote in whoever they want anyways. This would use checks and balances. The AC would be there to make sure that the mod chosen was nominated by a regular user. If the nominations are sent to The_Modfather, then there isn't really a way to prove that someone was actually nominated by a regular user, and that the mods didn't just pick whoever they wanted anyways.

Perhaps the AC could compile a list of who the regular users nominated. From there, they could get rid of some of the candidates who either wouldn't do a good job, or were just nominated by a friend. They could trim it down to 5-10 contendants, who would then be given to the Mod Squad to decide. This way, all three groups would have a say. The regular users would be able to make nominations. The Advisory Council would be able to pick out the best of those who were nominated, and the Mod Squad would get to pick the individual from the list the AC gives them.

In essence, the Advisory Council would be able to do what it is intended to do: advise the Mod Squad on what the regular users want.

Let me know what your thoughts on this matter are. I feel that a system that would let all three groups (MS, AC, regular users) work "together" would be the best option.

 

OK, I'll restate my view.

We've basically agreed that voting and nominating moderators based entirely on user input is not feasible. Therefore, I say that the nomination section of the moderator-election process should be controlled by the General membership, and let the Administration choose from the nominees. This can be done in two ways:

1.) When a new moderator is needed, create a thread in the respective forum. Allow users 5 days to nominate who they think would make a good moderator. Make sure that the users nominating are not socks, have been here for a stipulated time and don't nominate themselves. Additionally, impose harsh penalties on anyone who is caught campaigning.

2.) The Advisory Council creates a sock, and the Administration creates a thread in the respective forum telling users to send their nominations to the AC sock. (Note: Only the AC has the login for the sock, not the administration). After about 5 days, the AC takes the nominations and presents them to the Administration to make a judgement on. Additionally, the nominations will also be posted in the public thread, so that we may have a clear idea of who exactly was nominated.

I do not want a situation in which the General Membership privately PMs nomination to the administration. We would have no way of knowing who was nominated, and, additionally, there would be nothing to prevent the administration from promoting someone that they feel is right but wasn't nominated - which would defeat the whole purpose of this scheme. Another point to consider is the scenario in which the admininstration receives nominations that are entirely unsuitable. In this case, the admininistration could promote another, but they would have to provide clear and justifiable reasons why the nominees were not suitable. I feel this would happen very, very rarely.

 

Here are my thought on this.

If the regular JC population were to nominate moderators then it would turn into a popularity contest, not picking the right person for the job. I really wouldn't want to see this happen for the pure fact that it will turn member against member and more clicke's(sp?) will start up. There have and always will be problems with the administration from the members side of things, that's how politics work.

When the administration does it's searches for new mods we don't pick our friends, or atleast I don't, I vote for the person that is most qualified for the position. When a potential moderator is nominated by a mod from a forum that I don't frequent I trust that person's judgement and if I am not familiar with that person I do some checking up on the person.

Just my 2 cents..

 

Question, how exactly is the voting process for mods made? Is there a list to choose from and a basic synopsis of the member? Or is it something else? I curious as to this since some mods do not know some of the members who've been nominated if they frequent different forums and don't keep track of the others.

 

If the regular JC population were to nominate moderators then it would turn into a popularity contest, not picking the right person for the job.

How do you know? There's no logical or conclusive way that you can make that statement; it may happen or it may not. I think the only way to know for certain is to trial it.

 

How do you know? There's no logical or conclusive way that you can make that statement; it may happen or it may not. I think the only way to know for certain is to trial it.


It's a pure given. Even I know that and I'm not even a moderator.

 

The mods of their designated forum have the best leads for new moderators choices. Other mods will chime in their thoughts as well as suggest other members for consideration. There's a lot of discussion about pros and cons among the different moderator choices and then we go from there.

 

It's a pure given.

It's not a pure given and there is no way you can make that statement. If you're going to use absolutist terms like that at least back them up with a logical argument.

