|
Post by Krall on Mar 11, 2016 23:12:01 GMT
There's been some discussion among the current moderation staff about how to implement our plans for community elected moderators, and we thought it'd be best to ask the community their opinions before making a decision.
The current plans are to have low-level, board-specific moderators (our current working title for them is "Sheriffs") as well as mods who exist solely to hear appeals against other mod staff (working title "Provosts") be elected by the community, but there's some debate as to whether they would be elected for indefinite terms (and therefore could only be removed by the community recalling them, by their resignation, or possibly by a tribunal if their actions are egregious enough) or fixed terms (and therefore would serve for a limited period of time before needing to be re-elected).
The idea behind having fixed terms would be to prevent these mods from losing energy or interest over time by ensuring that the people in these positions are freshly elected, and incumbent mods who have lost energy or interest get the opportunity to drop out by not running for re-election, rather than relying on them resigning. However, there are concerns that a regular election cycle might lead to this system becoming overly political and/or devolving into a popularity contest. It would also be more effort and work for everyone involved (the elected mods themselves, the staff running the elections, and the community itself).
Indefinite terms would be less effort for everyone involved, and would ensure that elections only happen when an elected mod resigns or is removed from office by the community. However it does run the risk of mods losing energy and interest in this forum, and thus becoming inactive.
What do you think? Should these elected moderators be elected for terms of fixed length, or should they be elected until resignation or recall?
|
|
lscatilina
New Member
Posts: 10
Pronouns: Thou/Thee/Thine
|
Post by lscatilina on Mar 11, 2016 23:16:45 GMT
I think that elected mods are a terrible idea, to be honest. It becomes less about efficient moderation, then a popularity contest : at best majority being an enforced norm, at worst a popularity contest.
I'd be okay with people proposing mods (or voicing displeasure), and current administration team handling the job or even their post.
That said, indefinite terms generally, in my (admittedly limited) experience, work better. (Would it be only because it spare the ridicule to elect every 4 months a new moderator for a relatively small community).
|
|
|
Post by Huehuecoyotl on Mar 11, 2016 23:17:49 GMT
It might be good to have fixed terms, but I'd suggest that such terms ought to be long enough to make people feel it worthwhile to run for the office. If it's too short, people might be discouraged, feeling that they don't have enough time to do the job justice.
|
|
|
Post by spanishspy on Mar 12, 2016 8:59:42 GMT
It might be good to have fixed terms, but I'd suggest that such terms ought to be long enough to make people feel it worthwhile to run for the office. If it's too short, people might be discouraged, feeling that they don't have enough time to do the job justice. I wouldn't limit the number of terms, but the number of terms able to be served consecutively, like the governorship of Virginia or the Russian presidency.
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 12, 2016 11:02:57 GMT
It might be good to have fixed terms, but I'd suggest that such terms ought to be long enough to make people feel it worthwhile to run for the office. If it's too short, people might be discouraged, feeling that they don't have enough time to do the job justice. Russian presidency. The Russian presidency at this moment is not a good example.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 12, 2016 11:54:53 GMT
I wouldn't limit the number of terms, but the number of terms able to be served consecutively, like the governorship of Virginia or the Russian presidency. What purpose would that serve?
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Mar 12, 2016 13:04:00 GMT
If a mod election were deemed to be a necessity then I say indefinite terms. As lscatilina says elections could quickly turn into a popularity contest, and that would be awfully shitty for the forum. I'd rather a capable mod stay where they are until they start acting the maggot and need to be removed with as little violence as possible.
If we needed to hold elections then I'd suggest we elect a small pool of potential replacement mods who'd step up if a mod was removed/retired. That way we don't need to go mad with an election season.
