Moderator elections

[MeltyMoon]

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.

I honestly don't see this as a huge issue. It's not like someone that most people don't know, or someone without a lot of posts would be voted in anyways. Besides, we could always have the current retaining mod members cherry pick the top few applicants and let Linus and Slick look them over, or something of the like.

[MrImnotMLG]

I feel indifferent to this suggestion but if the elections do take place I will join in on it.

[Ghost]

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.

 

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.

You seem to have the idea that Linus and Slick monitor the forum constantly. Let me remind you where they are now, as an example of how constant their presence is.

[TopWargamer]

Linus and Slick put these people are here to do a job let them do it.        

Just because they put a moderator in place doesn't mean that the moderator is a good moderator. There are, quite frankly, some moderators who moderate very unfairly. Most of them do a good job. I want this system in place to get rid of those moderators who moderate unfairly.

[sezir]

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

pehaps nomination could also work, say i can nominate someone and if they get 10 nominations then they can choose to go into elections

[Dudenstein]

Bad idea. The idea of a "good" moderator is too sur subjective to leave up to the community as a whole. This is Linus and Slicks forum. They should be the ones to decide how the forum is run and in turn they decide who is moderator and how they moderate. If you don't like the style of moderation of this forum you have two choices: get used to it or find another forum.

[MrImnotMLG]

pehaps nomination could also work, say i can nominate someone and if they get 10 nominations then they can choose to go into elections

For the amount of people on the forum that seems small. Maybe a percentage like 5%?

 

Oh SHIT!! @ixi_your_face is looking! He hates the idea he is going to lock it and delete it! NO!!!!! Jk what ever he thinks is whatever he thinks.

[TopWargamer]

You seem to have the idea that Linus and Slick monitor the forum constantly. Let me remind you where they are now, as an example of how constant their presence is.

I never said that they look at the forum constantly. I never said that at all. You're twisting my words to better your side, and that is a very dirty trick. Just like people do now, if somebody has a problem with a moderator, they would message either Slick or Linus, and give an example of the moderator's wrong doing. 

[piplupgao]

I think there should be different "levels" of moderators with different amount of power.

[sezir]

For the amount of people on the forum that seems small. Maybe a percentage like 5%?

 

Oh SHIT!! @ixi_your_face is looking! He hates the idea he is going to lock it and delete it! NO!!!!! Jk what ever he thinks is whatever he thinks.

yeah i agree with you i only gave the number as an idea

[TopWargamer]

I think there should be different "levels" of moderators with different amount of power.

Yes, this needs to be a thing as well. I don't feel going further into this right now, but again, this definitely needs to be a thing.

[cjeffcoatjr]

#ME4PRESIDENT

[FireFox]

I think there should be different "levels" of moderators with different amount of power.

 

I think it'll overcomplicate the selection process and the system as a whole if that was too happen

[Ghost]

I never said that they look at the forum constantly. I never said that at all. You're twisting my words to better your side, and that is a very dirty trick. Just like people do now, if somebody has a problem with a moderator, they would message either Slick or Linus, and give an example of the moderator's wrong doing. 

So if the moderator in question decides to share personal information about Linus, Slick and fellow moderators with the public; would that be fine? How about starting to ban large amounts of users; before the moderator in question was blocked a lot of damage could be done, and the best thing is, he could be re-elected 3 months later and do it again.

[Vic9mm]

Just because they put a moderator in place doesn't mean that the moderator is a good moderator. There are, quite frankly, some moderators who moderate very unfairly. Most of them do a good job. I want this system in place to get rid of those moderators who moderate unfairly.

Well lets see some examples. This is a forum their should be tons of examples and links to these so called "unfair moderators" If your gonna call out mods at least post some links to the threads so we can read them and judge for ourselves. 

 

Sorry about that guess I should spend some more time in the CoC page.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Vic9mm

[Hazy125]

Well lets see some examples. This is a forum their should be tons of examples and links to these so called "unfair moderators" If your gonna call out mods at least post some links to the threads so we can read them and judge for ourselves. 

No. This is blatantly against the Code of Conduct.

[Vic9mm]

No. This is blatantly against the Code of Conduct.

Ummm what is?

[TopWargamer]

So if the moderator in question decides to share personal information about Linus, Slick and fellow moderators with the public; would that be fine? How about starting to ban large amounts of users; before the moderator in question was blocked a lot of damage could be done, and the best thing is, he could be re-elected 3 months later and do it again.

