Elect a Mod! #2

Sorry to hi-jack your thread, Nor, but the other one is filled up and I don't want the discussion to be halted. Let me copy paste your original post from the original thread, one sec:

"I thought this would be a rather interesting idea. It's just for fun and quite harmless. Of course I would love seeing it enforced someday, but I am not holding my breath on it.

So I want every member to, lets say, elect a few names/members they see fit to become Mods.

Just imagine that our recent Mod empire fell and now every single member:

1- Has a chance of electing/voting for 5 mods (more or less). who would you pick?

You can state names only or names with reasons why.

2- Has a chance of becoming a Mod.

You can suggest your name and why you see yourself fit for the position, as well as what changes you'll make, what would you add to what Mods do now and what would you remove/cross out, in other words, tell us your program outline.

3- Has a chance of being serious, sarcastic, whomsoever or whatsoever they wish.

You can make a total imaginary/non-existent member and introduce it to us; something like Robin Williams' Mrs. Doubtfire: ''I'm a hip old granny who could hip-hop, bebop, dance till ya drop and yo, yo, make a wicked cup of cocoa.'' xD Make a total imaginary character out of yourself and give it the characteristics of the perfect mod in your opinion or the worst mod. Be creative!

We'll be having winners!"

I have an idea. How about when you vote privately, you have to say you voted in a public thread. Or the person in charge of the private votes can keep a running list of the names of people who have voted. Is that fair? No one has to know who you voted for or which comments are yours, but at least we can all be aware of who has participated.

Ok Hellon, can do.

----
Last post:
author: Anna Stephens
status: member
date: 2011.02.25 19:54

You can't possibly conspire to leave anyone who is a member out of the voting!!!!!!

I lost my reply when you the thread was locked. ok, no worries, here I go again.

Anna, we were did discuss/suggest that indeed. point was:

Only members who are active on the main boards, not daily, but are at least seen here.. are those who deal with mods and not others. they want to vote, they should be active!

---

It wouldn't be fair for members who don't show up here AT ALL, have no interaction with the mods whatsoever and aren't even know.. to vote and ruin the whole outcome for those who spend a lot of time here with under the mods supervision.

if you don't approve that, then let them vote by awards along with activeness and have a has to be a member for at least one year requirement. but opening the votes collectively for only god knows who would be a mess and unfair for both the mods and people who spent a great deal of time on these boards.

EDIT:

''Where do you propose to cut it off? One post, 100 posts, 300 posts?''

not exact number of posts required, just enough to know the member and see them. you and Kay for example don't show daily but do show, then you'll be allowed to vote. but open the members online list for example now.. how many people you never know of and never saw a word from them here? much more than half of them!

I disagree. screen names and avatars kind of are one unchangeable rule for us all as far as my understanding goes. but supervising posts, head bumping/disagreeing with mods are not.

I didn't say or mean they are separate classes, I said they do not deal with the mods on constant basis, so they shouldn't enforce their choices on us who are here most of the time before they return to their shells. how hard is ''if you want to vote than be active'' is?

why do you think some people can nominate poems and others can't unless they're senior members? it's because it would be a mess if everyone could do it and an unreliable one at that. there has to be credibility to those who vote not anyone with an account made in two minutes.

I don't know about the whole member being active on the main forums part because there are indeed a few members even in M&M that don't come on the main forums yet are very active members in the club.
Danika & Yaki for example

Should they not be given a vote just because they don't come on the main forums? (again I am using them for example)

Mods do much more than mod forums. They handle issues with comments, PM's and many other things than just the main forums.

How would this make them feel, would have to be considered also (I think)

Hmm... I also think everyone should have the ability to vote, but Nor brings up some interesting issues that we shouldn't overlook. What do others think?

We can make it a senior member thing, Luanne. but I suggested activeness on the main boards because it's where we deal with mods. However people in clubs that don't come out of it are under the club manager's and assistants supervision and rules NOT the mods, so it wouldn't effect them in anyway at all as it would us who are here most of the time.

Yes I understand your point Nor and you have given some good points also but it also does effect those that remain in their clubs because they may have a concern about an offensive PM or comment on their poem and managers / assistants can't do anything about those things ... only mods can.

Also there may be reasons why some members don't frequent the main forums.

An offensive pm or spam is not a matter of opinion. any mod would do the same thing, Luanne, plus you won't be dealing with a mod in particular but the whole mod team, it's not personal, unlike here on the main boards.

