How should we run the elections?
- Thread starter Shirotsume
- Start date
I felt a shiver run through me, as if we stood on the edge of a vast, icy abyss, and PC's words had somehow cracked the fragile ledge we stood on.
But sure, why not? He does go everywhere, and as long as he has the aforementioned programming skills, I don't really have any reason to stand against it.
But sure, why not? He does go everywhere, and as long as he has the aforementioned programming skills, I don't really have any reason to stand against it.
Usual TFF thread-derailing to me. 
First it was about the voting systems (my contribution), then it was about not allowing the mod-nominees to vote for themselves (or vote at all for that matter), this was soon upgraded to admin-nominee and now we're throwing around names for mod-nominees (again upgraded to backup admin nominee).
I am honestly confused. What is this thread about again?
Going back to the first post Shirotsume asks,
At some point in the discussion I came to the conclusion that the easiest way to resolve this is to accept ALL nominations, including self-nominations and just have a big vote. Top three candidates become our mods. As for "qualifications", the voting should take care of it.
There is that one concern about having an impeachment process in place before doing this - I have no response for it.
-chronodekar
First it was about the voting systems (my contribution), then it was about not allowing the mod-nominees to vote for themselves (or vote at all for that matter), this was soon upgraded to admin-nominee and now we're throwing around names for mod-nominees (again upgraded to backup admin nominee).
I am honestly confused. What is this thread about again?
Going back to the first post Shirotsume asks,
At some point in the discussion I came to the conclusion that the easiest way to resolve this is to accept ALL nominations, including self-nominations and just have a big vote. Top three candidates become our mods. As for "qualifications", the voting should take care of it.
There is that one concern about having an impeachment process in place before doing this - I have no response for it.
-chronodekar
The only thing about letting anyone nominate is that it's going to make my life living hell to tally
It looks like that's consensus though. Blargh.
As for impeachment... Maybe this is me being pedantic, but I almost feel like a motion of no confidence would be better than impeachment and conviction process.
It looks like that's consensus though. Blargh.
As for impeachment... Maybe this is me being pedantic, but I almost feel like a motion of no confidence would be better than impeachment and conviction process.
Shirotsume said:
The only thing about letting anyone nominate is that it's going to make my life living hell to tally
It looks like that's consensus though. Blargh.
As for impeachment... Maybe this is me being pedantic, but I almost feel like a motion of no confidence would be better than impeachment and conviction process.
It looks like that's consensus though. Blargh.
As for impeachment... Maybe this is me being pedantic, but I almost feel like a motion of no confidence would be better than impeachment and conviction process.
Let's just make a nomination thread and get this over with.
Maybe I'm silly for being impatient, but we've been talking about moderators for what, 2 weeks now? If that amount of talking didn't really solve anything, then nothing will.
We've been talking about moderators for 3 days, we had to get rules and hierarchy set up first. I'm hardly dawdling here, I'm up my hairline in RL business, haha.
Regardless, nominations should open sometime tonight... after I get xf86-video-ati to stop deciding that what my screens really needs... are to be off.
Regardless, nominations should open sometime tonight... after I get xf86-video-ati to stop deciding that what my screens really needs... are to be off.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say that negative votes are more important. A mod doesn't have to be best friends with everyone, but a mod who is hated by a significant proportion of the community (or whom a significant proportion of the community really feels is not going to do the job well) is a bad idea.
I don't think that's true, though, particularly when you're looking at such long periods. Being on a forum a long time does not make you a competent admin, and nor do I think it makes you automatically more "aware" of the culture, because the culture of a forum changes (in particular, I think the previous lack of administration on here has changed things quite a lot). Also, I do not think lurking for four years makes you a competent admin, and it also makes you difficult to judge.
So, I'd suggest a moderately low post count (possibly a few hundred) and a relatively short time limit. Sure, we don't want totally new people, but I don't agree that the positions should be reserved for people who joined when Hawk was still active or whatever. That is just elitist, without any real justification to explain why they would be poor at the job.
Yeah, having adminned my own forum, I fully agree with this. Although it does depend somewhat on the software used.
I think this is unnecessary, because such a person would likely not win anyway. It's also a judgement call I'd rather leave up to the voters rather than the person organising the election.
Well, I think something like that is not a bad idea, but given the situation I think something similar to approval voting is better. Most people aren't going to be bothered about specific people becoming mods so much as they will be about avoiding certain people being mods, and I think avoiding bad mods is a lot more important than ensuring we get the very best mods possible in any case.
I think everyone should be entitled to vote, at least. People who are inactive just won't bother. The only exclusion I see as even remotely reasonable is excluding new members (who were not on the old site), since that prevents sockpuppeting and ensures everyone is actually interested in the site as it currently is.
The thing is, I don't see why a lurker who has posted only 5 times in 3 years should be considered a better candidate for being a mod than someone who posted 1000 times in a year. The second is clearly more involved in the forum, and probably knows the members better too.
