Moderator elections

[Ghost]

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

Why wouldn't they, they all trust each other. But see, there's the problem.

 

I was once in a gaming community with a donation to become an admin, however, the system used there was based on progressing through tiers, with higher ranked people being able to do as they please with everyone below them, the system you propose with no constant (experience based) authority would just fail.

[TopWargamer]

 I think it should be an open vote if there was ever a vote

That I don't necessarily agree with. Just like any other modern day voting system, the voting is anonymous.

[gastew15]

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)

I'll use an example... Lets say that when a popular member did something they were banned alright? Well then lets say mod X was the one who banned them then when the elections come up even if banning them was the right move it's extremely possible be won't elect them because he banned someone they liked... It abuses power.. Democracy usually turns out to be evil all though out history..

[Dudenstein]

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?

The forum is a free service. If it was paid then I would agree but we have no ties to the forum. We are free to leave as we please and if this forum isn't fair then find one that you deem so.

I expect Linus and slick to run the forum the way they want to because its theirs. I have no investment in it. If you chose to donate then that's your decision and that's what it is....a donation. Its not a share to the forum.

[TopWargamer]

Why wouldn't they, they all trust each other. But see, there's the problem.

 

I was once in a gaming community with a donation to become an admin, however, the system used there was based on progressing through tiers, with higher ranked people being able to do as they please with everyone below them, the system you propose with no constant authority would just fail.

1) It's the Internet. No matter how much you may trust somebody on the Internet, you should never give away a piece of information very personal to you.

 

2) How is my system related in any way, shape, or form to that gaming community's system? It's completely different than that.

 

the system you propose with no constant authority would just fail.

How would there be no constant authority? Everything would get filtered up, as it does now. If there's a problem with a member, a moderator takes care of it. If there's a problem with a moderator, an admin takes care of it. There is a clear sense of authority, and you cannot deny that.

[piplupgao]

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

The way I see it is that people can be promoted or demoted to different levels so you will have to have support and work your way up

[DirkaFat]

I'll use an example... Lets say that when a popular member did something they were banned alright? Well then lets say mod X was the one who banned them then when the elections come up even if banning them was the right move it's extremely possible be won't elect them because he banned someone they liked... It abuses power.. Democracy usually turns out to be evil all though out history..

 Information regarding which moderator banned who, closed what, etc. is kept undisclosed. So no one would or (should) ever know the person behind banishment.

 

 

 

Which, now that I think of it, complicates things a lot. I need to think about this for a while before forming an opinion...

[gastew15]

 Information regarding which moderator banned who, closed what, etc. is kept undisclosed. So no one would or (should) ever know the person behind banishment.

 

 

 

Which, know that I think of it, complicates things a lot. I need to think about this for a while...

Well I can tell you right now who banned Sarcasm.... It happens

[Charger]

I wonder how many people here that have said yes to this idea have ever been a moderator on anything yet alone anything that is as active as this forum is. I would have to say its a lot harder to do then most people may think and its hard to believe anyone that will ever be a mod for a few months will end up being any good as it will take weeks before they would even start to know what they are doing. 

[FireFox]

The way I see it is that people can be promoted or demoted to different levels so you will have to have support and work your way up

 

Makes sense and sounds pretty simple in theory but in practise I still think it'll be complicated

 

There should remain a single level, if you are deemed worthy then you are promoted to a moderator (not sure on the exact requirements) and if you are an arsehole then demoted. Having different levels I'm not really sure how that could be done, it just sounds like a lot more work unnecessarily (<---- I know it is spelt incorrectly, f**ked if I can rememeber the correct spelling lol).

[Youbetternot]

This is the best idea ever, so this was the poll TopWargamer!

[piplupgao]

Makes sense and sounds pretty simple in theory but in practise I still thing it'll be complicated

 

There should remain a single level, if you are deemed worthy then you are promoted to a moderator (not sure on the exact requirements) and if you are an arsehole then demoted. Having different levels I'm not really sure how that could be done, it just sounds like a lot more work unnecessarily (<---- I know it is spelt incorrectly, f**ked if I can rememeber the correct spelling lol).

How I was thinking is that if someone is always nice and helpful then the mods can elect them as a forum helper (or something like that) they will be able to do simple things like move threads or edit questionable post, this way they can't do much damage and if they do a good job they can be given the power to lock threads and issue warning points once again not too much power and if they do a good job they have a chance to become a full moderator.