So really then members would be voting in a mod based on how well they think a mod would mod the main forums?
Sorry I am just not understanding ... I had a long day at work today ... lol

Yes, their attitude. let me quote , ok?

''What Do Moderators Do?

Moderators monitor board posts and respond to complaints to keep posting free of undesirable content as described in the Board Rules and P&Q User Agreement. They enforce the board rules, and can delete posts (with or without penalty), edit posts as well as suspend you from the site. If a moderator lets you know you are close to crossing the line, take heed of the warning. Likewise, if your thread was deleted or locked by a moderator, do not re-post the topic.''

so they basically work with us on these main boards, they have the power to edit our post, delete and lock our threads, penalize us and suspend us all together. most of such depends on their discretion. so yes, we'd vote on them depending on how well they mod and deal with the main forums and the people on it.

We've since modified that description so that we take majority votes before acting instead of putting all that power into individuals' hands. I think it is a better way to function.

Anna, I was giving an example of how such things are regulated and not open to everyone, just because people abuse it doesn't mean it should be lifted, what do you think would happen if everyone could nominate just about any poem? a mess. the best poems would be lost between trash.

and that's what would happen if we opened votes for everyone, it is those who spend a great deal here who would be outvoted because of others who careless and don't even appear, that's if they actually exist and are not some imaginary accounts.

anyway, I'm repeating myself it seems. I made my opinion clear with reasons why. so did you and Luanne. we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm with Anna and Britt on this. Seems the only logical way.

I know I for one would not vote someone in for mod position just based on "how well they mod and deal with the main forums and the people on it"

But rather on how well (I think) they would handle situations on the main forums, PM issues, (especially issues of harassment and predators) because the safety of the younger members should always come first. (I think)
Even on how fair they will be regarding even praised comments.
From the biggest issues to the teenie tiny ones.

Why anyone would want to be a mod is beyond me honestly. Too much stress.

Don't apologize Britt! Your care about the well-being of this site is truly inspiring.

''But rather on how well (I think) they would handle situations on the main forums, PM issues, (especially issues of harassment and predators) because the safety of the younger members should always come first.''

which is unknown really, unless you're them, or have seen them/talked with them enough to know. which appears to a point here when we have such discussions. we've discussed praised comments before for example.

''I actually don't see a lot of people who aren't commonly on the boards to be voting anyhow.''

a thread in their club. a pm sent.

I still don't think activations, spams and getting rid of those with harassment pm are the same as a mod's attitude towards us here on the main boards.

again there is the option of those who are senior members would be allowed to vote, which is a middle ground I guess. I don't mind if you make an account and get 20 authors to add you to your favorites to become as a senior, do it, but no voting if you're not a senior member.

otherwise this would probably just be a mess and an unfair one at that in my opinion.

----

Hellon, we've strayed from the thread yes.

Yep, it's been less than 24 hours. Let's give others time to contribute.

I'm all for everyone tuning in with their opinions and thoughts.

Good job today, team. I love our community.

Hey but let's not do an election that takes a freaking year, ok? Ha.

Yes. As of today Britt, Sibs, and I share the AnnMarie account in order to do activations. All 3 of us would have access to the votes so it's not entirely private, but mostly private... and since it is 3 of us, there is less risk of falsities. We would hold each other accountable to be honest and count votes accurately, not that any of us would be at all dishonest individually.

I can see how people would not like this idea so let's continue brain-storming.

My brain is dead now so I'll leave you guys to brain storm but I'm all for using the Ann Marie account for voting!

So what are we suppose to be doing in this thread? I'm lost lol

Oh, So I need to read that first one and then I'll get an idea of what is going on! Thanks again! lol

I think elections to pick the mods would be a great idea, For me I don't care if it is public or private, because I would state my mind either way, but I do think secret ballots would influence people to vote from their true opinion rather than public opinion. I definitely think it should be all members, who has the right to say how active someone is on here, just because they do not post a lot on the main boards ( maybe to avoid the immature drama that often occurs) they may still be very active where real poetry related things are concerned, like reading, commenting, they are members, and just like citizens of a country, should not be left out because they are not say...involved in politics.

^
So do you think it would be good to have more men mods?

Ha, we've been looking for a worthy man mod for a while. Along with all the characteristics of a mod, we also try to focus on members over the age of 22, but something around there is fine too. Someone from a country outside the U.S. would also be preferable but it's not a guideline.

Connie, I'm sorry you feel I was forced on you as a mod.

No no, don't apologize :) I'm sorry I was forced on everyone because I definitely was. Hopefully we can avoid that feeling in the future through elections. I remember what it feels like before becoming a mod, years ago when other mods were selected. It was frustrating.

