Public Moderator nominations/voting thread

Which quote do you refer to?

If you are referring to the one that was posted in the Mod Squad update from a couple Sundays ago, I was not the poster of that message. If you are speaking of another message or quote of mine, perhaps you could share it with me.

 

As an AC member, I would question the administration if I noticed the majority of them all voting for the same member, especially if this person didn't recieve very many votes from non-mod sources. However, if the person had the majority of the mod votes, and the majority of the votes from the regular users, then it could be that the person deserves the nominations, and that the MS isn't consipiring.

 

Say someone that the Administration doesn't like getsthe most votes. It's very easy just to take off a few votes from the tally and let the other person win. And I have no doubt that this would occur.

Were the AC to have access to the votes, then vote tampering would be a non-issue. We (as the AC) are not beholden to the administration in any way, and if something on that order did occur, you can be sure I would be the first one out here screaming "corruption" at the top of my lungs.

That being said, I think it is imperative that the votes not be public. If you've ever watched Neck's Mafia game (no offense to Mr. Neck), you see a perfect example of why public voting would not work. People are too easily influenced by the posted votes before them, and would rather be on the popular side than cast an objective vote. Most of us will go to the polls in November (I would hope) and trust that our votes are counted fairly by complete strangers, why should that be any different here, given that a third party (the AC) would have an oversight role?

 

(My previous post has mysteriously disappeared)

Now you're just being partonizing KW. Did I ever say that you said it? No, I just referred to the quote.

it would increase the chances of people campaigning.

Several members on the MS now got there because of campaigning, but I'm not naming any names.

 

Now you're just being partonizing KW. Did I ever say that you said it? No, I just referred to the quote

Really?

Do we all have to be reminded of that infamous quote that you made in the MS KW

 

I appoligize if I am wrong about that, but after all, how can I get my facts straight if the administration were so quick to censor it?

 

"Several members on the MS now got there because of campaigning, but I'm not naming any names."

The way I understand it, they campaigned, and they became a mod. They didn't become a mod because of the campaigning. Campaigning didn't help their chances of becoming a mod. In fact, it probably would have hurt them, had the other mods put that aside and not have picked the most qualified individual for the job.

 

You can question them, fine, but that doesn't change that they have the right to nominate whoever they choose. AC members don't have MS access, so there is no way to know if it was coordinated or coincidental. Moreover, if it was intentional, there are no currently suggested guidelines that forbid it. Mods have the right to nominate, and there is no fair way to restrict how many mods nominate the same person or how many mods can actually submit nominations.


Jim, the only way the AC could act as 'oversight' on the voting would be if the mods all had to vote in an AC board thread. I didn't see that in the suggested plans so far. Did I just miss it, or were you suggesting it?

 

It should never have been there to begin with. Any quotes that are leaked from the MS onto the boards will be removed. That's privacy, among other things.

As far as wrongdoing in the MS is concerned, there are also members in the MS who would speak up if those kinds of things happened. It's not just outside members that are watchful.

 

Again, I love the irony that regular users are wrong in seeking out private mod board info, but JC mods are completely justified in seeking out info from the private boards of reg members.

(Not targetting you specifically, KW.)

 

Yeah...so can we stay on topic? ?

 

"Several members on the MS now got there because of campaigning, but I'm not naming any names."

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with you there, C-L. Having been part of the promotion of some dozen new moderators, as well as a slate of AC members, I can say that campaigning is one of the big negatives against a user. We have in the past shot down great choices because of that. I won't name names so I don't embarrass anyone. Some people overactively help the Administration, sending links by the score each day to mods, in a thinly veiled attempt to get noticed. Others do similar things because they want their forums to be the best. We have to make the call between the two.

 

Jim, the only way the AC could act as 'oversight' on the voting would be if the mods all had to vote in an AC board thread. I didn't see that in the suggested plans so far. Did I just miss it, or were you suggesting it?

Actually I was aiming that statement more at the popular vote idea, but yes, I think it would be imperative that were the MS to pick from the nomintions that the votes be sent to the AC to be tallied. All of the AC members will know who has been nominated and would be able to have some oversight capability regrading the voting. I believe YodaJeff mentioned this earlier, but I may be mistaken.

As far as the administration flooding the nominations goes, that just emphasizes the need for broad participation by the members. With everyone on equal footing, surely 50 mods vs. a few hundred users could be fair.


Up until this point I didn't see any way that a popular vote could work, but the idea of limiting voting privileges to posters with more than 100 or 200 posts would not only eliminate most socks voting, it would also keep voting to members that have been around long enough to have a grasp of the workings of the JC. I'm not saying I advocate popular voting as of yet, but that seems one less hurdle to jump.

Needless to say, we still have a long way to go before a fair and equitable proposal can be offerred, given the number of differring opinions on this subject.

 

I doubt post requirement for voting would work. Especially considering how fast someone can get to a hundred posts. Also, just because someone has posted one or two hundred times doesn't mean they know whats going on with the boards.

Realistically Public voting might be ideal but it is unworkable.

Besides even if they we're voted in the current structure has a good deal of impetus. It would be hard for a few voted in members to make any change in The Way Things Are Done.