At the same time, I agree that post count is not always a reflection of actual involvement, because some people just spam crap posts and some are more thoughtful about when they post.
This does seem sensible, but I'm not sure that 50% is a sufficiently high threshold. If almost half of the members think you'd make a crap mod, I don't think you should be a mod.
I'd say it should be either the top 5-6 or anyone getting more than 75% "yes" votes goes through to the next round, with the voting being secret so you can't tell how everyone is doing.
Agreed. That basically just turns it into a popularity contest rather than vote on who would be a competent mod. Pointing out flaws in potential mods is an important part of making the decision a good one.
Worse, it actually encourages them not to vote at all (if they want to win, anyway), because voting means giving their rivals an advantage.
There is no reason to implement such a thing, at least if we're having multiple choice voting. They pick theirselves once and then two other people....
There's a distinction between trusting ourselves to choose good mods and what we think the best system of doing so is.
I don't think that's true, though, particularly when you're looking at such long periods. Being on a forum a long time does not make you a competent admin, and nor do I think it makes you automatically more "aware" of the culture, because the culture of a forum changes (in particular, I think the previous lack of administration on here has changed things quite a lot). Also, I do not think lurking for four years makes you a competent admin, and it also makes you difficult to judge.
So, I'd suggest a moderately low post count (possibly a few hundred) and a relatively short time limit. Sure, we don't want totally new people, but I don't agree that the positions should be reserved for people who joined when Hawk was still active or whatever. That is just elitist, without any real justification to explain why they would be poor at the job.
Yeah, having adminned my own forum, I fully agree with this. Although it does depend somewhat on the software used.
I think this is unnecessary, because such a person would likely not win anyway. It's also a judgement call I'd rather leave up to the voters rather than the person organising the election.
Well, I think something like that is not a bad idea, but given the situation I think something similar to approval voting is better. Most people aren't going to be bothered about specific people becoming mods so much as they will be about avoiding certain people being mods, and I think avoiding bad mods is a lot more important than ensuring we get the very best mods possible in any case.
I think everyone should be entitled to vote, at least. People who are inactive just won't bother. The only exclusion I see as even remotely reasonable is excluding new members (who were not on the old site), since that prevents sockpuppeting and ensures everyone is actually interested in the site as it currently is.
The thing is, I don't see why a lurker who has posted only 5 times in 3 years should be considered a better candidate for being a mod than someone who posted 1000 times in a year. The second is clearly more involved in the forum, and probably knows the members better too.
At the same time, I agree that post count is not always a reflection of actual involvement, because some people just spam crap posts and some are more thoughtful about when they post.
This does seem sensible, but I'm not sure that 50% is a sufficiently high threshold. If almost half of the members think you'd make a crap mod, I don't think you should be a mod.
I'd say it should be either the top 5-6 or anyone getting more than 75% "yes" votes goes through to the next round, with the voting being secret so you can't tell how everyone is doing.
Agreed. That basically just turns it into a popularity contest rather than vote on who would be a competent mod. Pointing out flaws in potential mods is an important part of making the decision a good one.
Worse, it actually encourages them not to vote at all (if they want to win, anyway), because voting means giving their rivals an advantage.
There is no reason to implement such a thing, at least if we're having multiple choice voting. They pick theirselves once and then two other people....
There's a distinction between trusting ourselves to choose good mods and what we think the best system of doing so is.
Agreed.
Also, the alternative vote actually works fairly well at preventing people you despise from getting the nod, because you don't *have* to cast all of your votes. So, if there's candidates A, B, C, D, and E, and you hate the ever-living shit out of B and E, you can just cast votes for A, C, and D in whatever order you want. (The system still has its flaws, but it's better than traditional first-past-the-post in most measurable ways. Admittedly, most of the benefits are more visible over a cycle of elections, as the Spoiler Effect takes an election or two to really build up, but still. If we're picking between PCHeintz, Vexarian, and...myself, for Admin, for example, nobody would vote for me even if they really liked me as a potential admin, because PCHeintz and Vexarian are obviously more popular candidates. Also, I would be a terrible admin, as I can't code at all.)
Also, the alternative vote actually works fairly well at preventing people you despise from getting the nod, because you don't *have* to cast all of your votes. So, if there's candidates A, B, C, D, and E, and you hate the ever-living shit out of B and E, you can just cast votes for A, C, and D in whatever order you want. (The system still has its flaws, but it's better than traditional first-past-the-post in most measurable ways. Admittedly, most of the benefits are more visible over a cycle of elections, as the Spoiler Effect takes an election or two to really build up, but still. If we're picking between PCHeintz, Vexarian, and...myself, for Admin, for example, nobody would vote for me even if they really liked me as a potential admin, because PCHeintz and Vexarian are obviously more popular candidates. Also, I would be a terrible admin, as I can't code at all.)
And here we go again. The argument has come a full 360 circle now, I believe.