Poor Joe. *shakes head*

Little behind here... but I do want to address something

"''But rather on how well (I think) they would handle situations on the main forums, PM issues, (especially issues of harassment and predators) because the safety of the younger members should always come first.''

which is unknown really, unless you're them, or have seen them/talked with them enough to know. which appears to a point here when we have such discussions. we've discussed praised comments before for example. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anytime a complaint in this nature comes to us we take long exhausting hours investigating and going through every tiny thing.

There have been several times that I have talked to the proper authorities in that persons (predator's) state.

We do not let the information go public because of safety reasons. Also, there have been at least two occasions that we have had an undercover on this site while we assisted or did as we were told by them in an effort to catch the predator and have him removed from the site.

Normally, it is Joe or myself that start researching all the information and tracking down where the person is located... this can take a huge amount of time!

If anyone EVER feels as though there is a sexual and/or child predator on this site.... PLEASE PLEASE report them to us so we can take proper actions.

Also, as far as "electing a mod" goes... that is something the we would all have to really discuss in the mod forum before agreeing to the idea.

The ability to get along with others, maintain their cool (unlike me) is willing to put up with a bunch of BS not controlling (unlike me) and is compassionate about this site and willing to work hard.

Agree with everything mentioned so far, though I might add -
Flexibility and/or adaptability
A complete absence of hunger for power
Lack of impulsiveness
Availability
Open-mindedness, but not without reasonableness
Good character and a want to do good...
A collectivist mentality
Humility
Fair intentions in handling situations, regardless of the track records of and relationships with the members involved

Someone whom others can respect, depend on, and trust.
Someone who thinks of moderating as a service to PnQ, like a caretaker, guardian, and janitor wrapped up into one. Mods should not be serviced by the members, more like the other way around.

Guess that's it.

No problem! Sorry if mine were difficult to add to the list because of length or wording :)

In my opinion, there is no possible way to have the members vote for the moderators. A voting system could easily tampered with, and only members who are highly active would get a vote. I feel that the only feasible way to have new moderators is a grandfather system, where the current moderators choose their replacement every 3 years or until they feel that they are no longer able to continue their moderator duties.

I also like the idea of open nominations, so the mod stepping down must choose from a list of nominated members.

I like the idea of being able to choose my replacement when I eventually step down because I'm no longer fit for duty. But that can't always be possible. Like now we have 5 mods and eventually will want to add a another mod. We need a fair way to elect that 6th or 7th mod, yes? Plus, is it actually fair to choose your replacement when you won't be working with them? Hmm...

"I find it refreshing that some of you mods admit your shortcomings, and even knowing them you still list them as "good" mod qualities"

I know I don't fit some of the qualities a mod should have but I would like to fit every single quality eventually. It's a work in progress. Tough being human. Bleh.

Bob?!

Who manipulated their way in and how is that even possible? What 2 others? Names please. More importantly, facts and explanations please. You sound like a bitter ex mod to me.

No one teamed up to get rid of anyone. Ann left in a calm and graceful manner and she left of her own accord. She was a great, dedicated, fair mod for a very long time... is it wrong she eventually grew tired of being a moderator? If Ann ever wants to be an active mod again, she will be immediately re-accepted into the mod squad.

Now is there anything else you'd like to make up?

Like I said, the mod stepping down would have to choose from a list of member approved members. As of right now, because of a vacant moderator spot, the current moderators will choose the replacement. While some people may not like the choice, they have to live with it because as of right now, there is no other way to choose a replacement.

I guarantee that it is not possible to have a foolproof, scam free way of coming up with new mods.

I didn't know Britt when she became a mod so how her moderation came to be has nothing to do with Sibs or me. Britt and I never spoke one on one until a week or less before I became a mod, so no friendship there. We became friends only after I joined the mod force.
Sibs had been mentioned as a potential mod long before I joined. After I joined and Illum stepped down, I seconded the idea of Sibs... Britt, Joe, Ann, and Sher were all for the idea of adding Sibs. It was not only majority, but entirety.

Your claims are groundless.

You are basing my dishonesty on an incident when I first became a mod and I shared stuff from the mod forums with my club. I apologized to everyone, the situation was handled, and I haven't done anything wrong since then. Sooo? Do you not also recall that I ADMITTED what I did? Because I did, and that is honesty, not dishonesty.

No one gave Illum the boot. Before anyone could, he asked to be demoted.

These are facts, not opinions.