Proposal for refined open mod selection process

[5-HT2]

I am stepping down from BDD in order to focus more of my energies on ED, PD, and my IRL commitments. Whereas I got re-modded in ED and PD through an open application process, I was tapped for BDD through back channels by other staff. I recently criticized mod selection that does not involve a "transparent" application process. However, I feel I used the wrong word, as mod selection for the community forums is really not much less transparent than for the HR forums. IMO, A greater difference lies in openness, i.e., taking applications from the community instead of just staff nominating candidates, as well as open discussions between all forum staff. Therefore, I feel the need to put my money where my mouth is: I am proposing a refined method of mod selection for the HR forums, and then stepping down from BDD to test it. Any suggestions for improvement from the community would be greatly appreciated.

Here's the outline of my proposal:

We announce an open application process in a locked, stickied thread, as usual in the HR forums. However, the applications we receive would then be posted in the thread for public viewing. I've been involved in several mod selections, and I've noticed that many of the applications are just a few sentences that barely convey the applicant's motivations, experience, and qualifications. I think people would put more work into their applications if they were on display to the rest of the board. However, if an appliicant had personal experience/information that (s)he did not want to be posted publicly, they could send it to the mods as supplemental information. After the deadline for applications closes, the staff in charge of the forum would have a short initial period of private discussion to rank candidates. Then, the application thread would be opened up for public comment for perhaps one week or enough time for most of the regulars to weigh in, if they want to. I see that the Lounge staff have already done this for their new application process, and I applaud them for it. This way, we could get feedback from "the masses" in order to better gauge the needs of the community. After the period for public input ends, the forum staff would have another round of private discussions and make our final selection, which would then have to be unanimously approved by the admins (as per current policy).

I'm open to input from the community to further develop this proposal. This upcoming weekend, I will integrate your input and formulate a final draft, which I will then put into action. Please share your thoughts!

 

[_a_A_C_c_]

^i disagree with posting who applied for the position. in most forums, there can be qualified people who don't have a high post count. and with open apps, i think they would be frowned upon...

i would be worried that this fear would prohibit otherwise qualified people from applying

 

[FrostyMcFailure]

i concern. what kinda experience is needed out of curiosity?

 

[lifeisforliving]

I am stepping down from BDD in order to focus more of my energies on ED, PD, and my IRL commitments. Whereas I got re-modded in ED and PD through an open application process, I was tapped for BDD through back channels by other staff. I recently criticized mod selection that does not involve a "transparent" application process. However, I feel I used the wrong word, as mod selection for the community forums is really not much less transparent than for the HR forums. IMO, A greater difference lies in openness, i.e., taking applications from the community instead of just staff nominating candidates, as well as open discussions between all forum staff. Therefore, I feel the need to put my money where my mouth is: I am proposing a refined method of mod selection for the HR forums, and then stepping down from BDD to test it. Any suggestions for improvement from the community would be greatly appreciated.

Here's the outline of my proposal:

We announce an open application process in a locked, stickied thread, as usual in the HR forums. However, the applications we receive would then be posted in the thread for public viewing. I've been involved in several mod selections, and I've noticed that many of the applications are just a few sentences that barely convey the applicant's motivations, experience, and qualifications. I think people would put more work into their applications if they were on display to the rest of the board. After the deadline for applications closes, the staff in charge of the forum would have a short initial period of private discussion to rank candidates. Then, the application thread would be opened up for public comment for perhaps one week or enough time for most of the regulars to weigh in, if they want to. I see that the Lounge staff have already done this for their new application process, and I applaud them for it. This way, we could get feedback from "the masses" in order to better gauge the needs of the community. After the period for public input ends, the forum staff would have another round of private discussions and make our final selection, which would then have to be unanimously approved by the admins (as per current policy).

I'm open to input from the community to further develop this proposal. This upcoming weekend, I will integrate your input and formulate a final draft, which I will then put into action. Please share your thoughts!

I would never display to the public community enough information in ONE post for ONE person to track me down and find out exactly who/where/what I do in RL. I don't think BL is a democracy, it should be more a meritocracy (run by the aristocrats ).

 

[5-HT2]

I would never display to the public community enough information in ONE post for ONE person to track me down and find out exactly who/where/what I do in RL. I don't think BL is a democracy, it should be more a meritocracy (run by the aristocrats ).

My bad. Private supplemental information was part of my proposal when I originally ran it by forgotten over AIM (and I have edited the OP to reflect this).

i disagree with posting who applied for the position. in most forums, there can be qualified people who don't have a high post count. and with open apps, i think they would be frowned upon...

i would be worried that this fear would prohibit otherwise qualified people from applying

This is a valid concern. I guess that posting the application publicly could be purely voluntary, and if somebody wants to, they could request that the entire thing be kept private.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Posting publicly for applicants is better, IMO, than closed door selections - in the very least you are assured of selecting someone with an interest in the position as opposed to someone you thought would fit the role but turns you down with a preference for avoiding responsibility. If you make people apply, it makes them at least gauge their own level of interest and make the effort to apply - a first level of weeding out the non-candidates that doesn't strain the staff.

