Suggestion: How about Democracy?

[Nick]

Is that always true, though? You're thinking of it one way, when you can see it in a multitude of ways. Someone who simply VMs everyone would be popular, but with zero posts, he's got no experience in the actual forum. Yet, his popularity would definitely work in his favor. That's a really tame example, but I think it shows my point.

You know any members like that?

 

[Honest]

No, but I know other examples that work towards the image of not being fit for president that do actually exist.

 

[curiousnathan]

I'm not really in favour of voting for staff members. Higher staff already do a good job at it already; no need to fix something that's not broken.

I was also thinking we could have a member cabinet, as in a group of experienced members some voted in and some picked to weigh in on things.

What I find ironic is that this is basically a description of a moderator. Members who aren't moderators but are still well-known, are highly productive, kind, level-headed etc, I'm sure will be modded anyway when the time is right you know?

I don't think creating another layer to our member-base is going to solve anything. In fact, I'd probably go as far out to say that it would cause the opposite. If we establish a member cabinet, members not voted into the cabinet might feel left out/go unrecognized much like how some people claim what happens now. What would we do then, create another layer to try and fix the problem? Then after that and members not included in that group complain, what then? Do we create another layer, and another layer and another?

Personally, I'm not too sure about a member cabinet, but that's just me!

 

[Treecko]

I've seen a few similar ideas be brought up here and they've all been rejected cause of some of the same principals that Khrysta brought up. You can't just elect someone to be a moderator cause they obtained enough votes and expect them to do a good job. A person's popularity doesn't determine their level of responsibility.The higher-staff choose members to moderate a section because they know how dedicated they are to said section and they trust they are responsible enough to take on such a job. Being a moderator isn't an easy job and looking after a section requires you to make sure things don't get too chaotic. You have to know what is against the rules, or step in when a topic is going too far out of hand.Simply put, a lot of members just couldn't handle that. Just like in a real democracy, a member could lie about themselves just in order to gain as many votes as possible. Then once elected, they break any promises they made and end up not doing as good as a job they told people they would. In essence, it wouldn't work out well at all.So it's a good idea in theory, but in actuality, it has its flaws.

 

[Elaitenstile]

What this thread is suggesting is a foreign idea in a site that is owned and run by a team. So it's something like a 'job', though all moderators here have much more dedication than just doing 'work'. I'm not sure what this thread tries to convey, but remember that not all members have an equal share in this site. You don't go to your workplace and demand others to vote for you to become the cook, or something.

There would need to be a lot of qualifications, restrictions and personal judgement, which, in fact, doesn't go too well with the style of a forum. Perhaps if this forum was a lot bigger and had a lot more active members.

I'm all suggesting you read stranger's and Khrysta's posts rather than going through my short skimp.

But aside from that, I believe MegaIndianCharizardX did start off a good idea. There could be a 'suggestion box' where we leave off some suggestions for staff about certain sections needed certain adjustments. You know, just so we have a 'Hear the people's voice!' thread. I'm aware that we can simply contact the moderator(s) involved by VM/PM, but I feel this could be a more free and open field, and to be able to be specific to certain forums, as this subforum itself is only looking at PC from a 'general' view.

 

[Astraea]

I have a good idea for this guys!
I want to introduce 3 rules:-

1) Registration to participate in election will be for 3 hours which will be anounced 4 days ago to everyone!
2) Only five people will stand in elections for each forums! First five people will get registration during registering hours! rest will be eliminated!
3) 3 of 5 will be chosen as mods from election!
4) RIGHT TO MATCH! Suppose if Ansirent Rytham, MegaindiancharizardX and Mussadiqthewarrior became the mods of Emulation and Rom Hacking, then if Ausudriel thinks that Rytham is a noob and i want DrFugi (or any older Mod of Emulation and Rom hacking Forum) in place of him, he'll use his RIGHT TO MATCH to replace AnsirentRytham with DrFugi! Each Admin (with red or Purple Names) will get one RIGHT TO MATCH!

 

[bobandbill]

2) Only five people will stand in elections for each forums! First five people will get registration during registering hours! rest will be eliminated

Sorry, but this is a rather poor idea in particular. An election where the people nomintated are those that happen to be online at the time of it starting? Pretty unfair considering people from all over the world (and hence different timezones to each other).

