July moderator elections - new format

[Harvey Williamson]

Personally I think the one team in the running is a good one, but having one choice will make a lot of people unhappy, I expect.

Why there was no vote or even poll held regarding the new election format, before it was put into effect, I can't fathom. I certainly had doubts about the possibility of getting multiple teams organized on short notice.

Even assuming the current slate wins, I'd like to a see a re-examination of the election format and the possibility of reverting it to individuals vs teams.

--Jon

I think this is problematic either way. For example, one could put together a slate of candidates, and then each candidate could say something like "I will serve if elected, unless xxx, yyy or zzz are also elected. I can/will not serve with them as our moderation philosophies are too diverse. That turns into a can of worms trying to figure out who will serve together.

This approach should work, but it requires communication and discussion to form a team. Steve, Fernando and I had maybe a hundred emails in correspondence as we formed the team, found a fourth member, and then formalized our moderation philosophy. We wanted to be sure we could work together effectively before "signing up."

Everything about moderating is work without pay. Just choosing 3 random people may well work out (it has in the past) or not (also happened in the past). This could work, if enough are interested in actually doing the work of a moderator.

Agree with everything you say except not enough time given to form the teams.

[jdart]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

[Harvey Williamson]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

I agree. sadly all the candidates will now attack us

[bob]

Personally I think the one team in the running is a good one, but having one choice will make a lot of people unhappy, I expect.

Why there was no vote or even poll held regarding the new election format, before it was put into effect, I can't fathom. I certainly had doubts about the possibility of getting multiple teams organized on short notice.

Even assuming the current slate wins, I'd like to a see a re-examination of the election format and the possibility of reverting it to individuals vs teams.

--Jon

I think this is problematic either way. For example, one could put together a slate of candidates, and then each candidate could say something like "I will serve if elected, unless xxx, yyy or zzz are also elected. I can/will not serve with them as our moderation philosophies are too diverse. That turns into a can of worms trying to figure out who will serve together.

This approach should work, but it requires communication and discussion to form a team. Steve, Fernando and I had maybe a hundred emails in correspondence as we formed the team, found a fourth member, and then formalized our moderation philosophy. We wanted to be sure we could work together effectively before "signing up."

Everything about moderating is work without pay. Just choosing 3 random people may well work out (it has in the past) or not (also happened in the past). This could work, if enough are interested in actually doing the work of a moderator.

Agree with everything you say except not enough time given to form the teams.

Steve and I started working on this 2 weeks ago at least.

[Harvey Williamson]

Personally I think the one team in the running is a good one, but having one choice will make a lot of people unhappy, I expect.

Why there was no vote or even poll held regarding the new election format, before it was put into effect, I can't fathom. I certainly had doubts about the possibility of getting multiple teams organized on short notice.

Even assuming the current slate wins, I'd like to a see a re-examination of the election format and the possibility of reverting it to individuals vs teams.

--Jon

I think this is problematic either way. For example, one could put together a slate of candidates, and then each candidate could say something like "I will serve if elected, unless xxx, yyy or zzz are also elected. I can/will not serve with them as our moderation philosophies are too diverse. That turns into a can of worms trying to figure out who will serve together.

This approach should work, but it requires communication and discussion to form a team. Steve, Fernando and I had maybe a hundred emails in correspondence as we formed the team, found a fourth member, and then formalized our moderation philosophy. We wanted to be sure we could work together effectively before "signing up."

Everything about moderating is work without pay. Just choosing 3 random people may well work out (it has in the past) or not (also happened in the past). This could work, if enough are interested in actually doing the work of a moderator.

Agree with everything you say except not enough time given to form the teams.

Steve and I started working on this 2 weeks ago at least.

Good for you and Steve but there were 4 official days only for teams to declare.

[bob]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

While a team can always have a disagreement about a specific action, it will not be anywhere near what happened this term where there was a complete disagreement on basic moderation philosophy. A team could hardly approach the discord seen this term, IMHO. Most of our emails were between the three primary members while we were searching for an alternate, and were related to polishing the philosophy statement to try to be as clear as possible to anyone wanting to vote for us, so that they would know exactly how we planned on handling most (not all, of course, but most) issues that come up.

This is a good exercise as well, to get everything firmly fixed, mentally, so that you know what you said you would do, and you were happy with that when you said it, which should result in very little back-pedalling. Once you see your ideas in writing, they take on a more static meaning that gives you a chance to see if you really mean what you wrote or if you might want to change something after seeing it in black and white.

[Harvey Williamson]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

While a team can always have a disagreement about a specific action, it will not be anywhere near what happened this term where there was a complete disagreement on basic moderation philosophy. A team could hardly approach the discord seen this term, IMHO. Most of our emails were between the three primary members while we were searching for an alternate, and were related to polishing the philosophy statement to try to be as clear as possible to anyone wanting to vote for us, so that they would know exactly how we planned on handling most (not all, of course, but most) issues that come up.

