Modinations

[Jayelle]

I'd like to have at least one more general mod with this new board. Please send me your nominations. You can nominate yourself if you want. And if you are nominated by someone else, I will confirm you actually want the job before voting.

You have one week to PM me.


and....GO!

[Syphon the Sun]

Shouldn't we figure out how mods are chosen before we figure out the nominee list?

[Gravity Defier]

I believe it will be a voting process. Care to share the ambiguity for you? :)

ETA: Are you wondering if current mods are voting or if the board is? And how much of a majority is needed? That sort of thing?

ETA 2: Ah, and I guess if any future mods, should any step down, will the replacement be voted in by the standing mods or the board?

Damn you, Syphon. I was too tired to think about this when I first posted.

[Syphon the Sun]

I believe it will be a voting process. Care to share the ambiguity for you?

I thought we might actually discuss whether we want a voting process, just to make sure that everyone's opinion can be heard. (And maybe vote on that, first?) Plus, "a voting process" is pretty ambiguous to me.

Some general questions:

Who votes? (I assume everyone, but some of expressed concerns of a huge new influx diluting voting power and moving the board in a totally new directon.)

How much does each vote count for? (I assume all votes are equal.)

What portion of the vote does one need to win, particularly in cases where more than two people are nominated? Will it be a majority vote (50%+ of votes cast) or a plurality vote (largest number of votes cast)? Will it be something else entirely (super-majority)? Should there be a run-off? If so, how do we do that? (e.g., do we just include candidates who add up to the x% needed to win?)

[Gravity Defier]

Yes, I actually went in and did some ETAs once I stopped to think about it, ha. "That boy's being dense!...*pause*...Wait."

But thank you for doing a thorough explanation of what you would like to see addressed. That helps, I think.

Oh no, another ETA!

ETA: Also, I guess some clarification on how many new mods Jan thinks we need, keeping in mind we may add a site and may want to add then, if we only go with one for now.

[VelvetElvis]

I had assumed we'd go for a simple majority vote in which all members may vote.

[Jayelle]

I had assumed we'd go for a simple majority vote in which all members may vote.

This is what I was thinking. If you vote by PM, it'll be really unlikely that any bots will vote.

ETA: Also, I guess some clarification on how many new mods Jan thinks we need, keeping in mind we may add a site and may want to add then, if we only go with one for now.

I was thinking it would depend a little on how many nominations I got. Two, maximum. But only one if there are... less then five nominated?


I don't want to make this really complicated, and I sincerely doubt it's something that is going to happen repeatedly. Do we really need to draw up a complicated contract?

[Gravity Defier]

I don't think it needs to be complicated but I do think those were fair questions, since they were all raised before in the Meta thread and by more than just Syphon and myself. Going into any decision making based on assumptions is a bad idea.

So, to be clear, you are saying: all votes are equal; although it's unlikely, if we have this issue in the future, we'll deal with it (and potential flood of newbies possibly swaying things) then; one mod most likely being voted in; simple majority?

[Jayelle]

Okay, to be clear, here is how I see things happening.

1) People Nominate either themselves or someone else to be mods

2)I ask those who've been nominated whether they actually want the position.

3) I make a thread listing the nominees and everyone who wants to vote sends me a PM with their top choice. If there are more then 5 nominated, we'll vote for a top two choices.

4) Every vote counts the same

*4b) see below

5) Whoever has the most votes wins.

6) That person(s) becomes a mod.


*note: if a nominee is voted in by a ton of newbies, or accounts are created to vote them in, then we'll deal with the "only olbies can vote" or some such issue. Unfortunately, you'll just have to trust me on this. And can I just say that I've given you one reason not to trust me and 1000 reasons to trust me, so I really hope you go with the average here.


I would really rather not have a vote whether or not to vote, because that just feels like an infinite loop of vote to vote to vote to vote...etc. At some point there needs to be an executive decision.

[Gravity Defier]

Thank you for outlining it. And I do trust you. If I'm being a pain in the ass at the moment, it's because:

1) I'm trying to make sure things from Meta (again, not just stuff from me or Syphon) are addressed. It doesn't mean taking a vote on every last thing but it is nice to have your stance laid out clearly and not assumed, once you've made a decision on something that can be said to be far-reaching. Because:

2) We've never been in a position to make real change. I want to make sure the people we ultimately settle on are suited for the job (and that includes knowing how we're electing and voting them in in the first place) since we will have them making decisions on our behalf.

