Sign in to follow this  
Pleeb

Comments and suggestions for the election

Recommended Posts

Every two months isn't all the time. I say we rate the performance of each mod after each term, and if they have had three good reviewed terms, then their yearly term maximum would increade to four. Then if they had a further two well-reviewed terms, it gets bumped up to five. One good term after that, and they can be a mod for all six terms of the year.

 

And for your concerns about trolls and kids voting in one of their group, we have mods for thet. [WINK]. But seriously, Pleeb could handle election engineering.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Pleeb is up to the job of identifying and reprimanding trolls then I can't see a problem at all, except for perhaps over complication. I had a bit of trouble working out your system of terms and how good terms lead into a certain amount of reward extra terms. Not to say my idea is better, but it is simpler. If you get vote in and do well (get no strikes) then you can go again after a break where other people get a go. I think a more natural way of voting in would be easier. The good mods are voted in each term they are eligible (because no one is going to vote for mods they think would be bad) and gradually we end up with a set of mods that people like and there is no need to have to try out a different set each term.

 

As for people wanting to try out after we have the best set, we can always add them to the mod list to try them out. If they do well and we need them, they can stay. If they do better than a mod already on the list then... too bad, we have a newer better mod.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my plan was to only let them have a set amount of terms per year, and if they're good, that amount could be expanded.

 

With three terms per year, they could do two months off, two months on indefinitely (until they expand that amount). They could also do three terms as the first half of the year, and have a 6 month break.

 

Wondering, do you think that 2 months as a term, with the two-week long nimination/voting process is good? Consider this question isolated from the rest of the post.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that 2 months is quite long. I mean to have to endure a bad set of mods for two months would be a drag. This is assuming that you can give strikes to mods and have them removed, but it can't be as simple and flimsy as that. Plus if the mod team is kicked, then new elections have to be held for 2 weeks or so and in that time it's up to Pleeb to mod everything or the mods stay in for 2 weeks further. To avoid this problem I think we should start off with an election like we have, then immediately or simultaneously do next terms election (where you vote for anyone you think would be a good mod excluding those you voted for in the first election). That would solve that problem. The reserve team would come into effect if the first team was kicked before the next elections came up.

 

...Either that or we could simply have double elections after each term, so we have a backup in case the newly voted in team get's kicked really fast.

 

 

Now I think we should take a poll on what term/election process is better. A simplified and streamlined version where the mods are voted in and do a term. If they are liked then they are eligible to be voted in in the term after next, letting the runners up have a go. The best set of mods get's voted in the most and over time they become the modding team.

Or your version where mods can earn extra terms and stay in for longer. This demonstrates their ability faster and easier than having to wait for a term once they are done. If the team is the best they could work their way up to be the modding team for most of the year. It's more structured and easier to regulate.


frt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a lot more about some things.

 

On terms:

What I'm thinking about doing, is having: you once you serve a single term (however long) you have to step down for the next term, and you can run again afterwards. This could prevent special interest to the moderators that are currently incumbent and running. Would also prevent them from raging and abusing their powers if they see that they're losing and want to go out with a bang.

 

This will also let "fresh blood" come in, and at least rotate around. For instance, I'm looking over all the nominations, it sucks that there's so many of them that I think would be awesome moderators but we can only have three slots to fill right now (though I may be leaning towards more, but I want to know what you guys think about this -- see the "timezones" section). This will let those people that everyone liked but didn't quite win because there simple wasn't enough slots to get in and become moderators.

 

On bad moderators:

I think the best way to handle bad moderators is to send a PM to an administrator (well, me) about it. If enough people are sending me PMs, an impeachment could be decided. That three-strike thing seems pretty nice, as well.

 

On timezones

One thing that I want to avoid, is to have every moderator in one timezone, because it would mean there's times when a moderator may not be on.

I'd like to have at least one or two moderators per the "big three" timezones (Europe-ish, America-ish, and Australia-ish), but I'm not sure how that would work, as I would need to know the timezones of the various members running to be moderator (I'll ask them after we've flushed out all the nominations).

Of course, the way the forum is expanding exponentially, I'm not sure if 3 slots are going to be enough,but we'll find out when we have our three chosen; if it's not enough, I'll start bringing in the runner-ups or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you think of my limited number of terms per year idea? Like rather than having to go on-and-off for each term, they could go for one long series of terms and have a long break.

 

And you never answered about accepting/denying nominations.


[Note: Opinions]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod rotations with terms sounds just fine to me. And if mods are missing, runner-ups could always serve as back-ups.


Orange juice helps with concentration headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just repeat the process that I described in the other thread:

While it doesn't seem to be the highlight of the discussion right now, I just wanna contribute with an idea for the layout of the moderator voting: have one thread where people suggest candidates. Posts where people suggest themselves will be removed. Then have another thread (no posting allowed in this one, to prevent bias) where all candidates are available as voting options in a poll, sorted by name. This can run for about a week, so people won't miss it. Then, all current mods have their mod status revoked and the top X'th amount of people in the poll are the new mods. As for how often these votes will happen, that's up to you. I suggest something like every second or third month.

 

The timezone idea is great, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you think of my limited number of terms per year idea? Like rather than having to go on-and-off for each term, they could go for one long series of terms and have a long break.

If I understand yours correctly, after each term the moderators are reviewed, and ones that did well are allowed to run another term (up to six) out of the year?

 

And you never answered about accepting/denying nominations.

I'm afraid I may have missed the question; could you link me to it or reiterate?

 

Mod rotations with terms sounds just fine to me. And if mods are missing, runner-ups could always serve as back-ups.

 

Yeah, I would say to just use the runner-ups as the backups.

 

I'll just repeat the process that I described in the other thread:

 

The timezone idea is great, too.

 

For voting itself, I'm actually going to use the Alternate Vote system. Say we have mod1 through 6 running. You'll rank those mods you want to vote for like so:

[5] mod1

[4] mod2

[1] mod3

[3] mod4

[2] mod5

[] mod6

In this case, you want mod3 to win the most, but you'd also like to see mod2 win if mod3 doesn't, and mod4 to win if mod2 doesn't, etc.

You'll PM it to me. I'll count everyone's votes and work out the math on who is the top 3. Those top three will become the mods.

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.