Why isnt there an election on Moderators?

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?

Most of the time, this sort of complaint comes up because a group of users don't like a particular moderator (often because that moderator has had to take some sort of action against them that they felt was "unfair").

For example, one of the common complaints is that some moderators give out excessive bans, such as banning someone for 2 weeks or a month because they posted a mild flame. They will complain that other people get lesser bans for the same offense, or don't get banned at all.

What they often fail to realize is that:

1) They don't always know if someone else has been banned. I remember one case that I banned two people in the Senate for going at each other's throats in every thread, and I spent about an hour responding to unban requests from both of them accusing me of bias because I was letting the other guy off. Since we don't discuss bans with other users, both simply assumed that I did nothing to the other person.

2) We take a user's history into account. Usually, this means that a new ban takes roughly double the length of the previous ban (depending on how recent it is and the exact offense). That means that while one user involved in an incident gets only 24 hours (as a first offense), another might get a month (because of a long history of recent offenses).

3) We're all human. We make the best judgement call we can at the time. In some cases, this means that a user gets a lighter sentence that other times, or depending on the specific mod. In general, when a mod feels that a harder sentence is needed, the users claim that it is "unfair", or "biased".

This isn't "sweeping it under the carpet" by any means. It is simply the best system that we have been able to develop under the direction of the owners. Remember, it's their message board. We onlhy try to keep it running within the parameters that they give us.

Kimball Kinnison

 

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.

I don't think a mod election can ever work. It will be a popularity contest, people will still be upset if their friends aren't nominated, any public voting will result in campaigning and likely some bitterness on the part of the losers.

The only real change regarding the mod selection process I'd like to see is some sort of public audit (through some sort of council of advising members or some such) so the members can be sure that any nominations they send along to the administration (which, at last check, they freely accept) will be fairly considered.

Amazing.

 

"k3po, how would you prevent users from posting with socks?"

Well you cant, but you guys allow socks anyways.

 

I'm tempted to start a poll on this...

 

k3po: Thankfully, those socks have no say in who becomes a mod.

 

k3po posted on 2/2/05 5:12pm

---

Well you cant, but you guys allow socks anyways.
[hr][/blockquote]

Yes, but it wouldn't be fair to allow socks to vote for a moderator, would it?

Edit:
Damn you Hawk!

 

"Well you cant, but you guys allow socks anyways. "

And you think if people make socks, they have more say in who becomes a mod?

 

Not sure how the topic of banned users got into this subject since I dont think thats the issue here. Sure some users get upset about bans and get upset at a mod, but thats the job.
As for voting to refresh the scenery, thats my point. I personally think we already have cases where Mods/admins are friends with users on other boards and I think thats why many users I've talked to want to see things improve due to them thinking they dont get a fair shake. I do have proof that Mods here talk with non-mod members about trouble users and issues, but if I posted it, I would just make myself look bad and thats not my intent to make anyone look bad. So I wont go there. I would just like to see an effort for change for the better. I think everyone has great points and thats all I wanted from this thread was to toss ideas out. Thanks

 

I personally think we already have cases where Mods/admins are friends with users on other boards and I think thats why many users I've talked to want to see things improve due to them thinking they dont get a fair shake.

All mods have friends, whether they be with on board groups or cliques or off boards. You can't expect a good candidate to not be considered just because s/he is friends with some moderators. Also, I don't think that(in my experience) moderator's friends have gotten unfair consideration.

 

Inappropriate

 

Taken from the very first post:

the current admin staff picks a new mod without the community's input.

I'll point this out again, like I did in the last three thread about this.

If you have a suggestion about someone you think would be good as a mod, then pm a moderator who will take their name into the modsquad.

Malkie is famous for accepting suggestions from users and I know alot of the mods will listen to your imput.

Summed up, the point that gets brought up is that the users get no say as to who becomes a mod. That's not correct. A user simply has to press the 'Send PM' button and they can have their input heard.

 

So why not jsut say you want Malkie un-modded, instead of poorly disguining it, and (no doubt) denying it?

 

So why not jsut say you want Malkie un-modded, instead of poorly disguining it,

Actually, there are a couple of forums that could use a 'shake up', but most people have just thrown their hands up in apathy. Just because k3po is the user who had the hutzpa to actually bring it up doesn't mean that the issue should be brushed aside on the assumption that it's only the JCC that's an issue.

 

The issue was holding elections to decide mods, which has been proven many times to be a bad idea. Plenty of users have the chutzpah to insult mods they don't like, that doesn't make them right.

 

OK, I really think you guys should look at the broader picture. Not everyone who thinks there's an issue here is 'out to insult mods' or is brandishing a torch for one mod or another.

Honestly, if you guys are going to act like every time a poster brings up the idea that not all mods are effective that there is a mob lynching in the works, you'll never get honest feedback and opinions.

 

The problem is that, for each complaint that a user makes public about a mod, we see a number of reasons why that mod was promoted in the first place.

Regardless, this thread is not about users having problems with specific mods, it's about a specific method of choosing moderators.

 

Ideas aren't dismissed simply because they criticize the current system, or because they have suggestions of ways to improve the JC.

