TFF Governance

[TFF_Admin]

Voting has concluded, but there was a bit of a split vote because of weird voting practices and extra suggestions halfway through. This poll will close exactly 3 days from this edit.
Two admins and one admin are their own categories. The one admin + various backup procedures are combined to compare to one admin and two, and then the specific implementation is chosen from that, if it wins.

[hr]
Alright, folks, listen up. The thread in General was a bit premature. Also, in the wrong forum- suggestions go in suggestions, but I don't particularly care about that. It's just hard for me to find the things I need to be doing.


So!

Here is the logical order things will go in.

First, we need to determine the hierarchy of leadership. This will determine how strong or lax the rules need to be, by a virtue of need to be specific or not.

Next is the determination of those rules that will be used.

Finally, filling in the actual hierarchy. Which, for the record, is not a goddamn popularity contest.


Now then, let's start. First is the hierarchy. We have several options of various numbers of admins and mods, from 0 to multiple. The exact numbers do not matter- only the designations "zero," "one," and "multiple." Exact numbers are determined as needed when we fill in the hierarchy.

For admins you may vote for one, or multiple.
Admins will have ultimate power over the board by necessity- we need to be careful with this because they CAN just up and delete the board- or worse.

Next is the number of mods. Zero, one, or multiple. The amount of power the mods can have is variable we have several options here.
Low: Mods have the power to move/rename threads and edit posts. They may issue warnings and, in some cases, they may also give temporary bans of a short time, and are required to wait for someone to report the post/issue in question before being able to use their mod powers, except in specific cases to be determined (like CP.)
Medium: Same as above, but they can set a longer ban, and delete posts.
High: Same as above, do not require reports, and can do extremely long bans.

Rotation: We can either choose mods and stick with them until they retire/are impeached, or have a rolling rotation every X months to rotate.

This poll will be open until 11:59PM 3/27/2013 (or as close as I can get it, anyway.)

 

[Shirotsume]

Alright. Taking off the admin hat for a moment so I can cast my own vote, and show you guys the general format.

Admin: One
Reason: The more people who have admin access, the higher the chance one of them could 'go rogue.' However, this one user is a crucial choice- there is a lower chance of a rogue, but in the event of a rogue, the damage could be catastrophic.

Mods: Multiple, Low
Reason: A higher number of mods allows for maximum moderator uptime, ensuring there's always someone about to moderate an issue that is reported. The lower amount of power ensures that a rogue cannot do a significant amount of damage before being contained.

Rotation: Yes No
Reason: I suggest doing an election rather than some kind of rotation- this ensures good mods can stay mods, and poor mods are voted out.
I retract my yes- there were several very good arguments against rotation. I still stand by the idea that we should have an impeachment process.

Supplementry:
I suggest that we add a small forum- mods will post the report that brought the issue to their attention (anonymously, with identifying details struck out), as well as a link to the issue. All discussion of the moderation will go in that forum, and THAT FORUM ONLY.
Mods cannot act without posting a report.

 

[rukia8492]

i agree,1 admin at most

multiple mods, and yes do rotate them to find good ones and weed out the bad ones.

 

[The Ero-Sennin]

I am cool with that method of governance.

 

[Watashiwa]

Shiro's pretty much laid out my feelings on the matter. Don't have anything to say other than goddamn I do not care for the current crop of volunteered/suggested admins.

 

[Ninsaneja]

I would prefer that mods have enough power to deal with immediate problems that can't wait for an admin, such as porn, spam, pornspam, or incredibly disruptive behavior. Of course, I also think that the use of this power should be reviewed after the fact (in the case of immediate emergency usage of said power) to prevent abuse.

I think that the admin should be constitutionally required to pass over the reins in the case of disinterest or other reasons making them unwilling or unable to continue. There is hardly a way to make this binding, but making them swear to it will at least give a symbolic measure of control.

I think that elections are fine, but too many will be disruptive and annoying. Voting should occur during a scheduled time, well ahead of time, and publicly. Elections should only be held for specific reasons as opposed to having "terms" of office as a moderator. For example, holding elections to replace a moderator deemed abusive, or because we feel we need more moderators, or because moderators have quit for whatever reason. Otherwise, if there's no problem with moderators, there shouldn't be an election.

