Mod Selection

Squeaky the Squirrel

Why is it private?

Why not a Poll Thread and let regulars decide from a short list?

Or maybe even a Thread where posters who want to do it throw their name in and then a poll Thread with top 4...

And every x amount of time a "How am I doing?" Poll Thread so regulars can vote off Mods who turn into Forum wreckers?

Amirani

Most popular mod isn't always gonna be the best mod.

Scruffles

it woud be completely biased,mods woud be chosen on popularity as opposed to ability.
a system of users picking mods from within the community woud end up creating even more sockpuppeting,with people voting for themselves.

perhaps posting the chatlog of the mod choosing plans woud be good for transparency, assuming there was nothing confidential in them.

Beruthiel

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Why not a Poll Thread and let regulars decide from a short list?

It will be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens.
I for one would never want to have to deal with the fall out of that particular scenario!

Choosing a Mod is not a popularity competition.
A Mods is chosen by the Admins of this site because they are deemed to be suited for the position.

OldGoat

Us ugly smelly unpopular folk would never get the chance to mod.

MugMugs

Beruthiel wrote: »

It will be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens.

It's pretty cold in Dublin here today. Is today the day? :pac:

Ot, silly idea. It would turn into a popularity contest and those rejected would throw a strop and there'd be mass account closing.

seamus

Scruffles wrote: »

perhaps posting the chatlog of the mod choosing plans woud be good for transparency, assuming there was nothing confidential in them.

The chatlog of such a process is only relevant to the individual mod, there's no good reason why the public at large should be shown why particular individuals are or aren't chosen as moderators.

For transparency, the process is:

- Mod/Cmods provide recommendations for a new mod

- Admins take a vote, taking the comments/opinions of the mods/cmods into account

- Decision is relayed to the mod/cmod

- Individual is approached and asked if they want to be moderator

If the individual refuses, the process starts again.

Anything outside of that really isn't relevant to the public.

Popularity contests have been mentioned before, but they would only work on smaller, more niche forums. On forums like AH, totally unsuitable people like Flutterinbantam would be "voted" in as mods.

Ability to vote off mods would only lead to moderators pandering to users to avoid being voted out.

The Hill Billy

OldGoat wrote: »

Us ugly smelly unpopular folk would never get the chance to mod.

When did you start to smell? :P

Seriously though OP, if you think about it - why would a poll-topper necessarily make a good mod? I do not think that you fully understand the role of a mod...

Most of the time we mosey around quietly tidying up the forums & threads that we take care of. Deleting spam here, giving a bit of advice via PM there... You don't really see this & you shouldn't need to. It is part of what we do to make your 'user experience' (ugh, horrible term) more enjoyable.

What you do see occasionally are the on-thread actions that we are forced to take. We don't do this because we like to (well, we certainly shouldn't), but rather because it is necessary.

Either way, I don't need to win a popularity contest to do any of the above. As a matter of fact, if is probably better if I am somewhat more anonymous so the actions that I take to fulfill my role as moderator are as low-key as possible. That way - your 'user experience' is all the better.

smash

Scruffles wrote: »

it woud be completely biased,mods woud be chosen on popularity as opposed to ability.

Isn't that what happens at the moment in the mod camp anyway?

Czarcasm

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Or maybe even a Thread where posters who want to do it throw their name in and then a poll Thread with top 4...

That'd be one very quiet thread Squeaky, who would actually WANT to mod- for the most part a thankless job where you get your ass kicked from both sides by both Admins and posters alike!


There is the coke and hookers though, if you're into that sort of thing! :pac:

Penn

smash wrote: »

Isn't that what happens at the moment in the mod camp anyway?

Difference between popularity and things like how much they post on the forum, how well respected they are with the forum regulars, their knowledge of the forum and the forum subject itself etc.

Those things can make someone a popular poster, but mods aren't chosen simply because they're popular. Some posters might be popular simply because they're funny or witty, but have none of the main qualities for being selected to be a mod.

seamus

smash wrote: »

Isn't that what happens at the moment in the mod camp anyway?

It's a meritocracy of sorts, but as I outline above, there are actually a couple of levels of "filtering" that it goes through.

With the size of the site as it is, admins will rarely come across a mod that they have any significant dealings with, so they are assessed on a much colder basis than the forum moderators might do.

Beruthiel

MugMugs wrote: »

It's pretty cold in Dublin here today. Is today the day?

I know Dublin isn't the most beautiful place on the planet, but it's hardly Hell!
Now, if you were living in North Korea on a cold day, I might entertain your point.

Dravokivich

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

Why not a Poll Thread and let regulars decide from a short list?

And every x amount of time a "How am I doing?" Poll Thread so regulars can vote off Mods who turn into Forum wreckers?

It's all about how the perception of boards is portrayed, what you'd be doing in both instances with "polling" is creating an essence of "Celebrity." While at times a mod becoming a Celebrity can be a bit of an unintentional side affect, it is not the primary purpose of thier position. It's about maintaining the perception of boards, then supporting the userbase.

5starpool

It'd be a pretty silly way to have things tbh and would probably result in near anarchy (in online forum terms anyhow).

P_1

A democratic system for choosing mods just wouldn't work, that's why an autocratic (or possibly technocratic) system is used instead.

Having said that I wonder if there is any merit in individual users offering their services if they see a forum that they think is struggling.

Would such a system work where someone says 'it looks like you might need a hand, anything I can do to help?'

OldGoat

P_1 wrote: »

'it looks like you might need a hand, anything I can do to help?'

