Honestly, my biggest issue with electing mods is I don't want mod campaigning, which means people are going to be pretty ignorant about most of the mods, and lack of being well informed is how democracies start decaying.
To put it another way: most people will never interact with a mod in mod capacities, the few that do are usually passively watching someone else getting disciplined, and than that last few are the ones who actually are getting disciplined. Any unwelcome mod behavior is only going to be seen by a select few.
We've had numerous users come forward to express surprise at the forum beef even existing, as well as that people were having issues with any of the mods. I don't think elections are going to clear out problem mods without people running across the forums to complain about them, and I feel like that's something we're trying to get away from.
I think at the absolute most, we should allow candidates to post a short ‘about me’ paragraph in the normally locked nominations thread. We don’t have enough trust within the community (yet) to have a free-flowing candidate discussion thread.
Riffing off your point about not wanting to be campaigned at, a thought that occurred to me is “if it’s a direct democracy and it incentivises people to go out and build human connections with people outside their usual friend group, that actually owns?” Like, there are enough people like you who are predisposed to be campaigned and pandered to, so I think if someone was doing that in a transparent and slimy way, people will see through it really quickly. I would certainly prefer that structurally we incentivise people to be nice to people outside of their friend group rather than structurally incentivise them to curry favour with the mods/selection committee
the cap of 5 was "if you need to ignore more than 5 people maybe you're the problem"
which is dumb
It’s not completely without merit, though. At various times I found myself wishing I could ignore a number of people and it made me realize the problem maybe was me and I needed some time off. If I need to ignore a significant group of people than it means there’s something about the discourse that I really need to assess and maybe I’m not in a great place to post.
I dont know what I think the answer should be but it is an experience I’ve had.
I think after 20+ years there are people I know I dislike, and I’m very confident there are people who dislike me, and ignore lists are a convenient and effective way to simply eliminate useless drama.
Same way I know there are threads I don’t need to read, or topics I don’t want to partake in.
0
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Honestly, my biggest issue with electing mods is I don't want mod campaigning, which means people are going to be pretty ignorant about most of the mods, and lack of being well informed is how democracies start decaying.
To put it another way: most people will never interact with a mod in mod capacities, the few that do are usually passively watching someone else getting disciplined, and than that last few are the ones who actually are getting disciplined. Any unwelcome mod behavior is only going to be seen by a select few.
We've had numerous users come forward to express surprise at the forum beef even existing, as well as that people were having issues with any of the mods. I don't think elections are going to clear out problem mods without people running across the forums to complain about them, and I feel like that's something we're trying to get away from.
This is generally why electing these types of offices is considered poor practice in the vast majority of scenarios.
People simply do not have the experiences or sample size or expertise to make informed decisions, so instead of the Will of the Voter being expressed through competent selection, what you often end up with is candidates who are better at campaigning than actually running things, and people who have their own power bases who can supersede the broader electorate due to lack of participation (which can be caused simply by people being unwilling to vote for things for which they have no direct expertise).
You can see this directly in the California county sheriffs, who have been a longstanding problem in the state at large. There is actually less accountability for those offices because they are directly elected and yet cannot be fired by officials with a larger gubernatorial mandate, even those who should in theory be above them in the executive (see: the governor).
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
what about the idea new mods can be nominated by existing mods and the community (after actually discussing it with the person being nominated) and then we up or down vote them?
i really think actual elections would invite chaos but i fully agree the community should have significant input
The issue with a small group developing the potential pool is that we (humans) are drawn towards/think more favourably of people that have similar personalities and ideas to us.
It’s a widely documented phenomenon in the corporate world that managers overwhelmingly hire people that are like them.
This is an issue here for us for three reasons:
It artificially narrows the potential selection base. Individual mods are familiar with a subset of the whole forum; they don’t know everyone. They are going to know even less of that subset well enough to feel comfortable considering them for a mod position. They are going to actually put forward and even smaller group of that sub-subgroup due to aforementioned human bias.
