Moderator elections

[TopWargamer]

Quite a few members on here clearly have a problem with some of the moderators on the forum. So I have a simple solution that will fix this problem without making any 1 person feel guilty. So here's how I plan to do it, er well, here's what I would like to happen.

 

@Slick

@LinusTech

 

Currently there are 8 moderators (NOT including admins). So let's make 8 the max amount of moderators, for this example, of course. As the forum continues to grow, we will obviously need more moderators. So with moderator elections, there will be a max of 8 mods. These 8 mods will serve for 3 month terms. Not too long, not too short.

 

What if some of the moderators are good?

I'm glad that you asked.

 

When the time comes around for a new moderator election, the current moderators will all be listed on a poll, and members will vote for the moderators who have done a good job during their 3 month term. The 3 moderators (this number will go up as the forum grows) with the highest amount of votes stay for another 3 month term, while the rest get the boot.

 

Now there are 5 slots open.

 

How will we select new moderators?

In a much better way than that of now.

 

As I said before, there are now 5 open slots. Linus or Slick would make a thread with a list of members that they think should be moderators. To get the best results possible, if there is a cap on the poll voting options, it would be nice to max out the cap each time. So at the end of the voting period, the 5 members with the highest votes will become moderators for the next 3 months.

 

So can members who have already been moderators, and were then kicked, become moderators again?

Of course.

 

How it would work is that if somebody was a moderator, got the boot, they would not be eligible in the next moderator election, but the one after that, they would be eligible for it.

 

So at this point, you would just rinse and repeat the cycle. I believe that a moderator election will improve overall LTT forum moderation, because it will force the moderators to moderate fairly, justly, and without an abuse of power. If they are not any of the things that were just listed, they have a much higher risk of getting the boot, and the point is that if you are a good moderator, you will stay in power longer, while the ones who are not as good will get the boot.

(And as an FYI, this will also tone down forum moderation complaints.)

 

EDIT: I know that nobody has said this yet, and I really hope that you don't, but I did not make this thread so I could have a possibility of becoming a moderator. I can tell you right now that if I was ever offered a moderation position on any forum that I would shoot it down so fast. I would not make a good moderator.

[Imabigmac]

Interesting idea, much more democratic. 

[xRAGExSounDxRIOTX]

Can I put down my recommendations for moderators?

[MeltyMoon]

I would totally love to apply! I lurk around here all the time, and would love to give back to the community by making sure rules are enforced

 

Also, great idea @TopWargamer!

 

Edit-

 

I personally feel like we could use a few more moderator slots open as well. The community is pretty large atm, and there are quite a few times I notice that no moderator is online on the forum. So maybe another 2 slots to make it 10 would help the situation also!

[zxcvbnmmssdh]

That would be cool. Also, you say

 

 

with the highest amount of votes stay for another 3 terms

Do you mean months, or terms?

[FireFox]

Very well put together but I'm really not sure on this

 

Also moderator compaints, that is the first time I've heard of those (though my activity isn't as high as it once was).

 

I'd also like to apply but I wouldn't be confident at it

[joelthezombie15]

But doesnt training a mod take a bit longer than 3 months? I love your idea but of course it will need some tweaking to make it work accordingly. 

[DirkaFat]

Do Linus or Slick even stay on the forums long enough to fairly judge who they feel should be moderators?

[TopWargamer]

That would be cool. Also, you say

Do you mean months, or terms?

Ya, sorry. 3 months. Let me edit that.

[WunderWuffle]

Wonderful idea.  You get my support.

[TheSLSAMG]

It's a very good idea, seeing that there is some corruption around here. Come on, it's true.

[FireFox]

Do Linus or Slick even stay on the forums long enough to fairly judge who they feel should be moderators?

 

Considering the amount of work those two do I'd imagine if this did happen they'd be representatives or something, I have no idea lol

[miyabwah]

i don't think this would be a good idea because the only way people will think a moderator is good is if the moderator doesn't penalize anyone or give them warning points. but then again, i'm having second thoughts.

this would actually make the forum more interesting than it currently is.