3) It's good to lay a strong foundation early on. That is, even if things do/did get complicated now, I think it is better to get the hard part/decisions worked out if there is going to be a hard part.

4) I'm trying to help establish a level of communication I will be happy with. I honestly can't tell what things will look like if we/you all decide on a site and decisions need to be made there (of a larger kind, not the small, mundane stuff), as far as how you guys will go about presenting them. Behind closed doors, in the Star Chamber? In the Meta thread? Basically, I'm trying to impress upon you to err on the side of oversharing and over-simplifying and I don't think sharing or addressing questions has to mean you don't ultimately make the decisions still.

5) I can be a pain in the ass without meaning to. (It's all natural!) I'm trying to be a resource here, not an obstacle. I'm sorry if my actions are making you feel undermined or untrusted. (Is that a word? Can't check. Circ desk calls.)

Make sense?

[locke]

Okay, to be clear, here is how I see things happening.

1) People Nominate either themselves or someone else to be mods

2)I ask those who've been nominated whether they actually want the position.

3) I make a thread listing the nominees and everyone who wants to vote sends me a PM with their top choice. If there are more then 5 nominated, we'll vote for a top two choices.

4) Every vote counts the same

*4b) see below

5) Whoever has the most votes wins.

6) That person(s) becomes a mod.


*note: if a nominee is voted in by a ton of newbies, or accounts are created to vote them in, then we'll deal with the "only olbies can vote" or some such issue. Unfortunately, you'll just have to trust me on this. And can I just say that I've given you one reason not to trust me and 1000 reasons to trust me, so I really hope you go with the average here.

I would say a requirement of 100 posts to vote is pretty good.

I would also like to say that I don't like a simple majority. Say we have 8 people to vote for and we're taking the top two. One person gets 60% of the vote and the second place captures 15% of the vote, everyone else has less than that (this isn't very likely). I think there should be a cutoff that you need at least 25% (or maybe 33% or 40%) of the vote to become a mod. If there is vote splitting and no one captures the majority needed, take the top three candidates and have a run off.

[Wind Swept]

I would also like to say that I don't like a simple majority. Say we have 8 people to vote for and we're taking the top two. One person gets 60% of the vote and the second place captures 15% of the vote, everyone else has less than that (this isn't very likely). I think there should be a cutoff that you need at least 25% (or maybe 33% or 40%) of the vote to become a mod. If there is vote splitting and no one captures the majority needed, take the top three candidates and have a run off.

This is what instant runoff voting was invented for.

[Gravity Defier]

runoff

400 meters?

[Satya]

runoff

400 meters?

If it's between 100 and 500 meters I'm in.

I might be at a disadvantage in a long distance run.

[Syphon the Sun]

3) It's good to lay a strong foundation early on. That is, even if things do/did get complicated now, I think it is better to get the hard part/decisions worked out if there is going to be a hard part.

5) I can be a pain in the ass without meaning to. (It's all natural!) I'm trying to be a resource here, not an obstacle. I'm sorry if my actions are making you feel undermined or untrusted. (Is that a word? Can't check. Circ desk calls.)

Very much all of this.

The only reason I suggested the "vote to vote" was that I think it's important for everyone's voice to be heard and because it's probably easier to figure this all out, now, than it will be in the future if it ever becomes an issue. And I know that some people have expressed reservations about opening it up to a vote, so I thought they deserved the chance to explain their side and try to persuade the rest of us. (Or not, if they're already in the majority.)

That said, even if we don't vote on whether we're electing mods via a voting process, I think we should still collectively figure out, and come to an agreement upon, how we vote. I appreciate that Jan has laid out her initial views. Like Adam, I have reservations about a simple plurality vote. (If there are 100 nominees and 101 votes, the new mod is chosen by two people.) I would not have this problem with a simple majority vote (50%+ of all votes cast), because the choice reflects at least half of the voters. I know others have suggested varying degrees of super-majority requirements, though, so I'd like to hear from them, too.

Other than that, I have no other qualms with Jan's proposal.

[Jayelle]

The only reason I suggested the "vote to vote" was that I think it's important for everyone's voice to be heard and because it's probably easier to figure this all out, now, than it will be in the future if it ever becomes an issue. And I know that some people have expressed reservations about opening it up to a vote, so I thought they deserved the chance to explain their side and try to persuade the rest of us. (Or not, if they're already in the majority.)