Moderators should be generally assigned to a location that holds interest to them, but be responsible for issues that are specifically called to their attention. If a moderator normally only reads certain forums, he can volunteer to passively watch over them, but if someone in a different area asks for help, that moderator is still responsible for investigating the situation. There is no selective enforcement or moderation only when convenient.
EDIT: And I agree with having a public forum for full disclosure of acts of moderation.

 

[Cosgrove]

Well for me, it'd be:

Admin: one
Having one central person as admin seems like best choice, so long as we don't get another Hawk, because it allows for decisive active that won't be bogged down by bureaucratic arguments if there's a serious problem. I also believe the one admin should be mostly hands off except for keeping the forum running, could also serve a tie-breaker between mods if we have an even number.

Mods: Multiple, low
Reason is that having a number of mods is good, only so long as they can only do what needs to be done and can't go mad with power. I think that in case of any bans, Mods should also have to state in an open place WHY people were banned (temp or not)

Rotation: No.
I think we should have people appointed to being mods, unless they refuse, because elections only allow popular people into 'office' not necessarily the best person: see all elections ever. If the person doesn't work as a mod, they're removed and someone else is appointed. I think there should also be a list of people who would be willing to be mods, and each person on the list needs to be someone who has a relatively clean record and isn't known for causing problems.

I agree with Shiro's supplementary as well.

 

[Vexarian]

I hesitantly agree with Shirotsume.

However, I feel the need to point out that from an abuse standpoint, there is no actual difference between allowing the power to edit posts and allowing the power to delete posts. If one edits a post to remove all of it's content, then that's functionally the same thing as simply deleting it.

 

[Zephyrus]

I'm going to cheat and copy/paste Shiro's vote. Honestly, I'm very much in agreement with what he's suggested.

Admin: One
Reason: The more people who have admin access, the higher the chance one of them could 'go rogue.' However, this one user is a crucial choice- there is a lower chance of a rogue, but in the event of a rogue, the damage could be catastrophic.

Mods: Multiple, Low
Reason: A higher number of mods allows for maximum moderator uptime, ensuring there's always someone about to moderate an issue that is reported. The lower amount of power ensures that a rogue cannot do a significant amount of damage before being contained.

Rotation: Yes
Reason: I suggest doing an election rather than some kind of rotation- this ensures good mods can stay mods, and poor mods are voted out.

Supplementry:
I suggest that we add a small forum- mods will post the report that brought the issue to their attention (anonymousely, with identifying details struck out), as well as a link to the issue. All discussion of the moderation will go in that forum, and THAT FORUM ONLY.
Mods cannot act without posting a report.


I quite like the idea of rotating mods. On most boards, short of you dying or the admin developing ridiculous amounts of hate for you, you're a mod for the rest of the forseeable future, even if you're not the best moderator ever. The rotation and election system will ensure that prospective mods hold up to their end of the deal if they want to "remain in office".

 

[Irksome Productions]

I vote for multiple admins, if there's a way to make it so that Bad Things can only happen when they agree to it. Ideally, three who have differing opinions. That way, if one goes rogue, we don't lose everything.


If we can't make it so that there need to be multiple admins to do stuff like delete the boards, then just one. Ideally, someone trustworthy.


We should have multiple moderators, ideally with a spread of power- a number of low mods who basically keep an eye on things, a couple of mid or high mods who manage major sections, like Naruto fanfics, ect.

Moderators should totally rotate. Let the vote decide who gets the axe, and who keeps the hammer. Every 6-12 months is a good time to have rotations.


I concur with the supplementary addition of Shiro's.

 

[PCHeintz72]

My personal recommendations...

Administrator(s): One
Reasons:
- There has to be an overseer. This single person whom can also be used as a conduit to the Icyboards.

Moderator(s): Multiple, HIGH
Reasons:
- I want moderation, and I want them to be as powerful as possible to be able to stop any potential incident.
- There should be an odd number. Both as a self review process, and as a ability not have ties in voting.