Selecting for people like us reduces diversity of opinion and thought within the moderator team. We all (or a vast majority of us) agree that this diversity is a virtue, so I think it behooves us to build structures that enable it, rather than put our hopes on our mod team to be exceptional managers in all cases.
Finally, it is a good check and balance to tyranny. If we have malfeasant mods, they are going to want to select similarly malfeasant replacements/peers. I have put this one last because it’s the least important of the three, but it is a reason nonetheless and might be comforting to people ITT who have talked about protecting against tyranny.
Now, I remain convinced direct democracy is the model. To your valid concerns about the process being a shitshow, I think we can manage that. I believe the first and second election cycles will be the shittiest ones, because we are still operating in a low-trust environment. I’m quite convinced that will get better over time. We could run the election out of locked threads, where mods just post the candidate list, a link to the voting site (or maybe it’s baked into the forums? Idk), and then they post the results when it’s done.
Another option we can do is have the expressions of interest (EOIs) process, and the mods choose from that list, and finally that shortlist is ratified (up/down voted) from the community. I sort of don’t like the downvote idea, because I think people will really feel like shit if they get downvoted. If you have the preferential system I proposed, at least you can “well there was just a bunch of folks who more preferable than me” which is a slightly less bitter to swallow than “wow 50 people really didn’t want me to be a mod?!”
The unions I have been involved in does the EOI > central committee selection method, so it definitely does work. That said, the unions I have been involved with also really fuckin suffer from a lack of diversity, which I think generally sucks and makes them way more ideologically brittle in a way that hurts their engagement with their members
just to be clear i said new mods can be nominated by the existing mods and the community
like basically anybody can nominate someone (if they agree to be nominated)
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
and if the malfeasant mods nominate someone malfeasant, we just vote no
and if that doesn't work there's literally nothing that will work
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+5
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
i will admit that i was initially extremely skeptical that any kind of new forum was going to come together, and that even if it did it most likely wouldn't be anything i'd really care about participating in
and the transition team has been doing a good enough job to make me feel a lot less skeptical about it
I experienced the NeoGAF->ResetEra transition, which involved much larger numbers migrating in a much shorter period of time, with much more hectic conditions, so this never struck me as an impossible task
But to Speed Racer's point, the demonstrable thoughtfulness of the transition team has been heartening
I’m seeking to understand what anti-shitshow controls exist in this proposal (a nomination process that includes posters and mods) that are different to posters (and mods, they should get a vote too) voting on the EOIs?
Also wanted to flag that my first proposal would actually give the mod group first right of review over the EOIs where, if they could form a consensus, individual EOIs could be struck from the polls
I’m seeking to understand what anti-shitshow controls exist in this proposal (a nomination process that includes posters and mods) that are different to posters (and mods, they should get a vote too) voting on the EOIs?
Also wanted to flag that my first proposal would actually give the mod group first right of review over the EOIs where, if they could form a consensus, individual EOIs could be struck from the polls
well for one thing i didn't know what an EOI was until like an hour ago so
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+4
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
but yeah i mean the thing i want to avoid is any sort of open election process that incentivizes making decisions in mind of being re/elected
but yeah i mean the thing i want to avoid is any sort of open election process that incentivizes making decisions in mind of being re/elected
It’s a concern I share, too. Regardless of the system we set up, there will be incentives/disincentives for behaviours. That seems like nothingburger statement yes, but it’s important to remember that culture is normative by nature.
We tend to think of the status quo as normal, and thus inherently good, so we tend to de-emphasise the negatives of the now and emphasise the negatives of future. For me, the negatives of the now (a desire to avoid high activity/high emotion discussions because the mods know they can’t maintain that level of activity over the long term, lower diversity in the mod team, other stuff I’m not thinking about right now) outweigh the negatives of the future (posters cynically playing relationships to secure votes, mods making major infraction or banning decisions to play up to the majority of the community)
but yeah i mean the thing i want to avoid is any sort of open election process that incentivizes making decisions in mind of being re/elected
What fears are you worried about? Promising not to kick people or something. I don’t think a mod is going to run on a platform of more infractions or anything.