[FireFox]

How I was thinking is that if someone is always nice and helpful then the mods can elect them as a forum helper (or something like that) they will be able to do simple things like move threads or edit questionable post, this way they can't do much damage and if they do a good job they can be given the power to lock threads and issue warning points once again not too much power and if they do a good job they have a chance to become a full moderator.

 

When put like that it does seem quite interesting, so to start with it would be just a badge aknowledging their helpfulness with the increased chance at becoming a moderator?

[That Norwegian Guy]

Let Slick choose his mods. He is ultimately who has to deal with them.

 

If someone has a problem with a mod let the moderator team work it out with Slick. A democratic forum is not necessarily going to improve anything.

[Kerplex]

Yeeeeea no thanks.

[Geekazoid]

Hmm...personally I do see this open to abuse. I would agree with some people on here about unfair moderation but since it's against the forums CoC I will not go into detail. What I would REALLY love to see is an age restriction on Moderators even with out this suggested system. These forums should not be Moderated by 17 year olds or even younger. I believe that to even BE a Moderator you should at least be 25-30 or older because you have a, not perfect, decent understanding of fairness and instead of just giving warning points straight away (because you can) you, as a Moderator, should confront the person of which you are thinking about giving warning points to and, especially if what they said or done isn't too bad, tell them why you're thinking about giving them warning points so that the member can explain their actions and have a chance to redeem themselves. If I were a Moderator that's exactly what I would do. I feel it's the fairest way.

Note: No offence to people on here who are 17 years or younger.

[Hazy125]

Hmm...personally I do see this open to abuse. I would agree with some people on here about unfair moderation but since it's against the forums CoC I will not go into detail. What I would REALLY love to see is an age restriction on Moderators even with out this suggested system. These forums should not be Moderated by 17 year olds or even younger. I believe that to even BE a Moderator you should at least be 25-30 or older because you have a, not perfect, decent understanding of fairness and instead of just giving warning points straight away (because you can) you, as a Moderator, should confront the person of which you are thinking about giving warning points to and, especially if what they said or done isn't too bad, tell them why you're thinking about giving them warning points so that the member can explain their actions and have a chance to redeem themselves. If I were a Moderator that's exactly what I would do. I feel it's the fairest way.

Note: No offence to people on here who are 17 years or younger.

:'(

[gastew15]

Hmm...personally I do see this open to abuse. I would agree with some people on here about unfair moderation but since it's against the forums CoC I will not go into detail. What I would REALLY love to see is an age restriction on Moderators even with out this suggested system. These forums should not be Moderated by 17 year olds or even younger. I believe that to even BE a Moderator you should at least be 25-30 or older because you have a, not perfect, decent understanding of fairness and instead of just giving warning points straight away (because you can) you, as a Moderator, should confront the person of which you are thinking about giving warning points to and, especially if what they said or done isn't too bad, tell them why you're thinking about giving them warning points so that the member can explain their actions and have a chance to redeem themselves. If I were a Moderator that's exactly what I would do. I feel it's the fairest way.

Note: No offence to people on here who are 17 years or younger.

I fully understand what you mean, but I know people who are asshats that are of all ages, since age is really nothing more than a false sense of superiority; however I do kind of agree with you, even if I think the whole plan all together is a bad idea.

[FireFox]

Hmm...personally I do see this open to abuse. I would agree with some people on here about unfair moderation but since it's against the forums CoC I will not go into detail. What I would REALLY love to see is an age restriction on Moderators even with out this suggested system. These forums should not be Moderated by 17 year olds or even younger. I believe that to even BE a Moderator you should at least be 25-30 or older because you have a, not perfect, decent understanding of fairness and instead of just giving warning points straight away (because you can) you, as a Moderator, should confront the person of which you are thinking about giving warning points to and, especially if what they said or done isn't too bad, tell them why you're thinking about giving them warning points so that the member can explain their actions and have a chance to redeem themselves. If I were a Moderator that's exactly what I would do. I feel it's the fairest way.

Note: No offence to people on here who are 17 years or younger.

 

I think 25-30 is too old for a lower age limit, I'd say around 21 would be better but I do agree with that

[Ethnod]

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.

 

There are absolutely no circumstances where this should happen. None

 

As an experienced moderator (on another forum and others over the years) I know its a very tough job. Its also a thankless job. 

What does a good moderator need to be?

Patience - They need to have the patience to read and understand a thread, each and every thread. Thats time consuming and boring when you are not reading the thread for pleasure. 

Ruthless - Mods need to be able to put feelings, like and dislikes aside and moderate for the good of the forum.