Rotation: No
Reason: I feel this could get too confusing. I do feel there should be some form of impeachment process.

Supplementary:
Since the board is so concerned about openness, *3* READ ONLY threads for all results of decisions:
- one for decisions regarding members.
- one for decisions regarding forum features and rules.
- one for a public record of complaints against moderators.
Moderator vote results should also be posted in those decision threads, though just numbers, like 1-2, or 4-1 or unanimous, etc...

EDIT: Edited based on new information from Admin.

 

[foreverzero]

Shirotsume's overall assessment seems fine to me.

 

[~NGD OMEGA~]

Admin: One Normal one, but also one redundant account just in case.
As stated too many of these could easily lead to problems being caused and there's always going to be a need for it. Having more than one is just asking for problems, and even making sure the one we elect is solid is going to be a herculean feat in itself.

But we also need to make sure circumstances don't leave us without an admin out of nowhere, so a redundant account (Maybe the current TFF_Admin one in fact) should probably be made with parts of the password split among the mods (Maybe split up enough so that if we also lose a mod it doesn't take away every part, so split the password into two and give both those parts to two different mods or something), to be only used and put together in very special circumstances when the regular admin has disappeared for a while.


Mods: Multiple, Low.
More than one allows for more general coverage, and if possible it would be good to elect mods from different timezones/general forum browsing times to cover as much as possible. Keep the power low however since if anyone needs to be banned for longer periods of time it should be discussed/done through the admin instead, in the case of say repeat offenders. No need for them to delete posts either since allowance of editing would let them simply blank out the post/leave a message of why it was modified which is pretty much the same deal.

It's actually better than just deleting because if someone stupidly quotes the offensive post it also lets the mod edit those subsequent posts as well. Needing to respond to reports is also generally a good idea to avoid abusing power so all the important bases are covered.



Rotation: No.
Rotating admins, especially when based on popularity, is a horrendous idea based on the possibility of dup accounts for votes and general possibility of malicious intent from anyone like new board members not as familiar with our general atmosphere who may bring with them a large enough fanbase to win a vote. So we need to pick right here and now who gets this level of power and make sure there's as little possibility as possible that it move to someone with negative intent (Say someone who wants the Naruto forum gone or what have you).

Mods, lacking decent amounts of power won't be able to cause nearly as much damage but leaving it to a popularity contest there too also seems like a similarly bad idea, and rotating it on intervals sounds like so much of a hassle for something that could just be left alone until they become a problem and then easily dealt with thanks to their low level of power.

Mods should probably just stay the same until they start abusing power/disappear for significant amounts of time/are not doing their job/don't want to do it anymore, in which case it should probably fall to the admin to revoke their status and a new one be properly selected over a list of users without any notable negative records. In those cases elected mods should be chosen based more on the reasons why said user might make a good and relatively hands off mod and exempting those based on any notably negative or irrationally biased behaviors. Basically don't select dicks.

Similarly it should also be someone with a decent amount of exposure to the forum, so say some new guy with barely 100 posts can't just be elected either. A certain degree of prior involvement in the forum should have already been established basically.

Of course a lot of this hinges on a generally solid admin from the start however (Who similarly may want to leave the position requiring the proper selection of another solid admin who may still be significantly hard to find), which is the real kicking point, but ultimately whoever is going to be chosen for that in any of the given choices is going to hinge on a LOT of trust no matter what.

 

[Zephyrus]

Rotation: No
Reason: I feel this could get too confusing. I do feel there should be some form of impeachment process.

Perhaps the rotation could be in a set amount of time, say, 6 months per rotation? That wouldn't be too bad.

 

[PCHeintz72]

Rotation: No
Reason: I feel this could get too confusing. I do feel there should be some form of impeachment process.

Perhaps the rotation could be in a set amount of time, say, 6 months per rotation? That wouldn't be too bad.

Personally I still am against it. From a practical standpoint, it makes little sense to me as then people whom do not come on that often might never remember whom the mods even are.. Or be present for such a vote.

Maybe if there was a way to blatently list somewhere whom all the moderators and administrators were.