Yep, use the Report Button. It's awful useful.

Czarcasm

P_1 wrote: »

A democratic system for choosing mods just wouldn't work, that's why an autocratic (or possibly technocratic) system is used instead.

Having said that I wonder if there is any merit in individual users offering their services if they see a forum that they think is struggling.

Would such a system work where someone says 'it looks like you might need a hand, anything I can do to help?'

While well intentioned, such an offer could also be taken up the wrong way by somebody who thinks you might be suggesting they're crap at their job, and then as I presume the title would be Hosted Moderator, were you to issue an infraction or delete, edit, modify a post, you'd have other posters calling you a jumped up little prick and who died and made you Mod, etc.

Fraught with it's own set of dangers and could cause more problems than it'd solve IMO, not to mention accusations of everybody's favorite buzz word around here at the moment- "cliiiiiiiique!" :pac:

OldGoat

Perhaps I should have said "cliiiiiiiique the Report Button" then. :cool:

P_1

Czarcasm wrote: »

While well intentioned, such an offer could also be taken up the wrong way by somebody who thinks you might be suggesting they're crap at their job, and then as I presume the title would be Hosted Moderator, were you to issue an infraction or delete, edit, modify a post, you'd have other posters calling you a jumped up little prick and who died and made you Mod, etc.

Fraught with it's own set of dangers and could cause more problems than it'd solve IMO, not to mention accusations of everybody's favorite buzz word around here at the moment- "cliiiiiiiique!" :pac:

TBH I meant an expansion of the 'don't criticize the man until you walk a mile in his shoes' argument

wnolan1992

Polls would be a very messy way to choose mods.

There was actually a recent blow-up about polls in C&H, so the following is largely based on things raised in our feedback thread.

1. As has already been said, the most popular poster in a forum is not necessarily going to make a good mod. If it were a simple poll system to choose mods, you'd easily end up with a thanks-whore as a mod, who (while entertaining and well-meaning) mightn't necessarily suit the role.
   
2. The OP says that it should be there to let "regulars" decide who the next mod is.
   
   What defines a "regular" in a forum? Is an opinion from someone who lurks or only posts periodically somehow less important than someone who may post daily, even though both of these people may have equal interest in wanting to see the forum thrive.
   
3. What form would these polls take?
   
   If you go the Public Poll route, you could end up with arguments among posters along the lines of "You voted for him?! Are you mad?! I'd make a WAAAY better mod!" Could easily descend into bullying.
   
   If you go the Private Poll route, it's too easy to exploit. A user simply has to PM all their friends or canvas on other forums and you'll get an influx of people to the forum just to vote their friend in.
   
   The only other way (that I know of) would be for everyone who wants to vote for the mod to PM a designated person (a Returning Officer if you will) who tallies these votes and prevents abuse by people getting randomers to vote. There are three problems with this method:
   a). It'd be a major time-sink, and I doubt many would volunteer, especially in places like AH.
   b). Do you trust the RO not to fudge the figures and just elect their choice?
   c). Who's vote do you count and who's do you discard?
   
4. If people were allowed volunteer to become a mod, or the poll system, it would be far too easy to end up in a situation where someone feels rejected by the forum, and could easily stop posting. I think this especially applies to smaller forums and the Community ones (C&H, tLL, tGC, etc).
   
   I'll just take myself for example. If I hadn't received a PM one morning asking if I'd be interesting in moderating, I'd have never known I was in contention. I'd just have seen the welcome thread for the new mod and got on with things. Whereas if there'd been a popularity contest for the spot, and if I had felt I could mod the forum well, but was beaten by someone who I deemed unsuitable just because they were more popular, then it would have left a bitter taste.
   
   Now, there's an argument here that if you aren't chosen via a poll you just need to build a bridge and get over it, but I think it's a dangerous and unnecessary gamble to take with the community atmosphere on the site.

That's my 2c FWIW anyway.

Beruthiel

And from your above post wnolan1992, it would appear the existing system works fairly well and the right choice was made.

seamus

In lieu of payment, flattery and alcohol are often used with mods as a way of hiding the fact that they're doing a crappy job for no pay.

Beruthiel

Shhhhh. Quiet seamus ffs.

The Hill Billy

seamus wrote: »

In lieu of payment, flattery and alcohol are often used with mods as a way of hiding the fact that they're doing a crappy job for no pay.

Oi! I'll have you know that while the conditions of the job may be crappy - I am not 'doing a crappy job.'


("Crappy job" - Fnarr!)

Dades

Every four years or so, we, the people get to vote for who we want to *moderate* this country. And look where that's got us over the years.

The problem isn't with the voters per se, but with the squeaky-wheeled gobshites putting themselves forward we have to choose from.

Sarky

I'm pretty happy with the benevolent dictatorship model so far. It works.

padd b1975

I am not really bothered how Mods are chosen, but can a stop be put to posters tripping over themselves to trot out that well worn line about coke and hookers whenever a new mod is announced??

Beats me how the glorification of prostitution and illegal drugs ever became funny.

Headshot

When do infractions stop counting when choosing a mod?

Steve

Headshot wrote: »

When do infractions stop counting when choosing a mod?

As a mod (as opposed to someone who matters here) - I've no idea - but I'll be the first one to offer the opinion that they realistically mean feck all when it comes to the brass tacks of the ability to run a forum.

Headshot

I can understand recent infractions influencing a decision to pick a mod but when the infractions are years old and more or less isolated to one forum, why does it influence the decision of picking a mod?