We could just say don’t go into a thread and canvas a platform or anything.
Posts
I think at the absolute most, we should allow candidates to post a short ‘about me’ paragraph in the normally locked nominations thread. We don’t have enough trust within the community (yet) to have a free-flowing candidate discussion thread.
Riffing off your point about not wanting to be campaigned at, a thought that occurred to me is “if it’s a direct democracy and it incentivises people to go out and build human connections with people outside their usual friend group, that actually owns?” Like, there are enough people like you who are predisposed to be campaigned and pandered to, so I think if someone was doing that in a transparent and slimy way, people will see through it really quickly. I would certainly prefer that structurally we incentivise people to be nice to people outside of their friend group rather than structurally incentivise them to curry favour with the mods/selection committee
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I think after 20+ years there are people I know I dislike, and I’m very confident there are people who dislike me, and ignore lists are a convenient and effective way to simply eliminate useless drama.
Same way I know there are threads I don’t need to read, or topics I don’t want to partake in.
This is generally why electing these types of offices is considered poor practice in the vast majority of scenarios.
People simply do not have the experiences or sample size or expertise to make informed decisions, so instead of the Will of the Voter being expressed through competent selection, what you often end up with is candidates who are better at campaigning than actually running things, and people who have their own power bases who can supersede the broader electorate due to lack of participation (which can be caused simply by people being unwilling to vote for things for which they have no direct expertise).
You can see this directly in the California county sheriffs, who have been a longstanding problem in the state at large. There is actually less accountability for those offices because they are directly elected and yet cannot be fired by officials with a larger gubernatorial mandate, even those who should in theory be above them in the executive (see: the governor).
just to be clear i said new mods can be nominated by the existing mods and the community
like basically anybody can nominate someone (if they agree to be nominated)
and if that doesn't work there's literally nothing that will work
I experienced the NeoGAF->ResetEra transition, which involved much larger numbers migrating in a much shorter period of time, with much more hectic conditions, so this never struck me as an impossible task
But to Speed Racer's point, the demonstrable thoughtfulness of the transition team has been heartening
I’m seeking to understand what anti-shitshow controls exist in this proposal (a nomination process that includes posters and mods) that are different to posters (and mods, they should get a vote too) voting on the EOIs?
Also wanted to flag that my first proposal would actually give the mod group first right of review over the EOIs where, if they could form a consensus, individual EOIs could be struck from the polls
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
well for one thing i didn't know what an EOI was until like an hour ago so
His Avatar makes me feel hopeful for the future.
look let's not say things we can't take back
or Chanus like Pain-Us?
the first one
It’s a concern I share, too. Regardless of the system we set up, there will be incentives/disincentives for behaviours. That seems like nothingburger statement yes, but it’s important to remember that culture is normative by nature.
We tend to think of the status quo as normal, and thus inherently good, so we tend to de-emphasise the negatives of the now and emphasise the negatives of future. For me, the negatives of the now (a desire to avoid high activity/high emotion discussions because the mods know they can’t maintain that level of activity over the long term, lower diversity in the mod team, other stuff I’m not thinking about right now) outweigh the negatives of the future (posters cynically playing relationships to secure votes, mods making major infraction or banning decisions to play up to the majority of the community)
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Why would you do this to the oldest member of the forum?
he's had it good for too long
I'm an American voter. I love my leaders old.
What fears are you worried about? Promising not to kick people or something. I don’t think a mod is going to run on a platform of more infractions or anything.
We could just say don’t go into a thread and canvas a platform or anything.
Satans..... hints.....
Widespread Chanus.
So like “Chan-yoose”
well yes now it is
Got 'em