~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Voting rights for YCM. Hah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 An election would merely be a popularity contest. YCM is not capable of fairly electing a mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guerrilla Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Modship is for people who take their posts too seriously and attempt to express the most popular views in the eyes of all the members. In my opinion modship will always be a popularity contest. I think the members should get some sort of say but perhaps out of a select few members that the administrators hand picked themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smesh Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Mods selecting mod candidates to take their place would be good imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [quote name='Smesh' timestamp='1297807073' post='5010945'] Mods selecting mod candidates to take their place would be good imo. [/quote] Putin and Medvedev much? Mods would just choose people they like. Blatant bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nu. Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 YCM should be moralless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glоrious Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1297773025' post='5010183'] Voting rights for YCM. Hah. [/quote] They laughed at women's rights too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nu. Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Glоrious' timestamp='1297901260' post='5013065'] They laughed at women's rights too. [/quote] We still laugh at womens' rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glоrious Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Nu.' timestamp='1297902517' post='5013118'] We still laugh at womens' rights. [/quote] I think Eleanor Roosevelt would frown on that comment. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Mikhail Tal' timestamp='1297878436' post='5012275'] Putin and Medvedev much? Mods would just choose people they like. Blatant bias. [/quote] So would the rest of YCM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Guerrilla' timestamp='1297781002' post='5010305'] Modship is for people who take their posts too seriously and attempt to express the most popular views in the eyes of all the members. In my opinion modship will always be a popularity contest. I think the members should get some sort of say but perhaps out of a select few members that the administrators hand picked themselves. [/quote] I'm trying to assume you used to have a differant account, which is why you only have 9 posts, but if that is not the case, then you're just going off of what everyone else is saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1297911101' post='5013472'] So would the rest of YCM. [/quote] Aye, there's the rub - YCM's public aren't nearly as sinister as the moderating staff. We'd choose some lovable idiot who couldn't think much, but I'd rather an idiot than someone who knows what they are doing - the idiot is more inclined to follow the moderating code. My point is that the moderators would do what Putin did with Medvedev - they would just choose a close friend or someone they alone had decided was suitable for the job. Where is the democracy in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Mikhail Tal' timestamp='1298047528' post='5016418'] Aye, there's the rub - YCM's public aren't nearly as sinister as the moderating staff. We'd choose some lovable idiot who couldn't think much, but I'd rather an idiot than someone who knows what they are doing - the idiot is more inclined to follow the moderating code. My point is that the moderators would do what Putin did with Medvedev - they would just choose a close friend or someone they alone had decided was suitable for the job. Where is the democracy in that? [/quote] Some random idiot? I can haez modshipz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 As generic a reply as this may seem, I've got to throw my hat in the boat of, "No, because I don't trust YCM to elect with intelligence and on an impartial level." If anything, maybe some sort of British Parliament system could be implemented. With the House of Lords and House of Commons being appointed and elected mods, respectively. That way, the current appointed mods could help manage things and also manage elections, but only to the extent of stopping rampant stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Mikhail Tal' timestamp='1298047528' post='5016418'] Aye, there's the rub - YCM's public aren't nearly as sinister as the moderating staff. We'd choose some lovable idiot who couldn't think much, but I'd rather an idiot than someone who knows what they are doing - the idiot is more inclined to follow the moderating code. My point is that the moderators would do what Putin did with Medvedev - they would just choose a close friend or someone they alone had decided was suitable for the job. Where is the democracy in that? [/quote] We'd never pick someone because they're a close friend, we discuss their activity in a section, the maturity of their posts as well as how they've helped the section. With saying what they would do, it's difficult for them to know what they could do, our powers are limited, sure all the mods can name change now, but its all just generally setting section rules, lock/pin and warn, there's little else that people can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarbleZone Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 To be honest, and I'm speaking for myself here more than anybody else, I have no real friendship ties with anybody in this forum other than Opalmoon. When we elect somebody, we try to do it as objectively as possible - to be honest, I tend to hold back on voting if another staff member is clearly suggesting somebody because they're close to them. Theoretically yes, there is a risk of mods only selecting acquaintances for open spots. However, you're probably aware that most YCM mods don't really post much or play along often, so it's not like we have a reason to be biased - and we're usually sensible enough to think twice about nominating MSN friends. And I don't think the Putin/Medvedev situation can ever be applied to the regulation a light-hearted internet forum. We're not playing political leaders here. As for YCM having a say, again theoretically you absolutely should. However, like Legend Zero said, people with more exposure are most likely to get votes, essentially due to their popularity. You can obviously see the problem with that approach - not to say that it never works, but often enough a member with 1000 posts will be an infinitely better mod than somebody with 10000, and because you're not really paying attention (whereas we are supposed to be), I still believe leaving the decision to a select group of people is more [i]effective [/i]than the entire community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='MarbleZone' timestamp='1298062328' post='5016936'] To be honest, and I'm speaking for myself here more than anybody else, I have no real friendship ties with anybody in