Outside perspective - Mods need to be able to stay out of the conversation (regardless if that is in actual practice or mind) so they can objectively assess a post, thread and ensure that they can see ahead before things get out of hand.

Mind numbing knuckle rapping - For the most part, posters are lazy, selfish and lazy. They post where ever they want, double post, spam and bump or repost threads for many reasons. Some want the attention, some cant be bothered to find out where something should be posted, some just want to be the one who posts the trending thread and others want to be known and have a large post count (and many more reasons btw). Regardless of what the reasons posters are lay lazy lazy and as such mods are constantly merging, deleting moving threads and trust me, that tide is constant. As a mod on a THQ forum I would have to post a link to a sticky just below the "New Thread" button and close the thread about 30+ times a day, EVERY DAY for years, never mind everything else that went on. 

Loved - A good moderator is not loved. The chances of a good moderator being loved are so rare. I think that LTT has more of a chance as we are a more tolerant people and way more involved and less prone to the BS of most forums but still love is not something any mod should end up with, there is too much work to do

Communication - A good mod should be willing to put that extra time in to talk to posters privately if they have been chastised. Your thread was moved because, was closed because, please do talk like that, please respect others because, etc etc etc. How else will the newer posters learn? Cause I can tell you now, having other posters shouting at you on the thread is never the answer. This part is how a mod should arrive at the next part.

Like/Hate & Respect - A good moderator may be liked or hated (or for the most part have people feel indifferent) but always should have earned the respect of the community (if that community is fair and reasonable). However, this is not something that ANY mod should drive for, it should just come over time.

 

The reality of most of that is that it is very very hard to do that and not upset people. A good moderator, active one will end up upsetting lots of people over the years. And a good moderator should NEVER be part of a popularity contest, as they will never win.

And that is what you are proposing here. At the end of the day, regardless of how we phrase this and how well intended people may be, we all always vote for the ones we like and don't vote for the ones we dislike. We may use many reasons to justify our decisions but at the end of the day a great mod will not get the same chance as a bad or mediocre mod if we don't like them. So a great but un-liked mod would be gone and replaced with mediocre or bad mods.

 

Finally I will say this, This forum is OWNED by Linus Media Group and as a company its up to them to decide who and how this forum is moderated. I for one think its the best forum I have come across in about 20 years of posting on forums and I think that the mods and @Slick are doing an amazing job. And they all seem to communicate well, do regular meetings and get along and that is probably one of the reasons why this forum works so well. Why mess with something that is working?

[TopWargamer]

This is the best idea ever, so this was the poll TopWargamer!

And nobody needs to know the short back story behind this poll either.

>.>

[Geekazoid]

:'(

Not trying to offend anyone, especially you mate. I know you would be a fair Moderator but just from my experiences with a certain 17 year old Moderator on here I just don't think it works well. This is just my opinion if course, anyone can feel free to disagree with me.

[DirkaFat]

Not trying to offend anyone, especially you mate. I know you would be a fair Moderator but just from my experiences with a certain 17 year old Moderator on here I just don't thing it works well. This is just my opinion if course, anyone can feel free to disagree with me.

There's only one 17 year old moderator I believe. Not sure if intentional ,but just saying

[LapX]

I don't think the applying system is a good idea, actual moderators and admins should propose the people to vote for. As for the 3 months of service, why put all that training to waste after those 3 months ? Moderator is not a power trip just for fun that you are donated for a period of time, it's an investment in wanting the forum to be a better place.

 

To be clear I am not against a voting system, I actually think it's a great idea as it gives power for the community on the destiny of the forum.

[Glenwing]

You know, every time a whole thread gets out of control and I warn a bunch of people, every single one of them sends me an angry message demanding to know why no one else got warned.  It's pretty funny.  Warnings are not public information, and neither is about 95% of the rest of mod work.

 

I guess people don't think about it, but no one knows when we do anything or how we handle it.  All of our actions are invisible to everyone except the one person they involve.  One of the core concepts of the proposed idea involves judging how well we do things that you aren't even aware of, and I don't see how you could ever effectively rate us on how well we do our job without even seeing our work.  So, this idea really won't work as well as you think it might.

 

There have been numerous threads about how mod selection works, and the answer still remains the same.  The only ones that can really monitor what we do, Linus, Slick, and MrWizard, will manage the moderator team.  If you think a mod is not doing his job well, then contact Slick, and if it's a valid complaint he'll talk to the mod in question about it.