Besides, it also doesn't address the issue of those who have the highest authority and yet are also the most isolated from the general members. After all, atleast the mods are chosen from the posters.

 

Currently, here is what I think would be the best method for public voting, based on an idea by Darth_Kevin:

1) The moderators of the forum that needs a new moderator make up a short list of those who we think would make a good moderator and put those 4-5 names on the ballot. This list is checked over by the rest of the Mod Squad to make sure that no one has any serious objections to seeing anyone on the list becoming a moderator. This ensures that no matter who is voted in, it will be someone that Administration considers to be a very good potential moderator.

2) We post a sticky thread in the forum that needs a moderator, telling people that they have twenty four to forty eight hours to sign up to vote. We only allow people with 100+ posts in the given forum and at least one month on the boards the chance to vote. Everyone?s credentials are verified, and we make up a list of those eligible to vote.

3) We announce that voting has begun. Using a sock that the AC has access to, we PM everyone who has signed up to vote. We still allow people who were late to sign up to sign up while voting is going on, but they still need their credentials checked. Voting lasts for forty eight hours. All votes are kept private, sent to the sock that both the AC and the MS have access to. Users will not know who is on the ballot until they get the ballot. Users will be asked not to discussion the voting. If someone comes to us and says that someone was trying to pressure them into voting a given way and we can verify this, the person doing the pressuring will have their vote discounted, and if they were a candidate they?ll be dropped from consideration.

4) Voting closes off, and we count up the votes and see who has the most. Votes wherein someone tried to vote for two people will be discounted. The AC and the MS will tally up independently. If and when we verify that we have the same numbers we send the PM to the candidate offering him/her a moderator position.

However, it looks like the Mod Squad has voted against public voting at this time. The poll isn?t closed yet, but I wouldn?t count on a sudden swing of opinion. It looks like we?ll be returning to the old way to get a new guy for Literature, and TPM as well.

 

1) The moderators of the forum that needs a new moderator make up a short list of those who we think would make a good moderator and put those 4-5 names on the ballot. This list is checked over by the rest of the Mod Squad to make sure that no one has any serious objections to seeing anyone on the list becoming a moderator. This ensures that no matter who is voted in, it will be someone that Administration considers to be a very good potential moderator.

The problem with that is the list is administration choices first, members choices second. What if there's no one on the list the regular members want? That defeats the whole idea. It's been my understanding that the idea behind regular member nominations was so regular members could choose who they want to mod (as much as they can), not so they could choose from who the administration wants to mod.

Amazing.

 

I see very little problem with letting members nominate possible mods.

True some will be stupid nominations (buttsteak for mod!!!111!!!1) but there are enough members who would take it seriously that there would be a goodly number of choices. Furthermore, I just can't see the arguement that the members would pick members who were incapable. IF i may point out the thread about who people thought might be made a mod included a lot of names of people who eventually(and probably will eventually) get stuck drinking from the coloured fountain.

 

Well, Gandolf, I like your suggestion. But if the mods want to go back to the old way of doing things, then so be it. I can live with it.

 

I don't think there should be voting at all, it'd get too screwed up.

But if it wasn't made public, there would be people screaming that the MS changed the vote totals.

But if it WAS public, then there'd be MORE drama, and people buying votes, and people getting angry at each other.

Not to mention, do you really want all these fricking n00bs choosing our next moderator? There are only so many sensibale people at the JC, and they are nowhere NEAR the majority.

Nominations I could understand, but it wouldn't amount to anything more than 'I think my buddy should be a mod', or, God help us, 'I think I should be a mod!!', and then the MS would ignore it.

 

But if it wasn't made public, there would be people screaming that the MS changed the vote totals.

But the AC could police that.


But if it WAS public, then there'd be MORE drama, and people buying votes,--

Buying votes? What a great idea! I'd better set up a bank account for just that! So how much is my vote worth, anyway?

 

In reply to the idea Gandolf has posted by Darth_Kevin. I actually like that idea.

 

Darth_Kevin's idea seems to be the most plausible given the makeup of the boards.

I honestly don't understand why "everything" isn't done in "public." What is the point of maintinaing such secrecy, which inherently creates distrust from the JCers? What do we have at stake that would call for such secrecy to be present? Would we lose money? No. Job opportunities? No. Reputation? Please, on a SW messageboard? If someone is that concerned about a particular online reputation, they have issues, plain and simple. Hurt feelings? Part of life my friend. If getting your feelings hurt on the JC is the worst thing that happens to you, you've got a hell of a lot better life than most of us.

So what's the justification for the secrecy? I don't see any. And honestly, the secrecy also allows for abuses of the "power" mods would have, which we all know gets abused, let's not kid ourselves. Except for a few standout threads, the YJCC is a damn joke and everyone knows it. I'm not a bit surprised people on the mod squad don't want future mod votes to be made in "public." Take away the secrecy, and you take away their biggest ego stroker, which is very sad that people feel like they need that.

I don't know if this post will get me banned or not. All I do know is I've got almost 2100 posts and have never shown one bit of interest in becoming a mod, nor do I want such a "job" in the future. I just want this to be an enjoyable little escape for a few minutes in my day like it has been in the past. I think this place is entirely capable of being fun for everyone, but some people's egos just get in the way, and it should end.