July moderator elections - new format

[Sam Hull]

I have gotten approval from our sponsor to run the next election on a team basis. Here's the plan: any three members can get together and run as a team. No member can run as part of more than one team, including a team on the other side of the board. Each team will designate one member as its spokesman or primary contact. That individual will post the team's combined moderation philosophy in the candidate thread, one post per team.

There will not be a nomination week like we have had in the past, but in the week prior to the election the designated contact for each team can contact me to list his team in the candidate thread after consulting with the other two members. I will require personal confirmation from each team member that he is willing to serve as part of the team before listing the team on the ballot. In the election phase members will cast one vote for the team of his choice on each side of the board.

Due to a large influx of what I would call "silent signups" this year (strangely non-posting, inactive accounts) I would like to suggest that the voter eligibility criteria be raised a little. I will post an unofficial poll and thread in Help and Suggestions where everyone can weigh in on what the criteria ought to be. I can't really make the poll binding due to the same concerns that exist for elections, so posted ideas and arguments will probably count as much or more than the raw poll votes generated. I will ask the current mods to analyze the member input and finalize the criteria to be used - which could well be no change at all. It's up to you all.

My personal suggestion is something like 6 months membership and at least 40-60 posts. I understand the desire of non-posting members to vote, but one of the more effective ways to expose fake accounts (and there aren't many ways) is to force them to post. IP checking is essentially worthless unless there are posts stamped with an address, and even then it is by no means foolproof. Establishing a significant posting history is difficult to manage as a duplicate without giving away the fraud if the minimum is high enough and the posts contain actual original content.

The argument can also be made that those who write posts and contribute material to the board are the ones who should have the most say in who moderates. People who are strictly readers can do their own moderation by skipping over anything they don't like - which is what many members and all non-members already do. But this is just my two cents from the admin perspective; please contribute your own thoughts in the H&S thread. I will try to have it posted later today provided the electrical service here holds up and I am not blacked out again.

Thanks,
-Sam-

[govert]

Sounds good.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

looks interesting, yes!
Good luck!

Best
Frank

[mariaclara]

Maybe.

but

where's the "check & balance" of the Mods

of what use is the "majority of 3" rule

if they act/think/believe as "one team"

[Steve B]

Maybe.

but

where's the "check & balance" of the Mods

of what use is the "majority of 3" rule

if they act/think/believe as "one team"

just because the mods will be elected as a team does not mean they will agree on each and every single issue regarding moderation Maria
there will still be different interpretations of the charter which is a good thing
but it does mean they will agree on the very contentious issues that have enveloped this forum for two mod terms now

i think its worth a try and an idea whose time has come

Best Regards
Steve

[Peter Berger]

You mean good, Sam Hull, but this won't work as intended.

I served as a moderator for two periods, over at CTF. The first one was actually just what you intend now: Ed, Steve Ham and me - everyone thought the other one was *way* *cool* - our policies were so similar that it was clear that we were going to behave like identical twins and never get any problems.

Or so we thought - I guess all three of us will remember this period for its pain and stress ( and members probably never realized, but our internal discussions were just painful). As our policies were so similar every disagreement seemed to be kind of a personal business - we sent each others like a few hundred emails, and I guess all of us hated this is an very similar way.

Some time later I served for another period with Amir Ban and Deepak . I don't think a more diverse team could be invented.

But this time things were just plain fun - we *never* got into any kind of trouble - right from the start we knew just how different we were as personalities , so we made some common sense decisions to go with majority votes if ever we disagreed. Funny thing is: we never did. I think we sent each other like 8 emails during a period of a full year or so - it just was a job to keep the place working - not that personal, just a service for the community.

If you think this idea of teams will work better than what went on here in the past: from my experience I am completely convinced it won't.

Peter

[Steve B]

so we made some common sense decisions to go with majority votes if ever we disagreed.

thats the issue ..
Majority did not rule it seems during this term ..hence the havoc

Steve

[gerold]

You mean good, Sam Hull, but this won't work as intended.

I served as a moderator for two periods, over at CTF. The first one was actually just what you intend now: Ed, Steve Ham and me - everyone thought the other one was *way* *cool* - our policies were so similar that it was clear that we were going to behave like identical twins and never get any problems.

Or so we thought - I guess all three of us will remember this period for its pain and stress ( and members probably never realized, but our internal discussions were just painful). As our policies were so similar every disagreement seemed to be kind of a personal business - we sent each others like a few hundred emails, and I guess all of us hated this is an very similar way.

Some time later I served for another period with Amir Ban and Deepak . I don't think a more diverse team could be invented.

But this time things were just plain fun - we *never* got into any kind of trouble - right from the start we knew just how different we were as personalities , so we made some common sense decisions to go with majority votes if ever we disagreed. Funny thing is: we never did. I think we sent each other like 8 emails during a period of a full year or so - it just was a job to keep the place working - not that personal, just a service for the community.

If you think this idea of teams will work better than what went on here in the past: from my experience I am completely convinced it won't.

Peter

Good points Peter and i agree with you.

Another point of view is,
3 mods with about the same views on the rules may tend to
advocate more extreme positions and more extreme measures
to enforce forum rules.
Individuals with difference views tend to work things out and
come to a compromise with less extreme decisions than
the polarized group. This also depends to a great extent
on who the individuals are.

Best,
Gerold.
.

[mariaclara]

ok..............

Maybe.

but

where's the "check & balance" of the Mods

of what use is the "majority of 3" rule

if they act/think/believe as "one team"

just because the mods will be elected as a team does not mean they will agree on each and every single issue regarding moderation Maria
there will still be different interpretations of the charter which is a good thing
but it does mean they will agree on the very contentious issues that have enveloped this forum for two mod terms now

i think its worth a try and an idea whose time has come

Best Regards
Steve

[Alexander Schmidt]

No matter which sides team wins the election, the other side is not happy with it. So you gonna devide the CCC into two parties, even more than it is now.

The only problem right now is that one mod did not work together with the other mods. It's not the fault of the "system", it's the fault of us, the users. We elected the wrong mod. It was obvious that a moderator with a fanatic opinion in the clone question (no matter pro/contra) will destroy the CCC, and we elected him. Not me btw...

Unfortunately the owner of the forum reacted too late, and in the wrong way. Well done all...