Bear with me here: When there's a group of people who want to vote, it makes sense to vote, because the people who don't want to vote don't care. I don't see anyone in here speaking up against a vote. Those in the Meta thread who said "Just let Jan appoint someone" were coming to my defense, but I would be shocked if any of them have a problem with voting. If they do, let them come in this thread and ask that we not vote. Then... we'll vote to vote (though, that still includes voting).

I would also like to say that I don't like a simple majority. Say we have 8 people to vote for and we're taking the top two. One person gets 60% of the vote and the second place captures 15% of the vote, everyone else has less than that (this isn't very likely). I think there should be a cutoff that you need at least 25% (or maybe 33% or 40%) of the vote to become a mod. If there is vote splitting and no one captures the majority needed, take the top three candidates and have a run off.

Fine. Cool. Whatever. I seriously feel stupid about this stuff. I am not familiar with these complicated ways to vote, or to count votes or whetever. If you guys want to work out these finicky details, I'll just wait over here, because I just want to throw my hand in the air and say "fine!!"


Also, this speculation about 8 people to vote for, 100 people to vote for is all just funny when there are two nominations so far. Everyone wants to have the power, but nobody wants to have responsibility.

[DramaLlama]

I demand a vote about how we'll vote about voting if we vote or not.

[Gravity Defier]

Everyone wants to have the power, but nobody wants to have responsibility.

I think this sentiment is a byproduct of too many comics. Jason told me this exact same thing, only personalized to me and with an "I'll be honest" tacked on the front.

I have said no to being a mod (while still wanting say in the direction of the board) because:

1)To use an analogy I used with Jason, I see being a mod as being either a two-part job or two one-part jobs: policing and policy making. The police and the politician. Around AZ, we keep them separate. We do not tell our elected officials to make a law and then grab a gun to go enforce it because they require two different skill sets. I think I would be lousy at the policing part but pretty darn good at the policies. I am trying to be honest about my weakness and prevent the board from having one more person who isn't that great at monitoring admittedly low levels of bad behavior, not skirt responsibility.

Now, I love you guys, deeply, and it's easy to say this from my position of no power, but I couldn't understand the lack of involvement by any of the mods when Satya was still a problem and when Cezen appeared to be becoming a problem. If Satya got warnings off the board, it didn't stop him when he was being less than civil and I don't recall much by way of warnings to knock it off on the board, either. Thankfully he's being so much better now. But when Cezen walks into a thread and is allowed to insult a group of people (even if I'm the only one to get offended by it), it still seems to me he's breaking some sort of unspoken rule about how you are expected to treat members of this board: with respect. If you have kept up with my many, many posts, I have done some attempts at saying, I'm not a mod but please cut that out or whatever. Sometimes people listen, sometimes they don't, and thankfully, we don't have to worry about this all that often so it's not a humongous deal to have mods for policing, so it's okay that the ones we have are kind of soft in the enforcement area.

2)Josh might still want the job. He is supposed to call me sometime today so we can talk. If he tells me he understands why I didn't appreciate his behavior over the course of the past year, even if he doesn't agree with me, I will be okay with him staying. You gave him your stamp of approval. Why cause more bad blood by ousting someone you approve of, someone you think has done a good job, to try to insert myself when all I want is to have some say in how things go, given how vocal and active a participant I've been the entire time?

3)On that note, please don't diminish the work I have done by saying general-we are trying to get out of the responsibility. I did quite a bit without you granting me any level of power, so basically, you guys got the responsibility from me without handing over the power; kind of imbalanced in the other direction. And you know, that seemed to work out just fine. But since this apparently has to be a two-part job, well, I'd rather do the best thing for the board and not ask for a job where I know I'd excel at one half and fail miserably at the other.

[steph]

As I stated in the other thread, I do have reservations about future votes when lots of potential crazy teenagers flood our board. But, I'm fine with a vote now, since I trust the people here now and I feel confident that we can work out in the future how to vote with a whole bunch of newbies around.

[Gravity Defier]

Steph, I think that can be easily worked out now, instead of waiting for it to happen, if it ever does.

Adam suggested:

I would say a requirement of 100 posts to vote is pretty good.