This is a good exercise as well, to get everything firmly fixed, mentally, so that you know what you said you would do, and you were happy with that when you said it, which should result in very little back-pedalling. Once you see your ideas in writing, they take on a more static meaning that gives you a chance to see if you really mean what you wrote or if you might want to change something after seeing it in black and white.

When the poll started and when I voted the philosophy was not available. Surely it should have been posted well in advance of the poll opening? Evertything is being rushed why?

[Steve B]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

While a team can always have a disagreement about a specific action, it will not be anywhere near what happened this term where there was a complete disagreement on basic moderation philosophy. A team could hardly approach the discord seen this term, IMHO. Most of our emails were between the three primary members while we were searching for an alternate, and were related to polishing the philosophy statement to try to be as clear as possible to anyone wanting to vote for us, so that they would know exactly how we planned on handling most (not all, of course, but most) issues that come up.

This is a good exercise as well, to get everything firmly fixed, mentally, so that you know what you said you would do, and you were happy with that when you said it, which should result in very little back-pedalling. Once you see your ideas in writing, they take on a more static meaning that gives you a chance to see if you really mean what you wrote or if you might want to change something after seeing it in black and white.

When the poll started and when I voted the philosophy was not available. Surely it should have been posted well in advance of the poll opening? Evertything is being rushed why?

sorry this is bullshit
every election we have ever had here had moderation philosophies posted only when mods accepted their nominations and when the vote began
our statement was posted a few hours after the poll opened
i sent it in to Sam at 600 am in the morning MY Time
he posted it when he logged on
a matter of hours from the poll opening to the statement posted

you are now posting paranoid nonsense
you have been posting nonsense all day long
Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

While a team can always have a disagreement about a specific action, it will not be anywhere near what happened this term where there was a complete disagreement on basic moderation philosophy. A team could hardly approach the discord seen this term, IMHO. Most of our emails were between the three primary members while we were searching for an alternate, and were related to polishing the philosophy statement to try to be as clear as possible to anyone wanting to vote for us, so that they would know exactly how we planned on handling most (not all, of course, but most) issues that come up.

This is a good exercise as well, to get everything firmly fixed, mentally, so that you know what you said you would do, and you were happy with that when you said it, which should result in very little back-pedalling. Once you see your ideas in writing, they take on a more static meaning that gives you a chance to see if you really mean what you wrote or if you might want to change something after seeing it in black and white.

When the poll started and when I voted the philosophy was not available. Surely it should have been posted well in advance of the poll opening? Evertything is being rushed why?

sorry this is bullshit
every election we have ever had here had moderation philosophies posted only when mods accepted their nominations and when the vote began
our statement was posted a few hours after the poll opened
i sent it in to Sam at 600 am in the morning MY Time
he posted it when he logged on
a matter of hours from the poll opening to the statement posted

you are now posting paranoid nonsense
you have been posting nonsense all day long
Steve

The only 1 full of shit is you - I guess it is the scent of unelected power. The last election mine was posted days in advance of the polls opening. As was yours the last time you stood here.

[Steve B]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team. Plus even if you do that, there is always going to be some situation that comes up that you haven't discussed in advance, and then you can get into some serious disagreement, just as 3 random people could.

But at least, I think there should be a vote on the voting system. A clear-cut one just on the system for election, separate from the election itself.

While a team can always have a disagreement about a specific action, it will not be anywhere near what happened this term where there was a complete disagreement on basic moderation philosophy. A team could hardly approach the discord seen this term, IMHO. Most of our emails were between the three primary members while we were searching for an alternate, and were related to polishing the philosophy statement to try to be as clear as possible to anyone wanting to vote for us, so that they would know exactly how we planned on handling most (not all, of course, but most) issues that come up.

This is a good exercise as well, to get everything firmly fixed, mentally, so that you know what you said you would do, and you were happy with that when you said it, which should result in very little back-pedalling. Once you see your ideas in writing, they take on a more static meaning that gives you a chance to see if you really mean what you wrote or if you might want to change something after seeing it in black and white.

When the poll started and when I voted the philosophy was not available. Surely it should have been posted well in advance of the poll opening? Evertything is being rushed why?

sorry this is bullshit
every election we have ever had here had moderation philosophies posted only when mods accepted their nominations and when the vote began
our statement was posted a few hours after the poll opened
i sent it in to Sam at 600 am in the morning MY Time
he posted it when he logged on
a matter of hours from the poll opening to the statement posted

you are now posting paranoid nonsense
you have been posting nonsense all day long
Steve

The only 1 full of shit is you - I guess it is the scent of unelected power. The last election mine was posted days in advance of the polls opening. As was yours the last time you stood here.

your right
in the past accepting nominees could post a statement once they accepted their nominations
my mistake..
no nomination process with team elections so the statements were posted when teams declared
still ..personally i consider all of your complaints today as thinly veiled attempts to undermine the election process in an effort to prevent links should we win
if i were moderating right now i would be voting to begin issuing you warnings
dont know how the others would feel about it but you know where i stand right now
Steve