Why isnt there an election on Moderators?

I see so many complaints about this mod or that mod. How come we dont have a term of service (say every year or 2 years) and an election for each forum. Seems like it would work very well as a poll and many of the complaints would actually stop. Admins would be able to respond to the users complaints about unfairness and that the people voted in the Mod and there wouldnt feel like any Bias was brought into the picture when the current admin staff picks a new mod without the community's input. This could work as a poll with out comments so users wouldnt go on a rant on why a mod or mods shouldnt be or should be a mod. The poll could list the current mod staff for that forum, plus add say 5 other canidates they feel is worthy. Just seems like a system like this would stop users from complaining as much and the bashing of the admin team. Just a though.

 

STAR WARS MESSAGE FORUM

 

This has been discussed multiple times before

PS - As head admin, I think Sape should be in charge of the elections!

 

The complaints about mods would persist, since not everyone would see the mod they want elected. It is not the system that is flawed. It's that everyone wants specific people to be mods.

Amazing.

 

Because it would quickly turn intoa popularity contest. We'd have a Fecal mod, 3SA Sarcasm Knight mod, a Slacker Council mod, etc.

 

You can't keep everyone happy, and no matter who you promote at any given them you'll disappoint about half of any given forum.

Election processes don't and won't work, thats been covered many times (but I know you realise that).

I think the idea of "terms" has been suggested before. Many mods don't last one year, let alone two, and I don't think it's fair to out a good mod just because their "term" is over.

No matter who you have moderating this place you are going to have people who disagree with the decisions we make. Typically the bitter-ex mods don't like how the current mods run the place, similarly if one member of a group or game or RPG gets into trouble their friends rally round to support them.

People often complain about their bans, no matter how many times they've been warned and banned in the past, and there's no real remedy for that as long as we have rule breakers.

As long as we have mods we'll have mod complaints

 

Well, the users wouldnt be able to nominate anyone. The admin team can list the current mod team and maybe 5 other users THEY feel will be good for that particular forum and let users decide who they think is the best fit. Sure, it might end up as a popularity contest, but its much better than getting an anouncement that we have a new moderator that no one can understand on why they got chosen.

"Many mods don't last one year, let alone two, and I don't think it's fair to out a good mod just because their "term" is over.
"

If they are good, they will get re-elected in though. The terms I listed was basically just for voting times.

 

The most popular choice isn't always the best choice.

 

Very true, but neither is keeping the same stale bread on the counter the best choice either.

 

And besides it being a popularity contest, you'd never be able to keep everybody from voting with socks, and on top of that, holding elections will only increase drama that harms a community in a process that creates enough drama as it is.

 

I have faith in the administration. Whoever gets picked has my backing, because they have the MS's backing.

EDIT: Also all the other obvious stuff that prevents elections being feasable.

 

If they are good, they will get re-elected in though. The terms I listed was basically just for voting times

That's fair enough - thanks for the clarification.

However as others have said, there is absolutely no way to hold a vote. This has honestly been beaten to death with a stick.

 

This was brought up mere weeks ago, so isn;t due again for another couple of months.

I'm going to lock this up for now.

 

Election, the JC?! They mix as well as peanut butter & car oil.

 

Speaking on a serious note here, I agree completely with k3po. I think elections on moderators would be an excellent idea. Better to let the people decide.

 

and how would you suggest they be run ?

 

The admin team can list the current mod team and maybe 5 other users THEY feel will be good for that particular forum and let users decide who they think is the best fit.

At which point people would inevitably complain about the 5 MS-nominated candidates. It's not the system that's the problem. It's that everyone wants their guy to be a mod because a lot of people seem to think mods are overly biased towards people they don't like.

Amazing.

 

This has been discussed multiple times before

Yes, it has been. Instead of sweeping it under the carpet deal with it. How obvious is it that people are unhappy with the way things are run?

malkie, I've made suggestions in other threads on this subject on how to do an election and all that happens is people come in and shoot holes in the ideas. Instead of just shooting them down, why not try to find a way to make it work?

 

As Jeff mentioned, this has beeb discussed repeatedly over the past several years, and the end result has always been to keep the status quo, though I'd say the MS has sometimes learned things along the way (helping to improve the election process).

The JC Election game (obligatory mention) showed what can happen with a large-scale election on the JC.

I suggest reading through past discussion on this issue to see that while the people interested in elections have changed, the words and posts have remained pretty similar (regardless of the year).

How obvious is it that people are unhappy with the way things are run?