 

How do I know this? My thinking is there are certain groups of the JC like the Blue Yoda Society. That groups votes "X" amount of times for a user they predetermined everyone vote for via email or another messageboard. This person would thus make it as a moderator because of the popularity contest.

 

I see...well that makes sense. Why does this need to be a public thing though? Yeah, I see the reasoning, but the JC isn't exactly known for acting democratically.

It's not a pure given and there is no way you can make that statement. If you're going to use absolutist terms like that at least back them up with a logical argument

It is a pure given, everyone knows that the cliques want to have their say and so the moderator elected will return the favor as it were. This will come in the form of not banning members of that group, or letting them slide when they write pornographic stories (which has happened) in their thread.

 

First off, I don't totally like the idea of having the nominations totally out in the open in a thread. And that's not because I'm a mod, it's something that I've thought even when something like this was brought up back when I was a regular member.

The other thing I have to say for the moment is why can the current moderators not put in names of people to be nominated?

 

Blanket statements make the baby Jesus cry.

Nobody has ANY proof of what will and what won't work, not until it is tried. That assumption is totally off base and continues the attitude that the Administrations opinions are better than regular memebers because you are basically saying we would nominate based on popularity but they would nominate based on reason.

 

The other thing I have to say for the moment is why can the current moderators not put in names of people to be nominated?

This is what I said in the other thread:

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?

 

Blanket statements make the baby Jesus cry.

Good for them.

Nobody has ANY proof of what will and what won't work, not until it is tried. That assumption is totally off base and continues the attitude that the Administrations opinions are better than regular memebers because you are basically saying we would nominate based on popularity but they would nominate based on reason.

It's not based on the assumption that the moderators' choices are better than regular member's opinions. I think you're fishing on that issue. Actually I have it on good authority that most mods can make reasonable decisions without putting their personal feelings into their actions. For example I'm DA's friend, or I'd like to consider myself one, but I have been banned by him. Did he put his moderating duties ahead of his personal feelings? Yes, he acted as any moderator should. This idea of cliques polling and telling people who to vote for can and will happen. Even the mafia game is not free of such petty actions. I'm not too confident in regular member opinions when it comes to moderators. Since everyone will be trying to get a nomination.

 

Simply put, the circumstances surrounding a PM nomination are unique, and you can?t relate that to your observations regarding the JC ?cliques?, even though you may see them as being connected in some way. Personally, I believe that nominations can be done in a mature manner, and you obviously don?t, but you can?t say for certain until it happens. So stop using those ?blanket statements?.

 

In short, some people would do it in a mature and reasonable fashion, and some people would be immature about it. It wouldn't be one way or the other.

 

F_I_D... again, that is not the point. I'm glad they can make good decisions without putting personal feelings in the way. That's good to know. With regards to that, I say let them have a say as well. But why can we not also? I'm not "fishing," I merely think that it is highbrow nature to think that a group of people (mods) are more capable than another group (regular users) when it comes to nominating or even voting on mods. There is a legitimate claim to Rox's idea that the BYS may gang up, but then again they may not. We never know. The point is that unless it has been put into effect beforehand and failed, it should not be shot down without serious consideration.

Edit: I agree Knight. But that's the way it is with most things now a days, and I'd certainly like to have some sort of say than nothing at all.

 

F_I_D... again, that is not the point. I'm glad they can make good decisions without putting personal feelings in the way. That's good to know. With regards to that, I say let them have a say as well. But why can we not also?


It could be because some members will let their own personal feelings interfere with their choices. Would you really want a purist member of the now locked MJHC to be moderating the EUC?

I'm not "fishing," I merely think that it is highbrow nature to think that a group of people (mods) are more capable than another group (regular users) when it comes to nominating or even voting on mods.

The moderators who nominate people for promotion to modship have usually been a mod for a while and know what to look for. Regular members, while capable of doing such a thing also do not know how members will react when their choice becomes a mod. How many people have we known who've said "If I become a mod, I'm gonna ban so-and-so"? I've known quite a few.

There is a legitimate claim to Rox's idea that the BYS may gang up, but then again they may not. We never know. The point is that unless it has been put into effect beforehand and failed, it should not be shot down without serious consideration.