The only thing I would add is a member has to be here for at least a year, as well. That covers every single oldie who has been here and that cares enough to ever want to vote on anything and it would prevent newbies who may play a lot in the game room from getting to vote within a week of showing up.

[Dr. Mobius]

I originally PM'ed this to Jan before I saw we had a thread for it. My two cents on the voting thing:

If we're going to have a vote, each candidate needs their own separate yeh/nay vote of confidence poll so it doesn't devolve into a popularity contest. The voting should be to see if the community as a whole is willing to accept said person as a mod, not to decide who gets the job. After the voting period, the original mods (Jan, Ali and Adam) have final say in who gets the job. That way, the voters get their say, but it's still a command decision from the top as well.


Also, do I need to be renominated or does Jan's from a year ago count?

[Gravity Defier]

I guess this goes in this thread...I would have put it in Meta but it might fit better here.


Josh and I have spoken and, after reopening wounds, pouring salt, and splashing some lime on top of it all, I feel like he understood my objections and addressed them in a way I was really impressed with. He also did his best to explain reasoning and behaviors on his part; sometimes this brought to light more issues and there wasn't 100% agreement on everything but we talked through these, too, and were okay with the areas where there was disagreement. Both sides agreed things could have been better handled by both sides and better addressed over the past year and he did say he would do his best, if he gets voted back in, to make sure communication doesn't suffer in the future. Both sides apologized. I can't ask for more than that and sincerely appreciate it.

I do not want to diminish his efforts to date and believe in second chances. If Jan's from a year ago and a week ago doesn't count as a nomination, I will nominate him and it is important for me to state that publicly. He should, at the very least, be on the ballot.

[Luet]

I originally PM'ed this to Jan before I saw we had a thread for it. My two cents on the voting thing:

If we're going to have a vote, each candidate needs their own separate yeh/nay vote of confidence poll so it doesn't devolve into a popularity contest. The voting should be to see if the community as a whole is willing to accept said person as a mod, not to decide who gets the job. After the voting period, the original mods (Jan, Ali and Adam) have final say in who gets the job. That way, the voters get their say, but it's still a command decision from the top as well.

I don't understand this at all. It sounds very different from the way all of the current talk of voting has been explained. Are you saying we have two rounds of voting? Or that your 'vote of confidence poll' is in place of a regular vote? Can someone explain this to me as if I have no previous knowledge of voting (since I don't)?

[Wind Swept]

There are (at least) four possibilities here:
1) Jan presents us with all the nominees, we vote for the one we most want as a new mod.

2a) Jan presents a single nominee at a time, we vote for if we want that nominee to be a mod at all.
2b) Jan presents us with all the surviving nominees, we vote for the one we most want as a new mod.

3) We do 2a and 2b simultaneously with instant runoff voting:
Jan presents all the nominees, we rank those we think are deserving of a mod hat in order of preference, and simply don't rank nominees we don't believe deserve mod hats.

ETA: 4) Jan picks a nominee, we vote whether or not to approve her appointee.

[Luet]

I like the sound of option 3, since it gets everything done at once but is there a simple way for Jan to compile the results of that option? It sounds complicated but I might be confused as to how she would do it.

ETA: Jan, is there any way you could update your first post periodically with the names of current nominees? Just so we know if someone we are thinking of nominating has already been nominated and so we can start thinking about our choices, etc? That is, if there are no objections to having the names listed.

[locke]

I am tempted to retitle this thread Modinations.

[Satya]

Before I go and send a nomination, who's all already been nominated?
Unless I've missed it. I've been watching/lurking but perhaps not enough. I'm here more than it may seem.
You know old people, we're forgetful and easily confused by new things.

Also this whole thing makes me feel conflicted, but in a good/silly way. I always felt kind of like an outsider and new for those first few years, then it felt like old hat for awhile. Then recently I felt really old after actually typing out that I'd been here 8 years. And then I feel new again when I remember that there are people who've been involved in this for a decade.

So thanks to all of you involved in this for your work and your time, for keeping this going. When I try to calculate the time I've spent here it's an impossible task (about as impossible as my recent attempt to calculate my post total across various persona) and for better or worse the lights were always one and someone was always home. If only for me to irritate or commiserate.

Last, I have no real input on the process by which the mod is elected.
To be honest, I feel like it will have little impact on the outcome, and only marginally change the relative simplicity/complexity of doing it.
/2 cents

[Luet]

Before I go and send a nomination, who's all already been nominated?
Unless I've missed it. I've been watching/lurking but perhaps not enough.

