-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
Elected moderators and appointed moderators
- Thread starter JSmith
- Start date
rdale
EF5
They do have term limits. And some are appointed.
Bart_Comstock
EF5
As rdale mentioned, The mods have term limits. The term for the next round of mods will run from July 1st, 2010 to Dec 31st, 2010. Some mods are elected and some are appointed. Offering both gives a good balance to assure fair moderation.
Why is it you feel the elections are a bad idea?
Robbie Cox
EF2
Jason Foster
Having both is great for ST. It makes for a good balance. Elections help to assign a favored member to the roles of moderator. Appointed moderators help to ensure the original intent is followed. I suspect that the "behind the scenes" element is a big part of it, but one has to admit that except for a few cases, most everyone is quite happy with the amount of moderation here, it certainly is a well run forum, especially considering the alternatives out there.
Tim Vasquez
EF5
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,411
OK -- I'll clarify the leadership structure in a little more detail. We had some threads about this last winter but I know they've scrolled off awhile back.
From 2003 to most of 2009 nearly all of our moderators have been appointed without any set terms. Though we have had a good moderator team lately I became concerned about two things... the potential for a controversial moderator to become unremovable without drama, and awareness that I don't always have all the answers about what is right for ST.
Since 2009 we have been phasing in a bicameral leadership, modelled somewhat after the British form of goverment, which consists of 4 elected moderators and 4 appointed moderators serving 6-month terms. As owner of Stormtrack I preside over the moderators and still carry absolute authority but I delegate as much of the day-to-day responsibility as practical to the moderators and often seek their input. The community solely selects elected moderators by popular vote, while I select the appointed moderators with a bit of yea/nay input from the existing moderator team.
The idea is that the appointed moderators tend to represent the legacy of Stormtrack. I select them based on knowledge, reputation, connections, judgement, and/or experience. I subscribed starting in 1986 and started serving in editorial roles in 1996, so I tend to do things the old fashioned way and my personnel choices often tend to reflect that. That does carry some benefits, but I am skeptical that an appointed aristocracy is a good way to run a community and I think my luck with good personnel choices may eventually run out.
This is where the elected moderators come in. I see the elected moderators as more connected with current members and are tuned to what the community wants and expects out of Stormtrack. I think they have unique perspectives into what it takes to help the community prosper, especially in this new era of social networking, and are more connected to newer chasers, some of whom will become accomplished, talented names by 2015 or so.
So my hope is that both the appointed and elected moderators will represent the best of both worlds on Stormtrack and will make sure that we not only have the best handpicked individuals but also those who the community feels are best. I don't know whether any other forums have ever adopted this kind of structure, but I think it's best for the long term health of the site. My only concern has been in upping the number of active moderators from 6 to 8 (actually 5 to 8 since Sam Sagnella hasn't been online in many months).. if we end up having trouble reaching consensus and getting things done due to "too many cooks in the kitchen" we may go back to 3/3 moderators in January. But the 4/4 arrangement will probably work out.
Another issue we are working on is that of the moderator title. I do consider moderators functionally to be part of the staff rather than just forum policemen. They play an important part in discussing sitewide policy and helping to guide Stormtrack through a constantly-changing Internet landscape. We are discussing some possible alternatives to the name "moderator" to better reflect this role, such as "staff member". There hasn't been much discussion to come out of this in the private admin forum, so if you all have thoughts about this you are welcome to chime in.
Anyhow I hope that explains things a bit better.
Tim
From 2003 to most of 2009 nearly all of our moderators have been appointed without any set terms. Though we have had a good moderator team lately I became concerned about two things... the potential for a controversial moderator to become unremovable without drama, and awareness that I don't always have all the answers about what is right for ST.
Since 2009 we have been phasing in a bicameral leadership, modelled somewhat after the British form of goverment, which consists of 4 elected moderators and 4 appointed moderators serving 6-month terms. As owner of Stormtrack I preside over the moderators and still carry absolute authority but I delegate as much of the day-to-day responsibility as practical to the moderators and often seek their input. The community solely selects elected moderators by popular vote, while I select the appointed moderators with a bit of yea/nay input from the existing moderator team.
The idea is that the appointed moderators tend to represent the legacy of Stormtrack. I select them based on knowledge, reputation, connections, judgement, and/or experience. I subscribed starting in 1986 and started serving in editorial roles in 1996, so I tend to do things the old fashioned way and my personnel choices often tend to reflect that. That does carry some benefits, but I am skeptical that an appointed aristocracy is a good way to run a community and I think my luck with good personnel choices may eventually run out.
This is where the elected moderators come in. I see the elected moderators as more connected with current members and are tuned to what the community wants and expects out of Stormtrack. I think they have unique perspectives into what it takes to help the community prosper, especially in this new era of social networking, and are more connected to newer chasers, some of whom will become accomplished, talented names by 2015 or so.
