Mod Elections

What do you think of Mod Elections?

  • Yes- we should have this implemented

    Votes: 23 25.3%
  • No - idea could use work/not viable

    Votes: 68 74.7%

  • Total voters
    91

Genocidicbunny

Bug squasher
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
5,473
Location
Orange Town
While I am not one to get much interaction with the mods, I do get to see some action by association with a certain group. Take note this idea is fully mine so far, and the people in that group only support it, not participate in its development.

The idea is as such: We have Mod Elections.

Every couple of months, maybe every 4, 5 or 6 months we vote on all the current mods. We vote based on our exposure to them as posters, as moderators, and as well, our rulers. Inadvertedly, some mods would get voted out of the job due to well, being disliked by the general community. If so, TF would draw up a list of possible candidates. Maybe 5 candidates for a single position or somewhere along those lines. He and the current mods who are not at risk of being kicked out would then review this list, maybe to make sure the candidates arent attention whores, or are just vying for the position, but are legitemately good people for the position being offered. From there, the Final list is posted, and people vote on the mod. Say, keep the polls open for a week. THe winning mod then assumes power as such. And repeat the above for any number of mods that got voted out.

Of course, some checks would have to be put into place, which is where TF comes in. He will be the final say in any decision and would be the one to come up with candidates ( to ensure that we don't have election campaigns or such).

The smallest hint of actively vying for a position could disqualify a candidate and so forth.

Yes I know this might be a bit half-arsed, but thats what you people are here for. Suggestions, and criticisms ( other than " CFC isn't a democracy" ) are all very welcome. I would hate to see this degrade into another PDMA topic or a mod-bash so please keep those comments off here. All I want is input into this idea of giving us, the 120 thousand or so of us, some say in those who rule us.

NOTE- I am NOT trying to undermine Mod power, so please, if you mods have any rationale, let us decide this as a community, and not just close this because it might offend you a bit.
 
I honestly don't think it is our job to handpick which mods we like and dislike. The current system works - we don't need something far more structured. There is also the potential for abuse with the proposed system.
 
I honestly don't think it is our job to handpick which mods we like and dislike. The current system works - we don't need something far more structured. There is also the potential for abuse with the proposed system.

The current system might work, but there are always ways to make it better are there not? In the last month or so I have seen some pretty stupid things done by the mods, and while Im not one to say that they shouldnt have done those things, I do think we should get some say.
 
Don't fix what ain't broken. The mods are doing a fine job the way things are. Elections sound fun, but they're really not that useful.
 
My only wish for the OT subforum to be left alone, or at least not to be so overmoderated. We cant even use ***** to censor bad words.
 
Democracy doesn't work, for an Internet forum. :p

And not the first time this has been suggested (anyone remembered Weimar Republic? Doh!).
 
My only wish for the OT subforum to be left alone, or at least not to be so overmoderated. We cant even use ***** to censor bad words.
If you can't stand it, you can always leave and 'discuss' elsewhere where the rules (if any) are laxer... :p :mischief:
 
Democracy doesn't work, for an Internet forum. :p

I know a forum where this happens, and it works.

If you can't stand it, you can always leave and 'discuss' elsewhere where the rules (if any) are laxer..
You know, ultimately this is no different from the false dichotomy of "America: Love it or leave it." You can entirely like the community that exists here and not stand the rules. It's the same thing with America.
 
Unmoderated forums populated mostly by 14-30 year olds will turn to mush in short order. That group is not capable of controlling its behavior in an anonymous forum setting. Our mods do a fine job and the rules work well. TF picks his mods well and they are to be commended. An election would just create a mess at all levels.
 
So, for those of you who are using the " This isnt a democracy" argument:
So what if it isnt. We can be allowed some choice can we not? My idea takes into account that this isnt a democracy, but it tries to add a touch of it to maybe let us control what goes on the forum we all visit. To show an example of how out of touch the administration is: I did not know that Whomp became a mod until after around 3 or 4 days. Why? Because TF chose him to be a mod behind the stage, imho at least.

We need to be given some choice, and we will always have the current mods and TF to guide us. So instead of saying that this idea sucks, why don't you suggest a way to make it work? ( Besides not using it at all)
 
To show an example of how out of touch the administration is: I did not know that Whomp became a mod until after around 3 or 4 days. Why? Because TF chose him to be a mod behind the stage, imho at least.
Actually, if you didn't know about his appointment, respectfully, that's an example of how far out-of-touch you are; not TF. It was publicised via a SF thread as well as forum announcements.

The selection process wasn't just TF either. Candidates were discussed amongst the various moderators, and recommendations made, which thunderfall endorsed.

Regarding the "its not a democracy" argument: Well, its not a popularity contest either. Dare I say it, but I would fear that the criteria by which Thunderfall (and other moderators) would make their choices are different to those by which forum members would make them (with a few notable exceptions).

I am all for feedback. If people think I'm doing a crap job, then I'd like that feedback (via PM), provided its constructive. I do get this feedback (both positive & negative) reasonably regularly, and I'm more than happy to discuss the issues with people.
 
So, for those of you who are using the " This isnt a democracy" argument:
So what if it isnt. We can be allowed some choice can we not? My idea takes into account that this isnt a democracy, but it tries to add a touch of it to maybe let us control what goes on the forum we all visit. To show an example of how out of touch the administration is: I did not know that Whomp became a mod until after around 3 or 4 days. Why? Because TF chose him to be a mod behind the stage, imho at least.

We need to be given some choice, and we will always have the current mods and TF to guide us. So instead of saying that this idea sucks, why don't you suggest a way to make it work? ( Besides not using it at all)

No, you don't have a choice of who's moderator here. This is Thunderfall's house. The rest of us, moderators included, are guests here at his whim. If you have a problem with a moderator, best to take it up with him. The final say is his.
 
Thunderfall owns it, Thunderfall's rules.
 
Interesting idea. But I would think it would be somewhat along the lines of the mods and TF choosing a few possible choices, having a vote, and take that into consideration when choosing. But, then I believe some of the posters (particularly in OT) that don't "go with the flow" wouldn't stand a chance.

I think it's more fair to do things the way they currently are.
 
I don't like this idea. Mods aren't here to be popular, they are here to enforce the rules.
Well said. We're the bouncer, judge and executioner - not beauty contest participants.

Subjecting us to a election review is simply adding more to our workload. Which is already a waste of time... (which I can better use, on say, World of Warcraft.) :p
 
Top Bottom