So does this mean that anyone with more than 1 warning will not be eligible for modship?
I had a flame warning (granted, that was about 5 years ago), and an infraction about 6 months ago (ironically for backseat modding). What that means is that if someone has a history of behavior problems, they probably won't be selected as a mod. It doesn't mean that someone who took one conversation too far or misinterpreted a rule is automatically eliminated from consideration.
The Rumor Mill is the part of the site that attracts the most members and has by far the highest traffic and, really, is the only reason for the site existing as we know it (that is, it being at all popular). Therefore, I propose that Rumor Mill moderators are elected by the masses, then these moderators get to choose the moderators for all the other forums.
The Rumor Mill is the part of the site that attracts the most members and has by far the highest traffic and, really, is the only reason for the site existing as we know it (that is, it being at all popular). Therefore, I propose that Rumor Mill moderators are elected by the masses, then these moderators get to choose the moderators for all the other forums.
Just because one section has the most traffic doesn't mean it should be treated differently. Also, I think that the fact it gets so much traffic is exactly why moderators for the Mill should *not* be mass elected. It can get really hectic in there during rumor season, and having the wrong person for the job can cause things to get bad. The current mods/admins in the forum know what goes into a job like that, so I think they'd be more qualified to tell who could handle it.
The Rumor Mill is the part of the site that attracts the most members and has by far the highest traffic and, really, is the only reason for the site existing as we know it (that is, it being at all popular). Therefore, I propose that Rumor Mill moderators are elected by the masses, then these moderators get to choose the moderators for all the other forums.
The problem with this is that you give one forum section de facto power over the others, and turn it into a popularity contest.
And you were saying that a moderator vote, even if it's done by other moderators, is not a popularity vote? I mean, if I were considered as a mod, I am sure that MikeyG would say no.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
And you were saying that a moderator vote, even if it's done by other moderators, is not a popularity vote? I mean, if I were considered as a mod, I am sure that MikeyG would say no.
Well do you have support of your competency as a Moderator?
But I would argue (given that you're only using a random example and not literally yourself) that a moderator usually feels a sense of duty toward the site to elect the person best suited for the job. Even if the decision may be influenced by personal favoritisms, most moderators wouldn't give the post to someone completely wrong for the job. Normal members feel less obligation toward the health of the site.
Well do you have support of your competency as a Moderator?
But I would argue (given that you're only using a random example and not literally yourself) that a moderator usually feels a sense of duty toward the site to elect the person best suited for the job. Even if the decision may be influenced by personal favoritisms, most moderators wouldn't give the post to someone completely wrong for the job. Most normal members feel less obligation toward the health of the site.
In my experience, this is one of the better forums in existence. Every one has its flaws, it's inevitable, but the reason for MTGS' success is likely in part because a lot (not most though) members do indeed care for the health of the site.
And you were saying that a moderator vote, even if it's done by other moderators, is not a popularity vote? I mean, if I were considered as a mod, I am sure that MikeyG would say no.
If the mods making the vote are all elected by popularity, it runs a much higher risk. It would turn into politics real fast.
The example was to have the first set of mods elected by popular vote from the Rumor Mill. While I'm not saying it would happen with 100% certainty, you could easily have people promising favors/certain interpretations of the rules/etc. Add onto that after the vote, you'll have people disgruntled with the outcome. Remember the recent forum awards? Do we really want that in a vote for modship?
Once these people are elected mod, they will in turn (again, maybe maybe not) bring friends into the moderator group. Think Andrew Jackson's to the victor goes the spoils'. While you can say that people could just vote them out, what is the guarantee that the elected mods would be willing to step down if voted out?
One of the shortcomings of the current system, in my view, is that the position of Moderator is essentially a "for life" position. I'd suggest that a designated time twice annually, say in April and October, a board to allow applications be opened up to fill any vacancies. Sitting Administrators, Global Moderators and senior Moderators within a subforum would continue to choose their new membership, as is the case today. Any Moderators chosen would hold the position for a preassigned length of time, and could of course apply for reappointment or for another forum. Only after a set number of reappointments (2 or 3 maybe), the position would become theirs presumptively.
By standardizing the cycle, there would be greater predictability and accountability (or at least the appearance thereof). In working on a college publication in which there was necessarily turnover, a system like this helped to ensure continuity since 1868.
One of the shortcomings of the current system, in my view, is that the position of Moderator is essentially a "for life" position.
Not quite - in the time since I became involved in moderation here, there have been two high level, eyebrow raising "firings". And at least four more that didn't draw so much attention. I don't consider it tactful to name names, so I won't be doing that. But just saying, it happens. People do get dropped when they are performing poorly for whatever reason.
