July moderator elections - new format
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:18 pm
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-
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-