I just asked about this a couple posts up.

[Satya]

Before I go and send a nomination, who's all already been nominated?
Unless I've missed it. I've been watching/lurking but perhaps not enough.

I just asked about this a couple posts up.

Oh... uh... right....

I knew that. I was just, uh, reiterating.
>poker face

[Luet]

No problem. Now they know that there are at least two of us that would like the nominations listed.

[Jayelle]

I'd rather wait to say who's been nominated until people have accepted their nomination (if someone else has nominated them). I have one person pending at the moment.
I don't really see how it makes a difference to know at this point, rather then at the week's end. It doesn't hurt to have people nominated more then once and I am not going to look down on anyone for nominating themselves.

[Syphon the Sun]

Keep in mind, everyone, that I'm just trying to explain my own thinking on the matter. So if you're offended, hurt, etc. by anything said below, please come to me so that I can fix it, as I'm fully aware that I may not be communicating clearly.

Also, this speculation about 8 people to vote for, 100 people to vote for is all just funny when there are two nominations so far.

The point I was making was that we should have a procedure that doesn't need to be fixed every single time just to address the current situation of nominees. A system that works whether we have one nominee or a hundred nominees. Personally, I think trying to figure out if a proposal has any unintended consequences is good and it's worth our time. Maybe it won't matter in the short-term. But it might someday. So that's why I proposed that we try to figure it out now, while we're discussing everything else that comes along with getting access to make real changes to our community.

Everyone wants to have the power, but nobody wants to have responsibility.

This isn't the first time I've heard this and I'll admit: I don't really understand what's trying to be said, here.

If we're going to have a vote, each candidate needs their own separate yeh/nay vote of confidence poll so it doesn't devolve into a popularity contest. The voting should be to see if the community as a whole is willing to accept said person as a mod, not to decide who gets the job.

I don't really agree with this. I think there's value not only in seeking to know whether the community finds a person acceptable, but in actively determining its leadership. I think there's a world of difference between determining whether someone is capable of the job and whether some is best-suited for the job.

After the voting period, the original mods (Jan, Ali and Adam) have final say in who gets the job. That way, the voters get their say, but it's still a command decision from the top as well.

To no one's surprise, I disagree with this, as well. Particularly as it is tied together with the first part. I think this ultimately devolves into "the community can voice its opinion, but that opinion doesn't matter." Which I'm sure isn't the intent. But it's sort of the result. If the community doesn't actually have an actual say in who gets the job, I'm not sure there's a point in having a vote at all.

I don't understand this at all. It sounds very different from the way all of the current talk of voting has been explained. Are you saying we have two rounds of voting? Or that your 'vote of confidence poll' is in place of a regular vote? Can someone explain this to me as if I have no previous knowledge of voting (since I don't)?

I think he was saying that we vote, one at a time, whether we think a nominee is qualified. If a nominee is qualified, his or her name is put into the hat. The current mods then select a mod from those names.

[Gravity Defier]

I'd been here 8 years

Really? I think I lumped you in with the group of people who were here way longer than me. You've only got 3 months! Crazy.



More on topic, I'm going to admit that Chris' option 2 made sense, and I like that, but when I tried to think of it as a simultaneous process, number 3, my brain asploded.

That is, I appreciate Josh's input and understand concerns with it becoming a popularity contest but this is something that I think we all should have a say in. As long as we keep in mind that this isn't about popularity, it's about who has the skills to pull off the job, I don't see a problem with keeping it a vote amongst posters and then handing over the reigns when we get what we ask for. I trust that people are going to put some real thought into this and the implications of who they vote for.


Also, I guess I have to ask this, so I can't get frustrated down the road. And before eyes roll and questions about why it matters come out, trust me that it does. Are non-mod members going to have access to update the site? Not submit things to be updated by others but have an actual, hands-on ability to update? Because, I will be very clear right now, I want that ability and got that before. If I have to become a mod to get it, guess what? I'll be jumping in the race. If I don't have to be, I'll stay out and I'd rather stay out.

[Gravity Defier]

It doesn't hurt to have people nominated more then once

On the flip side, someone might not get nominated at all because people may assume they were nominated.

[Satya]

Edit: something went horribly wrong.