A vetting process would mean SOMEONE sit and decide some "rules/qualifications". Post count was suggested, as is join date and some other criteria. They all have good/bad points, but in the end - there's no clear winner.
I have my own opinions about all this, but am forced to admit that just making a poll and having the voters decide simplifies a LOT of the nagging questions. It isn't perfect - but we'd be endlessly debating back and forth otherwise.
-chronodekar
A vetting process would mean SOMEONE sit and decide some "rules/qualifications". Post count was suggested, as is join date and some other criteria. They all have good/bad points, but in the end - there's no clear winner.
I have my own opinions about all this, but am forced to admit that just making a poll and having the voters decide simplifies a LOT of the nagging questions. It isn't perfect - but we'd be endlessly debating back and forth otherwise.
-chronodekar
It never ceases to surprise me how we can make things become needlessly complicated.
Obviously, we need to form a committee to determine how the vote should be enacted, as well as an oversight committee to make sure the first committee isn't abusing their power or slacking off. Maybe a third committee to share oversight with the community at large to make sure that the second committee is doing their job and not corrupting the first committee.
But seriously, allow anyone who was a member of oTFF to apply for the mod position, and then maybe have that "vote in order of preference" style that was suggested to get what is hopefully the best outcome. Admins should have some programming experience, but otherwise, same general guidelines. We can argue about this whole thing on and on, and nothing is going to get done.
Obviously, we need to form a committee to determine how the vote should be enacted, as well as an oversight committee to make sure the first committee isn't abusing their power or slacking off. Maybe a third committee to share oversight with the community at large to make sure that the second committee is doing their job and not corrupting the first committee.
But seriously, allow anyone who was a member of oTFF to apply for the mod position, and then maybe have that "vote in order of preference" style that was suggested to get what is hopefully the best outcome. Admins should have some programming experience, but otherwise, same general guidelines. We can argue about this whole thing on and on, and nothing is going to get done.
I am personally preemptively opting out of all positions for administrator, backup administrator, and especially moderator.
Do not vote for me, or nominate me.
I do not desire any position of power or authority on this forum.
Of course, my stating such in advance did not stop me from being entered and still managing to win the last such poll...
And I am still firmly of the belief a lot of people would be most upset if I did gain such... I've had far too many burns and bad run ins over the years here both in the forum proper and in PMs/Emails to believe anything but that to be the case.
Besides, I'm still sulking that voting was for a set of rules so light and forgiving... (I do not blame administrator... since that was what was voted for, nor unexpected... but it was still disappointing). Oh well...
Do not vote for me, or nominate me.
I do not desire any position of power or authority on this forum.
Of course, my stating such in advance did not stop me from being entered and still managing to win the last such poll...
And I am still firmly of the belief a lot of people would be most upset if I did gain such... I've had far too many burns and bad run ins over the years here both in the forum proper and in PMs/Emails to believe anything but that to be the case.
Besides, I'm still sulking that voting was for a set of rules so light and forgiving... (I do not blame administrator... since that was what was voted for, nor unexpected... but it was still disappointing). Oh well...
You know, this might be the ONLY "condition/per-requisite" for being a mod/admin that people have unconsciously accepted. That the person be a member from old TFF.
With all the debate doing the rounds, I felt it necessary to quote and solidify the one thing we all seem to agree on.
On the issue of what voting system to use, Shirotsume has veto'd that it would be a separate thread where everyone simply says YES/NO for the different candidates. While I would have liked this to be done differently, I have to agree that his idea makes things easy to verify. ANYONE could simply walk into the thread and manually count the votes! It may be a tedious job, but avoids a lot of that "double vote" nonsense.
Assuming of course, that people around here know how to count ...
-chronodekar
With all the debate doing the rounds, I felt it necessary to quote and solidify the one thing we all seem to agree on.
On the issue of what voting system to use, Shirotsume has veto'd that it would be a separate thread where everyone simply says YES/NO for the different candidates. While I would have liked this to be done differently, I have to agree that his idea makes things easy to verify. ANYONE could simply walk into the thread and manually count the votes! It may be a tedious job, but avoids a lot of that "double vote" nonsense.
Assuming of course, that people around here know how to count ...
-chronodekar
Why?
It seems like a perfectly sensible way to pick moderators to me. I'd much rather not end up with a bunch of people who half the forum loves and the rest detests....
Well, aside from the fact that that likely won't actually disqualify anyone given the current rules, who is actually going to judge this? If implementing the rules were entirely free from interpretation we wouldn't need moderators, we could just have an admin who dealt with everything perfectly.
It seems like a perfectly sensible way to pick moderators to me. I'd much rather not end up with a bunch of people who half the forum loves and the rest detests....
Well, aside from the fact that that likely won't actually disqualify anyone given the current rules, who is actually going to judge this? If implementing the rules were entirely free from interpretation we wouldn't need moderators, we could just have an admin who dealt with everything perfectly.