posted
As we celebrate our one week (yay!) anniversary the time has come to talk about moderators.
No, not that you guys need them, you are all behaving rather well. Thank you. But as the initial euphoria wears down, which it hasn't yet, and the real world rears its ugly head, which it has, Gary and I will start to need your help so we can have some downtime.
What does a moderator do? Well, nothing really. They help keep an eye out. They help with questions. They are the Subs of the boards.
Anyway, this is what I am going to propose on how we will select our moderators.
First we will have no more than 3 mods per board. Also, the Creator areas will have mods determined by the individual creators and will not be assigned by us. The Planetary Chance Machine, Encylopedia Galatica and Science HQ will not have a moderator.
There will be a term limit. Moderators will serve for a period of 6 months. Half a year like they did once upon a time in the Legion.
And there will be a nomination period. Initially as well as when times comes for a change in the guard. All registered users may nominate one person for a moderator position in each section. The top 10 nominations will then be entered in a vote in The Planetary Chance Machine with the top 3 becoming mods.
The nomination period will last for one week with the vote for the final 3 lasting one more week. This should allow everyone a chance to vote. Just because you are nominated doesn't mean you have to accept. I will notify by PM or e-mail the top nominations and give them the chance to back out before the election.
I would prefer you not abuse your alt ID's as I do not even pretend to know them all. In other words, please do not stuff the ballot boxes.
Now before I begin the process, I would like some feedback on the process. Is it too much? Not enough? Let me hear your suggestions. Not to say that I will follow them but I always appreciate feedback.
posted
Holy crap -- I just flashed back to high school elections! .... sorry, carry on...
Btw, I appreciate that you're including us in this process -- it sorta brings back the fun of Legion elections and since we can't have them in the comic...
From: New York, NY | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
The process as you've proposed sounds good to me!
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your input Drake, KP and Eryk. I've added one change to the process posted above. Simply put, you don't have to accept the nomination if you don't want to be a mod. I wouldn't want to force anyone to participate in the board in a way they wouldn't want to.
posted
I think a consideration for moderators must be at least a moderate technical background or familiarity, of which I and my lapdog Nardo do not really possess.
So posters who feel in a similar position, or simply under time constraints may feel it best to remove their name from the start.
As for 6 months, I don't know about these things, but it's seems long. Perhaps combos of 3 and 6 month commitments might add flexibility.
Perhaps also standards of tolerance could be spelled out for moderators, or discussed at least, so there's a common understanding and not board by board variable tolerances and emotivity by moderators.
I guess with so many boards and possible moderators, there should be some discussed and understood standards, but not a formal "Legion constitution" which would suck out a lot of the fun here.
posted
But with all the moderator elections going on, how are we ever going to find time to have Legion World Leader and Deputy Leader elections??? :-)
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reep: I think a consideration for moderators must be at least a moderate technical background or familiarity, of which I and my lapdog Nardo do not really possess.
So posters who feel in a similar position, or simply under time constraints may feel it best to remove their name from the start.
We could keep an updated list here of those who would prefer not to be considered for the moderator position. That should be easy enough to do.
quote:As for 6 months, I don't know about these things, but it's seems long. Perhaps combos of 3 and 6 month commitments might add flexibility.
I considered starting it out at 3 months but went with 6 to begin with just so Gary and I can have some breathing time between elections. We can address this again after the first term comes to an end and see what members think.
quote:Perhaps also standards of tolerance could be spelled out for moderators, or discussed at least, so there's a common understanding and not board by board variable tolerances and emotivity by moderators.
I guess with so many boards and possible moderators, there should be some discussed and understood standards, but not a formal "Legion constitution" which would suck out a lot of the fun here.
This one is tougher. Especially since I fully agree with your last statement Reep. I do not want this board strict but then I don't want it as un-policed as Rob's place. Basically when everyone signed up they agreed to a few things like not posting that picture here, not allowing certain ID's, that kind of thing.
I don't want to be a cop. I don't want the fun sucked out of this board. But I (and Gary if I may speak for him) do not want a repeat of the fall of the LSH-HQ. I will put my foot down if I have to just to keep this board fun and free for everyone.
So I think that the mods would not have to go to the extremes that we did over there. Gary and I are more responsible (to our board is all I'm saying here) and it will most likely not come down to a moderator to make the decision that we did at that time.
There shouldn't be a difference in the way one board is moderated over another as there shouldn't be any extremes to consider. A mod will be able to headline a thread (no more than 3 per board), unheadline a thread and perhaps move one to another board. I really don't see a need to close any threads or delete posts.
Gary, can you think of anything to add?
From: Utah | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a mod on the Lonely Planet message board, I understand a lot of the problems that'll creep in if you don't watch out.
My one piece of advice: If posters seem to think they're being 'censored' by the removal of posts/threads, tell them to get over it. I'd rather mods went the occasional cut & prune rather than the board becoming covered in crap.
On the LP board, we have a branch called "Your Choice" where the usual terms & conditions of the message board are relaxed somewhat. This gave us the option of herding troublesome posters to "Your Choice" when they went overboard, rather than banning them from the outset.
posted
I certainly think there should be guidelines for moderators. Maybe an IQ test. A crisis management course requirement.
How do boards normally select moderators? Is it just anybody who volunteers? Is it someone with ownership of the board? What are the requirements that, say, someone like Rob has to have to moderate the DC boards? They could serve as guides for us, not only in selecting moderators but also in determining whether or not we want to run.
These questions are important to me because, in all honesty, I don't feel that some of those selected to be mods on RDB were ready for the task. Perhaps they did not know what to expect. Perhaps they had the wrong temperment for the job (it happens). I'm not pointing fingers, but I do feel these questions need to be considered before we start holding elections again.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I get to my point, let me echo HWW about moderator qualifications. It has to be more than popularity. Popularity has no connection to competency.
Look at me.
It might be good if those nominated provide a short post on their MB background, especially if they had prior Mod service. (Any real problems in past Mod positions should be mentioned.)
I'm not saying there should be any politicking [anyone who did would very suspect and wouldn't get my vote], just that a brief statement of qualifications (which most candidates provide in any election) would be a good idea.
My other point is that I think the main thing to be "standardized" for Mods is "what is spamming?" We have a clear extreme example with the flood spam of "the" picture. What needs to be discussed is, as always, the middle ground. Clearly the flood spam was wrong, but what about the pest spaming that preceeded it? At what point do friendly warnings start? At what point do they stop being friendly? When is action taken?
Math is not the answer. Rarely is. "With X amount of spam, this then happens by the Mods." The focus isn't quantity at the beginning, but the quality of the posts, they're nature and tone.
So I think a brief discussion topic with the founders and several Mods about a few likely hypothetical situations would be of benefit so that everyone's on the same page (as well as the membership.) There really doesn't need to be an extensive "What If" minutia exploration, because all the imagined possibilities will never occur anyway.
As I said, it's just getting everybody on the same page. It's not creating and memorizing an unnecessary rulebook.
It's one of those situations were you learn something and pretty much forget about it after that.
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Chameleon Boy]](graemlins/ChameleonBoy.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