[TopWargamer]

But doesnt training a mod take a bit longer than 3 months? I love your idea but of course it will need some tweaking to make it work accordingly. 

The list of members to become moderators would be based on how they act on the forum, their helpfulness on the forum, and their general knowledge of the LTT forum rules. So essentially, there is no need to train the new moderators if the selected members are already good, helpful members.

[PillowSmoke]

Sounds like a good idea if you ask me.

[flibberdipper]

I dunno, I might make a pretty good mod on here when I'm actually on here. So obviously I agree.

[Vitalius]

Do Linus or Slick even stay on the forums long enough to fairly judge who they feel should be moderators?

That's the point. Linus and Slick would just make the elected individuals moderators. We would decide who becomes one however. 

 

The list of members to become moderators would be based on how they act on the forum, their helpfulness on the forum, and their general knowledge of the LTT forum rules. So essentially, there is no need to train the new moderators if the selected members are already good, helpful members.

I'll just quote Linus bro. "This forum isn't a democracy." Or whatever he actually said. It was in regards to a "freedom of speech" comment, but I think it applies here too. 

I don't know. I could be wrong. 

[TopWargamer]

i don't think this would be a good idea because the only way people will think a moderator is good is if the moderator doesn't penalize anyone or give them warning points. but then again, i'm having second thoughts.

Well, you're not necessarily wrong about this, because some people do think that way. A good member would be fine with proper, fair moderation instead of a person with a moderator title who does nothing or moderates unfairly.

[TheRuke]

#LOONEY4PRESIDENT 

#TOPWARGAMER4PRESIDENT

#THESLSAMG4PRESIDENT

#COOLBEANS4PRESIDENT

#THERUKE4PRESIDENT

Edited January 9, 2014 by TheRuke

[Ghost]

So what you want to do is make a bunch of people who don't really know each other, vote on who gets to become a moderator based on friendships, running the risk of a rouge moderator every 3 months. You also want to judge moderators on their performance, based on your tiny glimpse of a slice of what it is to be a moderator without even access to important information such as reports handled numbers or see or even know about anything done in the background.

 

This can only go well...

[helping]

A major issue with this is that you're basing your mod off popularity. And things that are popular are not always good.

 

Furthermore, a lot of a moderators job can't be gauged by the public. A mod might do a great job at moderating, ban hammering, deleting threads, moving threads, but nobody would ever know if they don't post. 

 

In that way it is impossible for the forum community to judge a mod, other than mods themselves. 

 

 

Setting this up properly and maintenance would make an absolute migraine for LTT staff and forum crew, especially considering the returns are not that great and you'd be putting the welfare of the forum in the hands of too great a variety of people. There is no real way to hold any of them accountable and dealing with the fallout of making X person a mod is probably more work in itself than the benefit of them being a mod in the first place.

 

Vehemently oppose this idea. 

[Hoppa]

I'm not sure what the gossip is about, but I think our current moderators are good.

[TopWargamer]

#TOPWARGAMER4PRESIDENT

Yo dog, you should totes read that edit.

[FireFox]

To be honest, if this was my forum there would be no members of staff elected. It may be harsh but that is the way I'd do it and feel that the current system shouldn't change.

 

If people have issues with any staff members then report them to the administrators, I don't think introducing a system where we elect the moderators is the right way to go about it, just my opinion.

 

For anyone who cares, I voted no.

[TopWargamer]

A major issue with this is that you're basing your mod off popularity. And things that are popular are not always good.

 

Furthermore, a lot of a moderators job can't be gauged by the public. A mod might do a great job at moderating, ban hammering, deleting threads, moving threads, but nobody would ever know if they don't post. 

 

In that way it is impossible for the forum community to judge a mod, other than mods themselves. 

Hm, you do bring up a good point. I will admit that the system isn't perfect, and I never claimed it to be. Well, either way, I messaged both Linus and Slick about this idea, and have linked them to this thread so that they can see everybody's opinions. Ultimately, they will make the call, along with any necessary tweaks.