I would propose that a system of mod impeachment/removal is something that would be more of a necessity before we start talking about replacing mods. In the same way mods keep track of forum members with bad reputations, a record of complaints against mods could be kept. If enough people don't like how that mod is acting then we could propose them stepping down.
|
|
ankh
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by ankh on Mar 12, 2016 13:39:32 GMT
If a mod election were deemed to be a necessity then I say indefinite terms. As lscatilina says elections could quickly turn into a popularity contest, and that would be awfully shitty for the forum. I'd rather a capable mod stay where they are until they start acting the maggot and need to be removed with as little violence as possible. If we needed to hold elections then I'd suggest we elect a small pool of potential replacement mods who'd step up if a mod was removed/retired. That way we don't need to go mad with an election season. I would propose that a system of mod impeachment/removal is something that would be more of a necessity before we start talking about replacing mods. In the same way mods keep track of forum members with bad reputations, a record of complaints against mods could be kept. If enough people don't like how that mod is acting then we could propose them stepping down. I agree with eDGT.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 12, 2016 14:43:38 GMT
Though this thread was initially just about term lengths, I think the comments indicate that wider discussion on the topic of elected moderators is necessary. So, big question first, do you think mods should be elected at all?
Additionally, do you think that elected mods should only be subject to removal by the community via some recall method, or do you think that higher-up mods should be able to remove them (possibly only in certain circumstances, such as inactivity or large numbers of complaints)?
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Mar 12, 2016 16:24:12 GMT
I like the idea of mod elections. It provides a sense of accountability to the entire forum. I do see the fear that it could descend into a popularity contest, which is why I support indefinite terms. This way we avoid any messing around with an "election season", as funny as it sounds to me the last thing I want is to see this place get swamped with every Tom, Dick, and Harry saying why they'd be the best mod.
That's why I think my proposal is the best of both worlds. Electing someone as a replacement mod prior to them assuming the position means that the opportunists and those who won't take the position seriously won't want to take part, it also allows for the transition period to be quick and painless as the new mod assumes their role with a minimum of fuss.
For mod removal I would say that both ideas should work Krall. Mods need to be both beholden to the community and answerable to each other. I would rather avoid seeing the forum become too hierarchical, but maybe having the mods policing each other might be a good idea. So if the community want a mod removed his/her peers would be the ones to weigh the case against them.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 12, 2016 17:32:40 GMT
I like the idea of mod elections. It provides a sense of accountability to the entire forum. I do see the fear that it could descend into a popularity contest, which is why I support indefinite terms. This way we avoid any messing around with an "election season", as funny as it sounds to me the last thing I want is to see this place get swamped with every Tom, Dick, and Harry saying why they'd be the best mod. That's why I think my proposal is the best of both worlds. Electing someone as a replacement mod prior to them assuming the position means that the opportunists and those who won't take the position seriously won't want to take part, it also allows for the transition period to be quick and painless as the new mod assumes their role with a minimum of fuss. For mod removal I would say that both ideas should work Krall. Mods need to be both beholden to the community and answerable to each other. I would rather avoid seeing the forum become too hierarchical, but maybe having the mods policing each other might be a good idea. So if the community want a mod removed his/her peers would be the ones to weigh the case against them. I'm not sure how well electing replacement mods before they're needed would work - it'd be unreasonable to expect someone to be available for mod work at all times when they're not presently a mod. I'm not sure it would help prevent the elections turning into popularity contests either, since it'd just move the elections around rather than reducing their number.
|
|
|
Post by spanishspy on Mar 12, 2016 23:00:33 GMT
I wouldn't limit the number of terms, but the number of terms able to be served consecutively, like the governorship of Virginia or the Russian presidency. What purpose would that serve? Given the board's current low population, restricting the number of terms in total could cause us to run out of willing people. Limits on consecutive terms would prevent one person from becoming too powerful while allowing reuse of the pool of the willing.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 13, 2016 1:01:12 GMT
Given the board's current low population, restricting the number of terms in total could cause us to run out of willing people. Limits on consecutive terms would prevent one person from becoming too powerful while allowing reuse of the pool of the willing. I think you may have misinterpreted the original question - we're discussing the length of terms, not the number of terms. The question is whether people should serve as elected mods for a limited term (e.g. one year), or whether they should serve indefinitely (i.e. until they're removed by extraordinary means, such as a recall vote, their resignation, or possibly being removed by other mods). Regardless, I'm not sure how someone could accumulate power through having numerous consecutive terms as a board-specific, low-level mod.