Instead of acting like they're getting lynched every time an idea is turned down, perhaps users should look at the reasons why it's turned down - it's been discussed before, no new ideas are presented, and it has been proven in the past that the suggestion wouldn't work.

 

k3po...
"Well you cant, but you guys allow socks anyways."

Do you at least understand the difference between allowing people to have fun with alternate screennames in posting with threads, or having an alternate method to consult with the administration if their main screenname lacks access versus a corruption of your proposed moderator promotion process?

There's too many members to make corrective actions to fix the sock problem. It would drop an unworkable process on the site's administration for no good reason.

 

Jeff, everytime a user posts a thread about this out people come in and say:

This has been discussed here , and here and again here . Refer to your first post in the thread.

Again, this gets brought up not just because of bans. There is alot more to moderating than just banning people. Threads being locked, posts being editted, pictures being removed are also mod issues that get users upset because they see a thread that is inappropriate and yet it is allowed to stay open or they see a comment that is inappropriate and it is allowed to stand.

Bottom line, this isn't just a YJCC problem or issue.

 

Hey, I brought up a suggestion. If you dont like it, fine. No skin off my back. Lets just keep doing the same stale crap year in and year around here. Man, besides a few, everyone gets all defensive if someone even makes a statement. Good God.


BTW, no this isnt about any one Mod, its about the system. Trying to get fresh idea's in the group. But everyone is so entrenched in the way things have been, that any idea's anyone toss's out if just thrown out the window.

 

"Lets just keep doing the same stale crap year in and year around here."

Like suggesting the same things that have been suggested month after month, without any new groundbreaking ideas as to how to actually do it?

 

Thats why its being brought up again. Everyone jumps on the bad wagon saying it cant be done. instead, we should all be putting our heads together to try and make it work. Not saying my way is right, but no one even chats here to look at the bigger picture. Isnt that what Comms are about? Heck, atleast yusers post in here and actually care. But not sure why, all they do is get locked and belittled.

EDit: I'm tired, I'm going to bed.

 

"Thats why its being brought up again."

That doesn't make any sense. If someone has a new idea, they could easily post it in one of the existing threads, or start a new thread about it. I don't see the logic in continuing to bring something up that has been proven not to work in the past, without some sort of new idea of how it could be implemented differently.

"Everyone jumps on the bad wagon saying it cant be done. instead, we should all be putting our heads together to try and make it work."

Most Comms regulars have thought about the issue the first ten times it was suggested. Perhaps they're all out of ideas. Also, just because someone has an idea, that doesn't mean that everyone has to try to find a way to make it work. The existing system could be just fine as is, or with minor tweaks.

"Not saying my way is right, but no one even chats here to look at the bigger picture."

Um, what exactly is the bigger picture in this case? Is this thread about moderator elections or not?

"Isnt that what Comms are about?"

Yeah, it's a place to post your ideas. But there are no guarantees that every idea will be universally embraced and accepted. Sometimes, just sometimes, there are bad ideas.

Edit:
"This has been discussed here , and here and again here . Refer to your first post in the thread."

Yes, it's been discussed before, and the answers and counter-arguments to everything that has been brought up so far can be found in those threads.

"Again, this gets brought up not just because of bans. There is alot more to moderating than just banning people. Threads being locked, posts being editted, pictures being removed are also mod issues that get users upset because they see a thread that is inappropriate and yet it is allowed to stay open or they see a comment that is inappropriate and it is allowed to stand."

Having moderator elections is very unlikely to solve those issues, but it IS likely to cause many more problems and issues. Also, just because a user disagrees with a mod doesn't mean that the mod is bad, or even that they're wrong.

 

Jeff is right, k3po. This idea has come up alot, and it's been discussed in some cases to many many pages, and no good, feasible way of working it has come up. If anyone has a feasible solution, I'd be all for it. Heck, I'm open to suggestions to improve the process we have now. But based on what's been proposed, I personally think what he have now is the best working solution.

 

Again, this gets brought up not just because of bans. There is alot more to moderating than just banning people. Threads being locked, posts being editted, pictures being removed are also mod issues that get users upset because they see a thread that is inappropriate and yet it is allowed to stay open or they see a comment that is inappropriate and it is allowed to stand.

malkie and I used bans as examples only. We didn't say that those were the only causes of such feelings. In fact, they are only one of the more common ones.

I have to struggle hard to think of a single moderating action that I've taken (outside of dealing with blatant trolls) that has pleased everyone involved (except the trolls ). It's common that when I lock a thread, I get at least one PM complaining about it. If I warn a thread in general, I get complaints about it (usually people getting defensive and pointing fingers at the other guy). If I edit a post (even for something as small as fixing a link) I get complaints.

No one is going to be happy with every moderator action. Part of the problem is that most people don't really notice the ones that have a positive effect as much as those with a perceived negative effect.

An example of this is one individual in one of the old Gun Control threads in the Senate. I gave a mild warning to that individual not to call other users crazy, lunatics, etc. Since then, that user has regularly accused me of being heavily biased against him because of his political views. Never mind that on both the pages before and after that warning, I edited, warned, and banned users for attacking him. To this day, he almost completely ignores the positive actions I took and focuses only on the negative ones.

The key is to remember that your perception of what is happening is not the truth, and that perception often distorts the real events.

Kimball Kinnison