 

[Ninsaneja]

PC: We mostly agree that there should be a moderator accountability forum.

 

[Irksome Productions]

Rotation: No
Reason: I feel this could get too confusing. I do feel there should be some form of impeachment process.

Perhaps the rotation could be in a set amount of time, say, 6 months per rotation? That wouldn't be too bad.

Personally I still am against it. From a practical standpoint, it makes little sense to me as then people whom do not come on that often might never remember whom the mods even are.. Or be present for such a vote.

Maybe if there was a way to blatently list somewhere whom all the moderators and administrators were.

Such as, say, an updated thread in the Announcement/News forum with mods/admin usernames, and records of when they took up/left the post and for what reasons (impeachment, stepped down, voted out, ect)?


Announcements/mass PMs or emails could announce mod elections/impeachments, too.

 

[Vexarian]

Everyone keeps talking about this idea of rotating the moderators, but it still strikes me as an abysmally bad idea. Even if you worked some sort of voodoo to make it work as something other than a glorified popularity contest... what's the point? This whole process is like playing Russian Roulette, doing it over and over again just seems to me like an excellent way to get a bullet stuck between our ears.

Edit: Although of course I think we should also be free to strip power off of abusive moderators, and to promote new members to fill ranks should the need arise, doing it "just because" is a remarkably awful idea.

 

[Ninsaneja]

Well... It doesn't feel like a revolution without a little bloodshed, eh?

 

[randombugger]

Admin: One

Mods: Multiple, Low

Rotation: no

Supplementry: Agreed
I suggest that we add a small forum- mods will post the report that brought the issue to their attention (anonymousely, with identifying details struck out), as well as a link to the issue. All discussion of the moderation will go in that forum, and THAT FORUM ONLY.
Mods cannot act without posting a report.

 

[~NGD OMEGA~]

If the Moderators have a low amount of power, rotation is pointless. Any damage the mod can do can easily be undone and the moderator can just as easily be ousted if they abuse their power. Rotating them in intervals just requires a lot of leggwork from the forum to organize elections every so often, which eventually most people will start ignoring. And when that happens people using dup accounts to get themselves elected becomes a lot more possible.

Out mods when they behave poorly and then select new ones based on general behavior/some level of seniority. Mods are ideally going to be rarely used anyway (And if they are active often something is wrong and they likely need to be ousted quickly) so making set intervals just seems like a lot of hassle for little benefit.

Obviously the forum should be involved to select new mods in these hopefully rare cases, complete with examples of good behavior of their suggestions (And examples of bad behavior from those who don't want said person elected) so mod selection should ultimately be weighted based on those parameters more than popularity.

 

[theunderbolt]

Admin: One

Mods: Multiple, Low

Rotation: no

 

[ArchfiendRai]

My own vote:

Admin: One to two
- I agree that giving too many people the power to possibly delete the forum is a bad idea. However, there could always be a case where one admin could be biased in a situation. Having another with equal power could potentially keep that in check. That said, One admin who we can truly trust to be impartial would be best.

Mods: Multiple. Lower Medium.
- Just a few weeks ago on Nexon's Vindictus forum, someone decided "Fuck you Nexon" and did everything in his god damn power to get banned. He spammed porn and hentai gifs in a bunch of threads, and it took around five hours (or so I heard) for a mod to come in and fix the problem. (It was Sunday. Apparently they don't work weekends or something at Nexon.) Mods NEED to be able to fix glaring and immediate issues, but Perm Bans should need to be reported to the Admin, who would be the only one with the power to actually do it. However, this is NOT a job.

I'll repeat for emphasis; This is NOT a job. We're not electing admins and mods so that they can go and micromanage and look for everyone who is putting a damn toe out of line. We're electing them so that IF we run into a GLARING issue that has entire sections going up in arms, we can DIFFUSE that situation.

When said situation is not present, mods should be no more than regular members with fancy titles.

Rotation: No.
- The only reason that a good mod should be switched out is that they personally decide to retire. All the same, a bad mod should be able to get impeached.

 

[theunderbolt]

Btw when did all this happen ;

 

[Ninsaneja]

Two days ago.