Who's unhappy, and why? Looking into the details of people who are unhappy with the system and/or the moderators can reveal a lot sometimes. That's not to say complaints are always baseless (sometimes they have do have merit). It's just that if you look back over the past several years, I think you'll find that it's pretty much the same sort of people who are unhappy with certain things (like moderator elections), usually accompanied by similar complaints and reasoning for them. There are exceptions and some genuinely original and/or thoughtful concerns that are raised, but more often than not, it's just a rehash of the past.

A look back in old Communications threads is the best evidence for that, I think.

 

Amazing, I see your point, but its just like Bush v Kerry. Heck, both pretty muched sucked, but one did end up as my countries leader and I support him. Atleast I did have a choice instead of not. Many people really like this place and I think instead of just brushing it off as just another idea THAT CAN NEVER WORK, lets try and improve it here. Many are not happy for many reasons. The ADMIN team can nominate new users up to 5 just for a # along with the current mod members and if the same mods are chosen. Atleast the users voted for who they want and another election wont happen for another year or 2. Personally this wouldnt take much effort or time to set up. Only thing that might take time is for the admin team to decide who else they want on a ballot for that forum. Again, a poll could be made that doesnt allow posts so no one can bitch and moan if they see their guy losing. They place in their vote and move on.

 

I've made suggestions in other threads on this subject on how to do an election and all that happens is people come in and shoot holes in the ideas. Instead of just shooting them down, why not try to find a way to make it work?

If an idea is being presented, why shouldn't we point out the holes in it big enough to fly an X-Wing through? Personally I'm all for people trying to find a better way to hone the moderator selection process, but just saying that it needs to change, and giving only broad-stroke ideas deserves the response of "read the past threads on this that reached 300-400 posts" since it means that the same ground isn't covered again and again.

Just because someone wants something to change and gives an idea, it doesn't mean there is an obligation from anyone, admin or member, to have to "find a way to make it work". If people who do want to see the process change do want to find ways to work through an idea, good for them. If people though who don't think that the idea being presented is a good one, or a step forward, then they have just as much right to tear it apart if they so choose.

 

Many are not happy for many reasons.

Can you prove this? Of the thousands of users registered here, how many is "many"?

 

"Instead of just shooting them down, why not try to find a way to make it work?"

have you considered the ideas are stupid and realistically unworkable?

 

Instead of sweeping it under the carpet deal with it. How obvious is it that people are unhappy with the way things are run?

We are "dealing" with it - we listen to everything and are more than happy to modify our system should something improved and bulletproof be suggested.

people come in and shoot holes in the ideas.

No-one "shoots holes" in ideas, they just point out the fundamental flaws in the voting election concept. The proof that a voting system will never, ever work here was shown beyond a shadow of a doubt in the JC Election.

why not try to find a way to make it work?

I've thought, and I've thought again, and have been unable to come up with any suggestion that might actually work.

How about you suggest a bulletproof system ? That was the challenge last time this idea was floated, and no-one ever came back with anything. There was lots of talk, and even a promise that one user was going to come up with a master plan, but sadly it was never presented.

We're happy with the system we have. The vast majority of the JC are happy. Some people are unhappy with the current system, but we simply cannot keep everyone happy.

Although we like the current system, we're happy to improve it, but it's not going to change because a few people in Comms want it to. However, you come up with a system that keeps absolutely every happy, and we'll run with it.

And a final point would be the repetition that the most popular candidate is not always the best candidate as was previously demonstrate rather well by a few popular candidates.

Seriously though, come up with something that will keep everyone happy, and we'll be happy to have a really good look at it.

 

Again, a poll could be made that doesnt allow posts so no one can bitch and moan if they see their guy losing. They place in their vote and move on.


<b>k3po</b>, how would you prevent users from posting with socks? What about users who post from an aol host(that can be more difficult to determine their socks) or users posting off of proxy servers? It would be at best very difficult to prevent or minimize sock voting.

Also, even if we didn't allow posts on the poll, that doesn't prevent people from complaining and causing trouble if the candidate that they like loses in other threads and forums. Also, having candidates announced in public will create hard feelings, if not between the candidates themselves, then certainly by the people who support those candidates.

And the most important issue(to me), is that if you let the public decide you can't ensure that the <u>best</u> candidate for the job is being promoted. And it's not like users don't have a voice, I know that in the JCC we'll accept and consider user nominated candidates. And really, as <b>zacparis</b> asked, are that many users <i>really</i> unhappy with the way things are now? The truth is, we'll never please everyone. Never. But we do the best we can, and for now, at least, I think(note: this is my opinion only) it's the best solution we have.