Why let one person become a bad moderator who puts personal feelings first and moderating duties second? What will it take before this becomes a 'bad' idea? When a moderator who was elected starts banning people they don't like? Or when they start flaming people who have legitimate gripes? When does this idea become bad? And do we really wanna find out if it is a mistake or not?

 

So Mik, you want to remove the chance that even if the public nominates a large number of users, the Mod Squad doesn't just throw in one or two nominations, and they are the ones who get it?

Okay.

But if we were to ask the JCC population right now for nominations for a JCC mod, I'm willing to bet a rather large sum of money that all of the people that we culled down for final consideration are going to be nominated. How does this affect things?

The way I put it to the Mod Squad, was that we'd be letting everyone have the chance to help in deciding on new moderators in some sense at least, and at the same time, supplimenting the names in the pool since it's human nature to forget names at times.

 

How do I know this? My thinking is there are certain groups of the JC like the Blue Yoda Society. That groups votes "X" amount of times for a user they predetermined everyone vote for via email or another messageboard. This person would thus make it as a moderator because of the popularity contest.

We may follow the buddy system in the BYS, but at least more people would have a say and it doesn't stop other people from voting for the same person we vote for. This was the same BS argument that was used before we had the icon uploaded. It wouldn't be a private matter like it is now.

 

My post wasn't meant to be a hit on your group, it was just the only social thread I could remember the name for at the time. My thinking goes for all other social threads as well.

 

Simply put, the circumstances surrounding a PM nomination are unique, and you can?t relate that to your observations regarding the JC ?cliques?, even though you may see them as being connected in some way. Personally, I believe that nominations can be done in a mature manner, and you obviously don?t, but you can?t say for certain until it happens. So stop using those ?blanket statements'

I may see them as being connected in some way? Hmm.....I may also see a bird poop on a car. But the two are connected, right?
While I don't have facts to back what I say, I'm fairly good judging reactions of people.
As to blankey statements. I'm not making blanket statements. It's not even cold here! What I'am doing is basing my opinion on logic and what I've seen throughout the message boards on several other places. Blanket statements....kinda makes ya think warm fuzzy feelings, doesn't it? So where's the bad part?

 

Would you really want a purist member of the now locked MJHC to be moderating the EUC?

First of all a purist would never moderate the EU forum. Second I wouldn't care since I don't venture into there, I would leave the voting for that forum up to those who frequent it since they would know who would be a good mod and who wouldn't.

Regular members, while capable of doing such a thing also do not know how members will react when their choice becomes a mod. How many people have we known who've said "If I become a mod, I'm gonna ban so-and-so"? I've known quite a few.

Anyone who has said anything remotely close to that would not be voted in. Period. The regular members have more brains than that. And do you not think that current admins hold grudges? Because I'm sure there are quite a lot of people they would ban if they could. But they cannot? Why? Because they would no longer be a mod if they didn't something so totally stupid. So that point is moot.

Why let one person become a bad moderator who puts personal feelings first and moderating duties second? What will it take before this becomes a 'bad' idea? When a moderator who was elected starts banning people they don't like? Or when they start flaming people who have legitimate gripes? When does this idea become bad? And do we really wanna find out if it is a mistake or not?

I'm not totally clear on what you are trying to say here. But I'll try to let you understand my original intentions anyway. No one is saying that letting users vote would work. It might not. It might turn into a popularity contest. But I and a few others believe that there are enough level-headed, intelligent users that could make just as good of a decision on who should be a mod over a paticular forum as any mod or admin could. Why? Because a user who frequents said forum would know what needs that forum has and what person would adequately be able to suit those needs. If a mod was elected and abused power, they should be replaced. Wouldn't be the first time a mod went overboard, and the risk of that happening lies in both regular member voting and mod-only voting.

 

How about for a second we try and forget about the whole "popularity" issue? Yes, it is an issue. But if this idea isn't left out of the way for at least a second, it'll be harder for new ideas to be let in.