There's other issues too. Not all sections need 3 mods. The best three candidates may not work well with each other. I also don't really get this 'right to match' thing, but please don't explain it more rn. (Also, you mention three rules and then give four).

Because none of this addresses any points made previously. Rather than waste time trying to come up with flawed time scales on how an election would work, I'd suggest reading the other posts and arguing why the issues suggested can be overcome. Before that happens no election system is going to be implemented. At the moment the system works pretty decently and has for many years, so there needs to be strong reasoning as to why a member election would be better than that, and not just introduce potential flaws to it instead, without suggesting a first-in system for nominations. Any member could just jump in and have a chance then, including those who signed up a day prior and have no idea about the forum. =/

 

[Gigabeat]

I can imagine this democracy thing getting overly complicated. This is a forum, not a government. Let the people who've been choosing the staff keep doing it. And yeah. Politics is dirty, and that's kinda the unavoidable hard truth when you have lots of people vying for the spot. Transparency and how they go about doing the staff selections wouldn't be bad, either. ;)

And the five people rule kinda doesn't fit. So any five people with or without knowledge and skills get to be candidates. And also timezones as bobandbill pointed out is another issue.

But just for the opposing side, maybe if a more stringent process was implemented such as solid reason why you chose the candidate and only allowing members of a certain experience and / or postcount could vote, there wouldn't be as much butthurt and all..? But there are exceptions,and I don't think there's ever going to be a 100% smooth election.

 

[Nakala Pri]

I see... all the moderators are disagreeing?

I personally think it would be a great idea, because i have to admit, seeing new moddies spring up like weeds does get tiring and i'd like to see some moddies we actually elected in.

I'm expecting a whole wave of negative comments coming at me but so be it, HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT, EH, WIGGLY THINGS? >:D

 

[Astraea]

I can imagine this democracy thing getting overly complicated. This is a forum, not a government. Let the people who've been choosing the staff keep doing it. And yeah. Politics is dirty, and that's kinda the unavoidable hard truth when you have lots of people vying for the spot. Transparency and how they go about doing the staff selections wouldn't be bad, either. ;)

And the five people rule kinda doesn't fit. So any five people with or without knowledge and skills get to be candidates. And also timezones as bobandbill pointed out is another issue.

But just for the opposing side, maybe if a more stringent process was implemented such as solid reason why you chose the candidate and only allowing members of a certain experience and / or postcount could vote, there wouldn't be as much butthurt and all..? But there are exceptions,and I don't think there's ever going to be a 100% smooth election.

Ok so two new Rules:-

1) GMT(GreenWich mean Time Time will be announced for this Election, Calculate your time according to it!

2) Only members with more than 800 posts can take part in it and members with more than 50 posts can vote!

And only 5 can stand for each forum moderatorship and 3 will be elected! Do you want 1000s of Candidates for election?

 

[Ivysaur]

There is a famous saying, "no taxation without representation". Which more or less means that if you are forced to pay, you have the right to choose your representatives.

Here, the only one who is forced to put any dollars from his pocket to keep the site running is Rukario, and he's the one who decided to have this entire system. And since he is the site owner, there isn't much else to go with.

That doesn't mean we aren't ready to change things, but really. This is not a state, or a political party, or a social club where you have to pay to have a say on matters. This is a forum on the internet. We will happily discuss any suggestions left in this board, we have implemented many already.

Transparency? Do you want us to say "We chose X for mod because *C/Ped list of things we look for in a mod candidate*". Because we are NOT making a list of reasons why we didn't choose Y or Z, that would be public humilliation without them being able to present a case beforehand.

2) Only members with more than 800 posts can take part in it and members with more than 50 posts can vote!

When I was chosen mod of Forum Games I had under 600 posts (because posts in that board do not count!). We have had similar cases in Trade and other non-postcount boards. And hell, we once brought up for RH mod a member who had 300 posts but each one of them was pure gold. Right now we do have thousands of candidates- anybody can be considered as mod as long as they are good enough.

