Thank You Mods

[Tim Vasquez]

Well, this whole thing has come up before, I think in the archives somewhere from around 2005. I feel it's important to hand-pick because popularity is not necessarily congruent with doing a good job moderating. Some people will indeed vote for good administrator types, but most will just pick people they like a lot. Not only is popularity a questionable attribute but if the relationship between members and moderators is too cozy then this breeds favoritism and loose enforcement.

That said, I think the parliamentary system is good and there is merit in having perhaps one "popular" moderator to help represent members at large. But most moderators will be handpicked. Traditionally this has been with significant input from the outgoing moderators; in fact most of the recent moderator picks have been made by them.

There's no plans right now to replace the moderator team but before spring 2010 chase season we will probably have a new crew assembled.

Tim

 

[Melissa Jablonski]

Sounds right to me . I was smarting off to Jason. Sorry.
Melissa

 

[Randy Denzer]

Tim,
As a union VP in a large union, we have processes for selecting committee members in which allow for both appointments and elections. This balances out the appointments "Hand picked" and the elected members "popularity". This system seams to make both sides happy. I would suggest appointing a certain number of moderators and then hold elections (with formal nominations) for a couple.

Randy

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Tim,
As a union VP in a large union, we have processes for selecting committee members in which allow for both appointments and elections. This balances out the appointments "Hand picked" and the elected members "popularity". This system seams to make both sides happy. I would suggest appointing a certain number of moderators and then hold elections (with formal nominations) for a couple.

Randy

Seems like a bit much for just an internet forum.

 

[Steve Miller]

Well, if anything is evident, it's that ST needs an injection of leadership very soon. Current mods are doing fine but as Tim mentioned in another thread, more are needed. All politics aside, I still like the idea of nominations and a poll-type election. Perhaps if the leadership here is voted in by popularity, consistency and knowledge of the subject matter, more people will be inclined to contribute and when hands get slapped, there will be a respect-factor involved and maybe these people chewing on the mods all the time will think twice. I could be wrong.
Life is a popularity contest and those who put forth the effort to excel will win. This is a fact. Hand picking moderation for a board with as many contributors as this is silly. Let the masses choose and lasting respect and support will accompany those selected.

 

[Jason Foster]

The problem with elections is that it can easily lead to a changing of the focus of a forum. Like a business or organization with private leadership, private appointments keeps the ideas and mission of the site honest to the original idea. Let folks start campaigning for "change" and that focus goes away. ST has lots of people discussing (or fighting) as to what should be done to change it (like the Jerry Springer area/Flame War section). Privately picked management means that the owners and other leaders keep continuity of the original idea.

 

[Steve Miller]

ST also has a long-standing issue with promoting younger, less seasoned "chasers" to mod (management) roles. I'm all about people having equal opportunity but it clearly has not been, and will not continue to be, the best direction for this forum.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Steve -- are you saying we do or we don't promote less seasoned chasers? I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding your take on the issue.

Tim

 

[Steve Miller]

Re-read what I wrote and realize it was poorly stated.

I'm saying ST seemingly promotes whoever will take on the job, be it new or seasoned chaser (or enthusiast). Maybe there are fewer people interested in taking on the mod task than I think there are. That's why I believe a nomination system would be a good way to have some more seasoned chasers and users of this board perhaps consider this role.

 

[Richard Dickson]

I can certainly appreciate the logic and supporting arguments behind the thought process for having nominations and electing at least part of the mods. That might promote a spirit of cooperation for a while.

However, my bigger concern is that this forum is 'privately owned and operated' and a primary factor that Tim probably considers with his selections is the individual personalities that he feels most comfortable working with and who might best promote the standards he is looking for. Forgive me if I am putting the wrong words in his mouth.

I feel that if there are issues with a mod or even all of them, then it would be up to the contributors to the forum to present those issues to Tim privately for his consideration. Granted, if too many people leave, the forum will fold, but I don't seriously think that would happen. I'm open to rebuttal, but I really don't have a lot more to add on this one.
TANK

 

[J Kinkaid]

Somebody asked me to bump this thread

 

[Ryan Wichman]

Maybe Tim or a mod can help out with this...but what is the current system for being elected/appointed/whatever as a MOD?

 

[john.sibley]

Wouldn't a mod be appointed? In every board I'm a member of, the owner appoints the mods. I've never heard of an election before.

 

[Steve Miller]

Wouldn't a mod be appointed? In every board I'm a member of, the owner appoints the mods. I've never heard of an election before.

Right, most of the time you have a period of nominations and then the board votes to appoint.
In the case of ST, I see no reason why members can't nominate other members and the members who have the majority of support through this nomination process could then be discussed by Tim and the rest of the current mod team who will ultimately vote in who actually gets the spots. Along the way, if a member is nominated who does not want to do it or has time constraints, they simply PM a mod and tell them and their name is dropped.

 

[Jason Foster]

I think various people stand out as good (and calm) just by their own postings, and other moderators and the owner take notice, and then approach that person offline/off-the-forum. If that person is willing to do the job, then they are put before the other owners/administrators (when there's more than one) but not before the other moderators. But each site chooses it's own way, but that is the normal M.O. I've seen with the various weather related forums I'm a member of.