1) Why would they share their personal information with each anyways?

 

2) Read my OP again. Here's a quote from it:

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 with the system that I am bringing up, Linus and Slick would choose a list of members to become moderators, and then put that to a vote. So really, Linus and Slick are both still choosing who moderates the forum, except of the ones listed in the poll, we would get to choose 5 of them every 3 months.

[Harvey]

Sounds like stack ranking... only the people voting don't have all the information. 

 

<rant>

If I was a moderator and the position was taken away due to popularity, I'd be pissed. I wouldn't even put my hand up to be put in such a situation. I've been a mod on forums before, its a thankless job. You have a valid reason to ban someone, you take action, but they're more popular than you.. Their friends create threads complaining how someone was banned for "no reason" or that "a few mistakes doesn't take away years of being a good member" (it does), they don't know the facts, just that their friend said they were banned unfairly. They start demanding evidence, you lock the thread because its against the rules to create a thread to complain about a ban. They continually create more and more threads, you ban them and hope that is the end of it, but some idiots see that as proof of over zealous banning. "He was just asking a question"... Sometimes you'll even get arguments between moderators because you banned their friend for breaking the rules continually or that "they would've warned them at least twice more before banning"  :rolleyes: Sometimes it seems like you just can't win. On crap forums where the owner no longer gives a shit, I've seen bans overturned because "They create a lot of good topics, that make for a more active forum" never mind the sexual harassment constant trolling and threats its cool, he makes threads! *walks away*

</rant>

 

Every forum I've been a mod on has a clear set of rules for the forum and a list of actions to be taken if someone breaks a given rule. If a rule is broken no matter by who, something is done (at least on good forums). They have also had codes of conduct for mods to follow that are generally even more rules of behaviour for mods as you should set a higher example as a mod. If you complain about something and nothing is done about it, its probably because the mod acted within the rules. On forum's I've moderated, when a complaint is made through proper channels all moderators see it, a decision is made on if a rule was broken, what action to take and ultimately there is a forum admin (usually the owner) who has final say, they usually leave it to us but if something is serious or action taken wasn't deemed appropriate the admin takes control. Adding another layer of shit to a already shitty job (at times) no... just no.

[gastew15]

I feel as though this would get out of control quickly as in a democracy the majority always treats the minority unfairly, and really it would be possible for people to band together and screw up the whole system... Greece fell for the same reason, and setting up some kind of highly structured system on how to elect officials seems difficult.. I just think this will lead to more trouble than it will solve.

[TopWargamer]

Well lets see some examples. This is a forum their should be tons of examples and links to these so called "unfair moderators" If your gonna call out mods at least post some links to the threads so we can read them and judge for ourselves. 

As @Hazy125 said, this is against the CoC. Members are not allowed to publicly discuss specific examples of a moderator taking action against someone or some thread. I will gladly PM you some examples whenever I can find the links.

[DirkaFat]

I feel as though this would get out of control quickly as in a democracy the majority always treats the minority unfairly, and really it would be possible for people to band together and screw up the whole system... Greece fell for the same reason, and setting up some kind of highly structured system on how to elect officials seems difficult.. I just think this will lead to more trouble than it will solve.

Perhaps the polls could be set to anonymous voting, so members don't see who others have voted for. (If that's what you were referring to)

[Dudenstein]

I feel as though this would get out of control quickly as in a democracy the majority always treats the minority unfairly, and really it would be possible for people to band together and screw up the whole system... Greece fell for the same reason, and setting up some kind of highly structured system on how to elect officials seems difficult.. I just think this will lead to more trouble than it will solve.

Yup. It'll just overcomplicate everything. It should be simple. Who owns the forum? They decide the moderators. Those that don't agree with the chosen mods can leave the community. Its not hard not to get moderated. Just don't be an idiot and respect fellow forumites. I haven't experienced any unfair moderation in my time here on the forum and I think I'm one of the early adopters.

[FireFox]

Perhaps the polls could be set to anonymous voting, so members don't see who others have voted for. (If that's what you were referring to)

 

But we are free to vote for who ever we want without repurcussion, I think it should be an open vote if there was ever a vote

[TopWargamer]

Those that don't agree with the chosen mods can leave the community.

That's a very arrogant way of looking at things. If somebody thinks that someone or some thing that is currently in place is bad, should he not have the right to state is opinion on the matter in order to change things that he thinks should be changed?