 

[Astraea]

That's why i have given a RIGHT TO MATCH! If any of you admins think someone is not a good option for being a mod then replace him with any old one!
a rule:-

1) None can vote for itself and if anyone tries to suggest anyone to vote for him or will give promises that i'll give you a 1000$, vote for me than he'll be banned and be given a lifetime status that he will never be able to become a mod!

Now, people will not just vote for anyone if he/she doesn't know him/her! They'll only vote if they know him/her! I do have a good feeling that even if we start elections, then we'll end up with same staffs! But it'll be fun and people will be happy that they are seeing the mods that are chosen by him/her!

 

[Nah]

That's why i have given a RIGHT TO MATCH! If any of you admins think someone is not a good option for being a mod then replace him with any old one!

Which is pretty much what happens in the current system. If the higher staff thinks that a mod isn't doing a good job and should no longer be in the position, they demote them and pick someone else to fill that slot.

 

[Ivysaur]

But it'll be fun and people will be happy that they are seeing the mods that are chosen by him/her!

But the purpose of having mods is not "entertaining people", but rather "finding users that can work as forum leaders, contribute to their boards from a position of leadership, be active for long amounts of time and fight rule-breakers". There are some popular members (not going to name names but they do exist) who are all but "banned" from becoming mods in the staff discussions because of some flaws/serious events in their past that make them unfit and that many people would not know about/ignore anyway because they are their friends.

And how would you think an user would feel if they were elected and we just came in and decided that they aren't getting the spot after all because we don't trust them? The downfall from it would be horrible for everybody.

And third, you still haven't given a good reason that "democracy" would work better than "experienced forum leaders picking fit people" other than "it would be fun". We already have MoTY for harmless fun votes.

 

[Astraea]

Which is pretty much what happens in the current system. If the higher staff thinks that a mod isn't doing a good job and should no longer be in the position, they demote them and pick someone else to fill that slot.

One RIGHT TO MATCH means one admin can replace one person with an older one and each admin will get only one RIGHT TO MATCH each!

 

[Ivysaur]

One RIGHT TO MATCH means one admin can replace one person with an older one and each admin will get only one RIGHT TO MATCH each!

And what if users elect 8 horrible members? (With 3 mods per board, it would be likely). Do we promote an eight admin to be able to remove the last one? If we are going to have the last say, we'd rather have it from the beggining, not just in the last step.

 

[Nah]

One RIGHT TO MATCH means one admin can replace one person with an older one and each admin will get only one RIGHT TO MATCH each!

The point was that there's no need to implement your democratic system since the "Right to Match" thing is basically already practiced in the current system.

Also, there's no point in member-based elections if the admins can override the system anyway. An election would just be a lot of unecessary drama and work that would amount to nothing in the end.

 

[Astraea]

Cant we just try this system for 2 months, I give you a promise, if it doesn't work, This system will be removed and Old mods will again take control! and after that the old rules will be running of higher staffs choosing mods!

 

[Ivysaur]

You still haven't given us a good reason why we should use the system other than "it would be fun".

 

[Cordelia]

There is a famous saying, "no taxation without representation". Which more or less means that if you are forced to pay, you have the right to choose your representatives.

Here, the only one who is forced to put any dollars from his pocket to keep the site running is Rukario, and he's the one who decided to have this entire system. And since he is the site owner, there isn't much else to go with.

That doesn't mean we aren't ready to change things, but really. This is not a state, or a political party, or a social club where you have to pay to have a say on matters. This is a forum on the internet. We will happily discuss any suggestions left in this board, we have implemented many already.

Transparency? Do you want us to say "We chose X for mod because *C/Ped list of things we look for in a mod candidate*". Because we are NOT making a list of reasons why we didn't choose Y or Z, that would be public humilliation without them being able to present a case beforehand.



When I was chosen mod of Forum Games I had under 600 posts (because posts in that board do not count!). We have had similar cases in Trade and other non-postcount boards. And hell, we once brought up for RH mod a member who had 300 posts but each one of them was pure gold. Right now we do have thousands of candidates- anybody can be considered as mod as long as they are good enough.

I just want to point out people that I personally know who were modded with under 500 posts.

• ME!
• Strawberry
• EV♥
• tabor62
• Went

That's all I know but that's pretty significant. :P So basically, your whole post count thing just encourages people to spam...