Not quite - in the time since I became involved in moderation here, there have been two high level, eyebrow raising "firings". And at least four more that didn't draw so much attention. I don't consider it tactful to name names, so I won't be doing that. But just saying, it happens. People do get dropped when they are performing poorly for whatever reason.
Oh yes, I realize that. I know there's been some high-profile changes now and again, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm not advocating for the removal of anyone or any presumption of poor performance by anyone newly added to staff, I'm just suggesting that by introducing some schedule or cycle into the process, it could give the process some more buy-in.
That seems like fixing what isn't broken, Grakk. Usually, by the time that whole 'reelection' thing came up, any problem with said moderator would either be fixed, or that moderator would be fired already.
Then I guess I'm not sure what, if anything, is broken about the current system. What struck me about the recent wave of staff additions was how it took many users by surprise, as it seemed to be out of the ordinary. I wouldn't want to change the current system of Moderators choosing Moderators, or to open up Moderators to community recall elections or anything of the sort, but I think that the general process of selecting Moderators ought to be more formalized and regular, moving away from selecting to fill vacancies and towards selecting for the long-term health of the community.
I'll admit that I'm not the most vocally active member on here—far from it—but I take a keen interest in the game and the forums and MTGS community, as any number of Moderators could likely attest to from my frequent reporting of posts. (I'm certain I've reported far more posts than I've ever made.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"We dont' bar people from moderatorship because of a history of infractions and warnings."
My helpdesk should you need me.
This is incorrect. IIRC a mod was suspended a while back...
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
This has never happened.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
Then I guess I didn't recall correctly
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I had a flame warning (granted, that was about 5 years ago), and an infraction about 6 months ago (ironically for backseat modding). What that means is that if someone has a history of behavior problems, they probably won't be selected as a mod. It doesn't mean that someone who took one conversation too far or misinterpreted a rule is automatically eliminated from consideration.
Just because one section has the most traffic doesn't mean it should be treated differently. Also, I think that the fact it gets so much traffic is exactly why moderators for the Mill should *not* be mass elected. It can get really hectic in there during rumor season, and having the wrong person for the job can cause things to get bad. The current mods/admins in the forum know what goes into a job like that, so I think they'd be more qualified to tell who could handle it.
The problem with this is that you give one forum section de facto power over the others, and turn it into a popularity contest.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
But I would argue (given that you're only using a random example and not literally yourself) that a moderator usually feels a sense of duty toward the site to elect the person best suited for the job. Even if the decision may be influenced by personal favoritisms, most moderators wouldn't give the post to someone completely wrong for the job. Normal members feel less obligation toward the health of the site.
In my experience, this is one of the better forums in existence. Every one has its flaws, it's inevitable, but the reason for MTGS' success is likely in part because a lot (not most though) members do indeed care for the health of the site.
If the mods making the vote are all elected by popularity, it runs a much higher risk. It would turn into politics real fast.
The example was to have the first set of mods elected by popular vote from the Rumor Mill. While I'm not saying it would happen with 100% certainty, you could easily have people promising favors/certain interpretations of the rules/etc. Add onto that after the vote, you'll have people disgruntled with the outcome. Remember the recent forum awards? Do we really want that in a vote for modship?
Once these people are elected mod, they will in turn (again, maybe maybe not) bring friends into the moderator group. Think Andrew Jackson's to the victor goes the spoils'. While you can say that people could just vote them out, what is the guarantee that the elected mods would be willing to step down if voted out?
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
By standardizing the cycle, there would be greater predictability and accountability (or at least the appearance thereof). In working on a college publication in which there was necessarily turnover, a system like this helped to ensure continuity since 1868.
Not quite - in the time since I became involved in moderation here, there have been two high level, eyebrow raising "firings". And at least four more that didn't draw so much attention. I don't consider it tactful to name names, so I won't be doing that. But just saying, it happens. People do get dropped when they are performing poorly for whatever reason.
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
Oh yes, I realize that. I know there's been some high-profile changes now and again, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm not advocating for the removal of anyone or any presumption of poor performance by anyone newly added to staff, I'm just suggesting that by introducing some schedule or cycle into the process, it could give the process some more buy-in.
Edit: For any foreseeable problems, that is.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I'll admit that I'm not the most vocally active member on here—far from it—but I take a keen interest in the game and the forums and MTGS community, as any number of Moderators could likely attest to from my frequent reporting of posts. (I'm certain I've reported far more posts than I've ever made.)