July moderator elections - new format

[bob]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Shame we can't do that with Governments

You can in some cases. Many states have a "recall" provision where voters can create a petition, get it signed by enough people, and then hold a recall election to remove someone from office. Unfortunately, not the president of the US...

They are proposing something similar here to remove an individual member of Parliament.

Implementing this is not exactly easy. You have to make it hard enough to do so that you don't have one every 3 months, at significant expense. You have to make it easy enough to do so that it is actually doable. If, say, you require 10% of the registered voters to sign the petition before the recall can be held, in the US that would be a daunting task. In Alabama, we have 4.7M people, and assuming 1/2 can vote, 10% would still be 1/4 million signatures which is huge. If you reduced that to 10,000, we'd be having one a week. Politicians piss off 10K people with one word.

[Harvey Williamson]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Shame we can't do that with Governments

You can in some cases. Many states have a "recall" provision where voters can create a petition, get it signed by enough people, and then hold a recall election to remove someone from office. Unfortunately, not the president of the US...

They are proposing something similar here to remove an individual member of Parliament.

Implementing this is not exactly easy. You have to make it hard enough to do so that you don't have one every 3 months, at significant expense. You have to make it easy enough to do so that it is actually doable. If, say, you require 10% of the registered voters to sign the petition before the recall can be held, in the US that would be a daunting task. In Alabama, we have 4.7M people, and assuming 1/2 can vote, 10% would still be 1/4 million signatures which is huge. If you reduced that to 10,000, we'd be having one a week. Politicians piss off 10K people with one word.

Might be a bit easier here 650 seats, each constituency under 100,000 voters. So 10% of that would mean about 10,000 signatures to call for a new ballot. Although getting 10,000 would be tough I think unless there were was alleged serious misconduct. Normally turnout at elections is between 40-60% Although i would not be surprised if it is introduced to have people regularly knocking on my door saying please sign out petition.

[michiguel]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

I am against this recall option. One of the problems of this forum is that there too much discussion on how to moderate and too little on computer chess. If we have such option, every month there will be polls and discussion initiated by unhappy members. People can wait 6 months for a new election.

The Admin could remove the moderators in case of corruption, insanity etc. not on matters of moderation policy.

Miguel

[bob]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

Shame we can't do that with Governments

You can in some cases. Many states have a "recall" provision where voters can create a petition, get it signed by enough people, and then hold a recall election to remove someone from office. Unfortunately, not the president of the US...

They are proposing something similar here to remove an individual member of Parliament.

Implementing this is not exactly easy. You have to make it hard enough to do so that you don't have one every 3 months, at significant expense. You have to make it easy enough to do so that it is actually doable. If, say, you require 10% of the registered voters to sign the petition before the recall can be held, in the US that would be a daunting task. In Alabama, we have 4.7M people, and assuming 1/2 can vote, 10% would still be 1/4 million signatures which is huge. If you reduced that to 10,000, we'd be having one a week. Politicians piss off 10K people with one word.

Might be a bit easier here 650 seats, each constituency under 100,000 voters. So 10% of that would mean about 10,000 signatures to call for a new ballot. Although getting 10,000 would be tough I think unless there were was alleged serious misconduct. Normally turnout at elections is between 40-60% Although i would not be surprised if it is introduced to have people regularly knocking on my door saying please sign out petition.

We have a different solution here in Birmingham. Politicians are so corrupt here, rather than recalling them, they get prosecuted and sent to prison. We almost have a Birmingham city government wing at the Federal prison.

[Steve B]

The Admin could remove the moderators in case of corruption, insanity etc. not on matters of moderation policy.

Miguel

No Insanity you say?
well thats knocks me right out of the box from the getgo
Sigh Regards
Steve

[Hood]

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

That it is a good idea.

rgds Hood

[Hood]

The Admin could remove the moderators in case of corruption, insanity etc. not on matters of moderation policy.

Miguel

Is Admin elected by posters ? If not that privilege is unsound.
Reelection is better.
I woul add phanatism to the cases

[Hood]

I would add one restrictions for the mods election.
They shall not be working for chess business entities CB, Playchess et.

[Harvey Williamson]

I would add one restrictions for the mods election.
They shall not be working for chess business entities CB, Playchess et.

How about a rule that says they should have no connection to Computer Chess?

[Hood]

It is your proposal ?

My proposal is clear.
People working and payed by some of chessbusiness oriented entertainments are not independent and will be influenced directly or undirectly by the companies they are working for.

We have had here example how it can look like and i doubt anyone want the next trial.