So my hope is that both the appointed and elected moderators will represent the best of both worlds on Stormtrack and will make sure that we not only have the best handpicked individuals but also those who the community feels are best. I don't know whether any other forums have ever adopted this kind of structure, but I think it's best for the long term health of the site. My only concern has been in upping the number of active moderators from 6 to 8 (actually 5 to 8 since Sam Sagnella hasn't been online in many months).. if we end up having trouble reaching consensus and getting things done due to "too many cooks in the kitchen" we may go back to 3/3 moderators in January. But the 4/4 arrangement will probably work out.
Another issue we are working on is that of the moderator title. I do consider moderators functionally to be part of the staff rather than just forum policemen. They play an important part in discussing sitewide policy and helping to guide Stormtrack through a constantly-changing Internet landscape. We are discussing some possible alternatives to the name "moderator" to better reflect this role, such as "staff member". There hasn't been much discussion to come out of this in the private admin forum, so if you all have thoughts about this you are welcome to chime in.
Anyhow I hope that explains things a bit better.
Tim
Jeff Miller
EF5
Since you solicited chime in material, here's some food for thought -
A community of 1,600 plus - such as Stormtrack - certainly has an owner. Why not entitle the support volunteers to have the title of "StormTrack Management Team" instead of "Moderator". In my thought, "Management Team" better encompasses the daily work of the actual management of the Forum in general, and solidifies a Team Effort in the day to day operations of the site under the owner. A site such as Stormtrack is so much more then just "Moderating" - it truly is a team management effort for this small part of the chaser community at large.
Just my thoughts as they were welcomed. Thanks.
A community of 1,600 plus - such as Stormtrack - certainly has an owner. Why not entitle the support volunteers to have the title of "StormTrack Management Team" instead of "Moderator". In my thought, "Management Team" better encompasses the daily work of the actual management of the Forum in general, and solidifies a Team Effort in the day to day operations of the site under the owner. A site such as Stormtrack is so much more then just "Moderating" - it truly is a team management effort for this small part of the chaser community at large.
Just my thoughts as they were welcomed. Thanks.
Jason Boggs
I agree with this. Management team seems to be a better fit than Moderator.
I think it's important that you acknowledged the status of one of the appointed moderators (Sam) to the entire forum. Every couple of weeks I find myself checking the last time he logged in and have been wondering of his whereabouts, but was afraid to bring it up as I thought that would be an "infraction" waiting to happen. I also thought perhaps he was on pre approved leave of absence and the members weren't aware of the circumstances or weren't on a need to know basis. In any event it appears you are doing the right thing by acknowledging his absence (in my estimation).
In my experience with the corporate and government worlds, changing departmental names and/or job titles is a topic that comes up every few years. After the change, I usually find myself wishing it never occurred and typically believe the new name is worse than the old. I used the Thesaurus in Microsoft Word to see what other titles besides "Moderator" sounded interesting and it actually turns out that "Facilitator" was the only one that piqued my interest. The suggestion you made for "Staff Member" is about the best option I can think of - if you think a change is actually necessary at this juncture.
Jason Bolt
I see what you are saying about appointed moderators, but I strongly feel there need to be minimum qualifications for the elected moderators. You mention the newer chasers and the social networking generation, but disenfranchising veteran members needs to be considered too. IMO.
Bryan Stokes
EF3
Jason,
How did the recent elections 'shoo away' veteran chasers? 3 out of the 4 that were elected are quite experienced. Tim gets to choose the other 4, and I suspect they will be pretty experienced too. I'm trying to understand your point, but I feel like it's misplaced.
Please help me understand.
Bryan
How did the recent elections 'shoo away' veteran chasers? 3 out of the 4 that were elected are quite experienced. Tim gets to choose the other 4, and I suspect they will be pretty experienced too. I'm trying to understand your point, but I feel like it's misplaced.
Please help me understand.
Bryan
Tim Vasquez
EF5
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,411
Well, it's true we avoid discussing some matters publically, but there's no problem with asking any of us offline. In short Sam asked for a leave of absence around the holidays due to outside circumstances and we agreed to keep him on board. His term ran out in March and he hasn't logged in in many months, so I removed him from the moderator rolls. However if anyone knows him personally it might be worth checking up to see if things are ok on his end.
Regarding a moderator title I had thought of "manager" or "management" too, but given the semantics of that term these days I have a really hard time not picturing something like this:
Tim
Well today is the day. I'm kind of curious who the appointed moderators will be and if the transition is still on schedule for all moderators (elected and appointed) to be in place by today. I don't necessarily like asking, but it is July 1st after all and I am somewhat eager to start my new role!
Bob Hartig
EF5
Good point. This isn't an issue I feel strongly about, but I, too, have witnessed this same search for a better title, and a lot of times it just becomes one more trip around the same old mountain. Eventually folks wind up back at the same place, and they may even re-adopt the original language they wanted to replace. I understand that you want to convey the broadness of responsibilities that moderators assume as staff members, Tim, but "moderator" still does a good job of communicating the actual function of the position in its interaction with the forum community. It's a word that tells me something.
I'm not at all anti-change. But unless you've got a really compelling, one- or two-word substitute for the present "moderator" title, will switching that title really be an improvement or just change for the sake of change? My nickel's worth.
