Sign in to follow this  
Pleeb

Comments and suggestions for the election

Recommended Posts

This topic is not for commenting on candidates that are running to become moderators.

 

This topic is for discussing the actual process.

 

Submit and discuss your ideas for how we're going to do this election and stuff here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My idea is that when you make your shortlist of 3, and when everyone's votes are tallied, we should elect the person with the most votes and save the name of the runner up. (or group of runners up, equal to the number of mods who are elected).

 

After a "term" which could be wedon'tknowyet long, the runners up get a go at being mods. There are no elections held until after the runner up term. Only then can the previous, winning mods get voted back in if people prefer them.

 

This allows most if not all candidate mods to at least have a shot, and it keeps all mods on their toes to be the best mod they can be; no settling in just because they won once for being popular and that the end of that.

If the winning mods are in fact the best mods for the job, they would just be out for one term (possibly shorter if the runner up mods are rubbish) and then they would be voted back in again in the next term. This will prove that they are the best compared to the runners up and settles any disputes about what mods are best.

 

That's my idea.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two-month terms.

 

Mods cannot serve more than three terms each year.

 

Terms start on the first of every odd month.

 

Nomination starts two weeks before the start of the odd month and lasts a week.

 

Voting starts one week before the start of the odd month and lasts a week.

 

Voting ends the last day of the month, and the moderator is announced the first of the odd month.


What we need is a system for reporting bad mods.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second the system for reporting bad mods.

 

Also terms should be subject to length changes (if the mods are piss poor we should be able to vote to get the term shortened after an admin warning to straighten up.)

 

Really what we want to achieve is a set of mods who appreciate their power and don't abuse it- having elections all the time just to be fair could get confusing and annoying if the set of mods we had were already widely liked by the community.

 

Elections I think should be held every two months for now like Tulpatalk said, but should fizzle out after a while once we get a good set of mods in.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dissagree. I think that we shouldn't shorten the bad mod's term, but instead give them three strikes or something before their term is completely ended, replaced by a runner-up.

 

Also, I am of the opinion that there should never be a permanent few mods. This would turn into an oligarchy or something. We need the team to be changing and dynamic.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I meant by (if the mods are piss poor we should be able to vote to get the term shortened after an admin warning to straighten up.) A 3 strikes rule would work well, or maybe one warning should suffice.

 

When I said elections should fizzle out I mean that they should become automatically redundant, after they have served their purpose. There is no need for new elections if the mods are accepted by everyone (EVERYONE) as being up to the task. If someone wants a change, they can start a topic and get people to vote for a change. If a majority of people do not want the change then it won't happen, thus the good mods that everyone likes won't have to sit on the sidelines because their two months are up.

 

Now, elections should stay around for long enough that the trolls can't omnivote for their one best-friend-that-they-know-in-real-life over and over until that mod becomes the highest voted. Once we have run through a series of elections and worked out who worked best as a mod (both in their job and being respected by the community), then the elections can start to go away, I say.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is that shortening is bad, impeaching is good.

 

And I think that new people need to be in the mod spot, if only to train them for when the supposed good mods can't be here, like when FAQ left.

 

But let's not occupy ourselves with the bridge miles away.

 

What we should focus on is how we will report and impeach bad mods.

 

So far the only way would be to make a post in forum questions and comments saying "I move that xxxxx be impeached because blah" or something. Then a discussion, and a vote. How this would be integrated with a three strikes systwm, I don't know. Actually it could work in that the vote poll coulf have three options: impeach, warning/strike, and leave as is.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one would post in a thread to impeach a mod. Because if that mod was voted in by a number of people (probably trolls if the mod is genuinely bad) then that poster would get shat on.

If we had an anonymous thread, then people would abuse it to spread shit about good mods.

 

A poll like you said would work the same as an anon thread, abused by trolls or people who think their friend is a great guy and should be mod just because of that.

 

Just reporting and impeaching bad mods doesn't stop bad mods from being voted in. You need a way to filter out the bad mods from the election before it starts. Only people who have proven experience as mods can be nominated, etc.

Then people can vote to kick them out if they are bad, or they stay for their term and probably get voted in next time. This may seem unfair to other people who might be great mods who just don't have the on-paper proven exp, so I say we should have an election afterwards that is open to everyone.

 

This means that we are guaranteed to get a mod who has experience in the first election, then in the second we can try out new guys who want to try it. Since we can vote to get rid of mods, if they turn out bad they won't be bad for long. If a mod get's 3 strikes from members who can prove that the mod deserves a strike, then they are out for a number of elections.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of having a group of mods in for longer, it coulf be that at the end of each two month term, there could be a process that would increase the number of terms they can hold each year.


Hmm. Maybe within the three mods, one or two of them would have to be proven, and two or one of them would be newbies. Or something.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just leave it so that if they are liked and get voted in, they can get voted in in another term that doesn't immediately follow a term they just did. So really a good mod could have a go every second term.

 

And then after a while everyone would conclude that that mod is the best for the job, and would be made a mod for every term, still subject to getting strikes. But only if everyone agrees on it.

 

Basically this whole process is trying to find one good set of mods. If we had a perfect set of mods we wouldn't need to have elections all the time. If people wanted to try out being mods, then we could have try outs where they were either added to the mod list or took the place of a mod who wanted to take a break.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.