Moderator elections

[Hikaru12]

Rather than moderator elections - I think the main concern is corruption or issues with current moderators. In that case, you should be documenting incidents that you believe unfair and bringing it up to Linus and Slick appropriately. 

[Victor Golf]

Sounds like an interesting idea to me.

[TopWargamer]

Rather than moderator elections - I think the main concern is corruption or issues with current moderators. In that case, you should be documenting incidents that you believe unfair and bringing it up to Linus and Slick appropriately. 

True, true, but I know of quite a few members who have, and nothing has been done about it.

[xRAGExSounDxRIOTX]

#LOONEY4PRESIDENT 

#TOPWARGAMER4PRESIDENT

#THERUKE4PRESIDENT

How could you forget #TheSLSAMG4PRESIDENT???

[Hikaru12]

True, true, but I know of quite a few members who have, and nothing has been done about it.

 

It depends on what the issues were originally. Not everyone is going to be happy with how the administration and staff run things around here but I think that's the same anywhere. I'd say as long as 85% of the mods and admins here are being fair in their calls for punishment, etc. then that's the best we can hope for.

[FireFox]

Not everyone is going to be happy with how the administration and staff run things around here

 

Agreed, it is a case of 'You can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try'

[xRAGExSounDxRIOTX]

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

The current moderators are good, but there doesn't seem to be enough of them in different areas of the world. (Mainly NA and Australia). In my opinion, there should be more moderators from Asian countrie and some more from Continental Europe. (Is there even anybody on here from Continental Europe?)

[Ryan Leech]

We need for mods, most of the time when I log on there are spam posts and no mods the clear them. I've also noticed some mods aren't as nice as others

[MeltyMoon]

A way this could be done is to increase the slots as the community grows, and have the mods judge your entry. This way popularity has no effect on your entry. There's nothing wrong with having mod/admin recruitment every couple of months. Just as long as you don't go overboard. Even if it's just like 1 mod per 4-6 months.

 

Edit-

You could speak about past moderating experience, why you feel like you would be a good mod, etc etc

[sezir]

If any of you are familiar with the program Scratch (developed by MIT) then you may know they do this, one thing they do different though is people apply do be moderators. Also the never gave anyone the boot, they waited until either they needed more or some resigned. I still think this is a good implementation though and i think it would work well.

[FireFox]

(Is there even anybody on here from Continental Europe?)

 

I'm sort of from Continental Europe

[TopWargamer]

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...

Modern day, real life elections are the same way as well, mind you. The United States (along with most countries of the world) have a democratic voting system, and it works essentially the way that you have described it.

 

Even with these downsides, the United States (for example) has had many good Presidents, and its fair share of bad Presidents. It's essentially the luck of the draw, and it's no different in most places.

 

So while yes, you may be right, I would much rather vote for new moderators who have a possibility of making this forum a better place rather than some of the current moderators being very unfair with their moderation, and causing the forum to become worse.

 

Not to say that this the system I want is perfect, because it is not. This system will give members the ability to become a moderator for a time span of 3 months. During those 3 months, they may moderate very well, or they may moderate very poorly. If they moderate very poorly, they would be voted out. If they moderated well, they have a chance of keeping their moderator title for another 3 months.

[Dr. Duck]

[megadarkwood]

Good idea. 

[Ghost]

Modern day, real life elections are the same way as well, mind you. The United States (along with most countries of the world) have a democratic voting system, and it works essentially the way that you have described it.

The system you propose is based on voting faceless people who will have no consequences for any of their actions and putting the forum's reputation in their hands.

[orangecat]

I don't think mods should have to step down because there are allot of good mods on this forum i just think the amount added should be very small and only a few times a year. personally i would love to be a mod I think I would do a good job but I don't think i have a chance in hell to become a mod.

[TopWargamer]

running the risk of a rouge moderator every 3 months

If a moderator has gone rogue, the moderator would be removed from power. That would ultimately be Linus' or Slick's job. If the moderator is not removed because he has gone rogue, then it is Linus' or Slick's fault for not removing the moderator from power.

[AlwaysFSX]

I'd say to add a section where you have to submit a decent sized essay on why that person should be a moderator or have the person in question running to write an essay on why they should be allowed to be moderator. Would make things interesting

[FireFox]

If a moderator has gone rouge, the moderator would be removed from power. That would ultimately be Linus' or Slick's job. If the moderator is not removed because he has gone rouge, then it is Linus' or Slick's fault for not removing the moderator from power.

 

Do you both mean *Rogue?

[CadillacVic]

I have never had any trouble with mods here at LTT forums, the posts I've seen from the mods have been fine, more on the lines of just participating in forum conversation. The spam posts I have reported recently was cleaned up in a matter of minutes if not seconds. I don't really feel this is necessary and to put it bluntly I think is stupid. Most people inherently have a problem with authority even if it is on a forum, Linus and Slick put these people here to do a job let them do it.        

[TopWargamer]

The system you propose is based on voting faceless people who will have no consequences for any of their actions and putting the forum's reputation in their hands.

Who's to say there wouldn't be consequences for their bad actions? If they're not moderating correctly, Linus or Slick could remove them from power, and if the elected moderator were to do something very bad, then the person should be banned, along with his IP, if possible.

[TopWargamer]

Do you both mean *Rogue?

>.>

Let me edit that...

[FireFox]

I have never had any trouble with mods here at LTT forums, the posts I've seen from the mods have been fine, more on the lines of just participating in forum conversation. The spam posts I have reported recently was cleaned up in a matter of minutes if not seconds. I don't really feel this is necessary and to put it bluntly I think is stupid. Most people inherently have a problem with authority even if it is on a forum, Linus and Slick put these people are here to do a job let them do it.        

 

Couldn't agree more

[FireFox]

>.>

Let me edit that...

 

 

*How to make enemies in three easy steps, one be a spelling nazi

[zip2k4]

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...

 

'tis when post counts and regular appearance became the deciding factor and not the ability to moderate.

 

silence is gold in the end in situations like this, unfortunately silence been broken

 

Modern day, real life elections are the same way as well, mind you. The United States (along with most countries of the world) have a democratic voting system, and it works essentially the way that you have described it.

 

Even with these downsides, the United States (for example) has had many good Presidents, and its fair share of bad Presidents. It's essentially the luck of the draw, and it's no different in most places.

 

So while yes, you may be right, I would much rather vote for new moderators who have a possibility of making this forum a better place rather than some of the current moderators being very unfair with their moderation, and causing the forum to become worse.

 

Not to say that this the system I want is perfect, because it is not. This system will give members the ability to become a moderator for a time span of 3 months. During those 3 months, they may moderate very well, or they may moderate very poorly. If they moderate very poorly, they would be voted out. If they moderated well, they have a chance of keeping their moderator title for another 3 months.

 

and see where any wonderful govt. in the world ended up doing

 

I understand that you want to do this out of good intent, I really do, but the repercussion might be a bit much