this forum other than Opalmoon. When we elect somebody, we try to do it as objectively as possible - to be honest, I tend to hold back on voting if another staff member is clearly suggesting somebody because they're close to them. Theoretically yes, there is a risk of mods only selecting acquaintances for open spots. However, you're probably aware that most YCM mods don't really post much or play along often, so it's not like we have a reason to be biased - and we're usually sensible enough to think twice about nominating MSN friends. And I don't think the Putin/Medvedev situation can ever be applied to the regulation a light-hearted internet forum. We're not playing political leaders here. As for YCM having a say, again theoretically you absolutely should. However, like Legend Zero said, people with more exposure are most likely to get votes, essentially due to their popularity. You can obviously see the problem with that approach - not to say that it never works, but often enough a member with 1000 posts will be an infinitely better mod than somebody with 10000, and because you're not really paying attention (whereas we are supposed to be), I still believe leaving the decision to a select group of people is more [i]effective [/i]than the entire community. [/quote] I'd would normally never post such a terribly Right-Wing statement, but if the public do not vote wisely then they get what they deserve, surely? Also, the Putin/Medvedev application illustrates the point perfectly well. MarbleZone, I know for a fact that you are probably the most decent moderator on this site. I personally think you are the best this site has ever had, but hey, my opinion should not come into this particular statement. I know that you may vote with a morality complex, but I doubt that many other staff members do. I do not want to risk sounding too verbose (this forum is still pretty terrible when it comes to freedom of speech, no?), but what is it for you to decide that a "select group of people" are better than everyone else? Do you have the moral authority to do so? Surely the majority should be respected given a democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarbleZone Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Mikhail Tal' timestamp='1298069256' post='5017236'] I do not want to risk sounding too verbose (this forum is still pretty terrible when it comes to freedom of speech, no?), but what is it for you to decide that a "select group of people" are better than everyone else? Do you have the moral authority to do so? Surely the majority should be respected given a democracy? [/quote] Like I said, it's a matter of practicality. It's not that I find it the best choice in terms of democracy, but it's about being more efficient. It's been addressed several times, votes go to the most popular, not necessarily the most adequate, and more often than not the people who moderate the forum know what profile they're looking for a lot better than the regular member, who logs on simply to spend time and have some fun. Note that new moderator spots usually open up when we're in need, we don't hold elections every four years. So most of the time we have to make fast decisions, and surveying the whole community for popularity votes is a lot more time-consuming and potentially less effective in the long run. Back when Flame Dragon was made a mod, YCMaker decided to scout candidates via an application thread. It was an approach that he chose because it wasn't an urgent matter. Could he have called for a voting? Yes, but note that each member has his/her own personal favourite and that would make tallying the votes a strenuous task, with the risk of totals being very diluted values and not representative of a majority. And if we restricted the options to pre-selected members, wouldn't that essentially be letting you choose only from what are already staff choices in the first place? All in all, democratic voting is a tried-and-tested method for real-life politics. This is a children's forum, where regulation isn't and can't be similar to a country. Trying to regard it as such is complicating a matter that is intended to be quick and straightforward - if new mods are needed because the old ones are not active enough, sure, we can try to let you in on the selection, but most recent staff selections were made with a degree of urgency that didn't allow for that sort of approach. I guarantee that allowing you to choose future mods is already an idea on the table, that wasn't put into effect for C&O or Questions/Help because those needed urgent dealing with. But from my part, I'll commit to doing what I can to have the community more involved in future nominations, provided they're not emergencies. Like I said, it had been suggested in the Mod Forum before, but the situation at the time really didn't allow us to give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azmodius Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Mods have nothing to do with this site other than power. We don't need moderators in the first place. The only semi useful thing they do is lock threads and ban people, locking threads in unneccessary, mainly because we have the choice not to post in a fail/troll thread if we don't, and maybe we do want to increase our post count. Who knows, who cares? Although mods are good people there job is pretty much useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheComposer Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 So far, I think the best system is to either have the staff nominate a few worthy people for the forum to vote for or have the forum nominate a few people and let the staff have the final pick. If it's done purely democratically, it will be just one huge popularity contest. The problem with "we'll get what we deserve" is that we don't want the forum taking a turn for the worse in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smesh Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Maybe people could run campaigns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whirr Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 No. It shouldn't be democratic. YCMaker should choose the mods because it's his forum. This isn't real life where centralist governments result in food shortages and civil oppression, it's more like telling your mom that you and your brother will democratically decide whether or not she can tell you what to do in her house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 If they want democracy, they should also pay taxes. YCMaker pays all the money. Thus he gets all the control. All of it. Idealists may now whine and stamp their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Corgi Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 I vote for the chaos controlling right now. I liek it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 [quote name='Revolver Amethyst' timestamp='1298192101' post='5020324'] If they want democracy, they should also pay taxes. YCMaker pays all the money. Thus he gets all the control. All of it. Idealists may now whine and stamp their feet. [/quote] DAMMMMMMMMN STRAIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.