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Mar 13, 2016 1:32:40 GMT
It's the internet man, there's someone out there who'd power trip from having a modship on here.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 13, 2016 1:34:44 GMT
It's the internet man, there's someone out there who'd power trip from having a modship on here. Yes, but I'm not sure how having numerous terms as a mod would allow them to accumulate power. They don't get more power over time, they don't get to make major decisions or appoint anyone else, and if they do step out of line they can be removed by a recall vote (or possibly a mod tribunal of some sort) at any time.
|
|
|
Post by spanishspy on Mar 13, 2016 7:00:26 GMT
It's the internet man, there's someone out there who'd power trip from having a modship on here. Yes, but I'm not sure how having numerous terms as a mod would allow them to accumulate power. They don't get more power over time, they don't get to make major decisions or appoint anyone else, and if they do step out of line they can be removed by a recall vote (or possibly a mod tribunal of some sort) at any time. No formal power, yes, but informal power is quite different. By giving someone experience, you give them a certain status as a board elite. If a person gets a moderatorship for too long, they become seen as part of the natural order of the board, and removing them will be difficult. Their status will also accord them increased influence among the community and, consciously or not, promote certain viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 13, 2016 8:24:16 GMT
Yes, but I'm not sure how having numerous terms as a mod would allow them to accumulate power. They don't get more power over time, they don't get to make major decisions or appoint anyone else, and if they do step out of line they can be removed by a recall vote (or possibly a mod tribunal of some sort) at any time. No formal power, yes, but informal power is quite different. By giving someone experience, you give them a certain status as a board elite. If a person gets a moderatorship for too long, they become seen as part of the natural order of the board, and removing them will be difficult. Their status will also accord them increased influence among the community and, consciously or not, promote certain viewpoints. If you speak about the mod what about the Admin, then you also have to elect among members the Admin or else it is not fair.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 13, 2016 20:12:21 GMT
No formal power, yes, but informal power is quite different. By giving someone experience, you give them a certain status as a board elite. If a person gets a moderatorship for too long, they become seen as part of the natural order of the board, and removing them will be difficult. Their status will also accord them increased influence among the community and, consciously or not, promote certain viewpoints. I don't think that's a major concern - informal influence is gathered simply by being active on the site and participating in discussions, regardless of your mod status, and I don't see how a low-level mod having slightly more informal influence is such a bad thing that we need specific measures to prevent it.
|
|
|
Post by spanishspy on Mar 14, 2016 4:30:44 GMT
No formal power, yes, but informal power is quite different. By giving someone experience, you give them a certain status as a board elite. If a person gets a moderatorship for too long, they become seen as part of the natural order of the board, and removing them will be difficult. Their status will also accord them increased influence among the community and, consciously or not, promote certain viewpoints. I don't think that's a major concern - informal influence is gathered simply by being active on the site and participating in discussions, regardless of your mod status, and I don't see how a low-level mod having slightly more informal influence is such a bad thing that we need specific measures to prevent it. Moderatorship solidifies informal influence; a moderator who lasts long enough without term limits in some manner will become merely part of the scenery, something that cannot be questioned without drawing ire. This will create a status that does not exist on AH.com, for they do not have elected moderators. It will, in effect, create elder statesmen.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 14, 2016 4:40:43 GMT
Moderatorship solidifies informal influence; a moderator who lasts long enough without term limits in some manner will become merely part of the scenery, something that cannot be questioned without drawing ire. This will create a status that does not exist on AH.com, for they do not have elected moderators. It will, in effect, create elder statesmen. I really don't understand what you mean - how would the moderator being elected entrench their position and influence?
|
|