Having them explain their interest and experience, perhaps even their ambitions for the forum, would help select someone who fits the desired direction of the forum - are you looking for someone to maintain status quo, someone to launch themselves with that 'new blood' energy on some forum projects, or someone with an iron fist and firm rooting in martial law to bring the members back in line? The more the candidates share about themselves, the better decision can be reached for the best interest of the forum.

However, while I respect the desire for transparency wherever possible, I do not agree with posting the names of the applicants publicly - either by their own application in a thread or by mods just listing the names of who they've heard from. Yes, you gain input from the members on whom they think would be a good mod - but this also turns it into a popularity contest, and unless you plan to hold a public poll to 'vote' in the next mod, all you are doing is boosting a few egos and bruising the others. My bigger concern, as a_c alluded to, is that a solid candidate who isn't as visible ('popular') as others may be disinclined to apply based on this type of public process. They may be intimidated by the other names who are listed, or twist their application into a 'me vs them' argument which only makes the public discussion get uglier.

And what if you reach a point of someone being publicly 'voted' in, but the mods or Admins have non-public information which would prevent the candidate from being put in position? How would any explanation short of airing private, dirty laundry, explain the decision - which the current 'private' selection accommodates?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

yeah - my long post, with some OP revisions done to undercut my points


But more on the subject, there is no one-way-fits-all process in my mind. Some forums or mod changes may feel the need for a quick and dirty private selection. This often comes to tapping the person who was second place in the last review of applicants. I don't want to specify forums, but there ARE instances where a public posting of the opening, and possibly public applications, are appropriate. But if I were a mod of a forum, I'd appreciate a quick discussion from my peers on how to handle a change, before one of them launched a public replacement campaign for the position they plan to vacate.

Only say that last comment because that's how the OP sounded, though knowing 5-HTP like I do, I would imagine he already talked with his peers from BDD, but is merely using this thread as a 'general practice' discussion.

 

[5-HT2]

I do not agree with posting the names of the applicants publicly - either by their own application in a thread or by mods just listing the names of who they've heard from. Yes, you gain input from the members on whom they think would be a good mod - but this also turns it into a popularity contest, and unless you plan to hold a public poll to 'vote' in the next mod, all you are doing is boosting a few egos and bruising the others.

How about posting applicant-approved sections of the applications publicly, but without names attached? The last thing I'd want the application process to be, especially for the HR forums, is a popularity contest. I just think public apps would be good to encourage the applicants to put in more work, and community feedback would be good in order to better figure out what the forum really needs.

But more on the subject, there is no one-way-fits-all process in my mind.

I completely agree. I'm not proposing this as a one-size-fits-all. This will only work when a sitting mod has the time and energy to play a very active role in choosing their replacement.

Some forums or mod changes may feel the need for a quick and dirty private selection.

This is quite true. In fact, I know this from personal experience. Back in 2003, I was tapped by SG as temporary emergency OD mod, because the current mods desperately needed help dealing with the volume of trolls and drama in the forum at the time. In these types of situations, a public, open application process would not be optimal.

But if I were a mod of a forum, I'd appreciate a quick discussion from my peers on how to handle a change, before one of them launched a public replacement campaign for the position they plan to vacate.

Only say that last comment because that's how the OP sounded, though knowing 5-HTP like I do, I would imagine he already talked with his peers from BDD, but is merely using this thread as a 'general practice' discussion.

I have indeed already run this by both forgotten and Psilo707, and they have approved.

BTW it's 5-HT2, not 5-HTP

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Humbly apologies, R2D2, I've had too much plurry medication on my mind

Nameless posting of applicant credentials has merit, good merit in my view. But I don't know how much leaving the name off will prevent people from guessing (or trying to guess) who the applicants are. Regardless, it would be of tremendous benefit in showing how high the bar is being set - do you have a better background or better ability to help the forum, then APPLY!!! Moreover, the forum knows what they are getting for their next mod (credential wise) than we usually know. Which opens the opportunity to ask them about things you might not have known they could answer .


But by that same token of knowing credentials of all applicants might open up discussions to subjects that people didn't know others could answer - and it would improve the forum overall, spiking pertinent discussion to know someone has been sitting on their brains waiting to be asked about things.

Though, these are side effects, and I understand your primary focus is on letting the members know there is an opening, and what is being used to select the next mod. And my brain hurts at this point, so I'm going to shut up for a bit.

 

[VerbalTruist]

A chance at another modstick... oh thank you god... so many at once.

 

[alasdairm]

i guess i'm asking myself what essential problem you're trying to solve with this?

also, if this isn't going to be mandatory and isn't intended to be a one-for-all solution, does it need to be formalised - some forums will use such a process (or something like it) and others won't i.e the status quo.

i've always been a proponent of open self-nominations followed by a vote among sitting moderators because, to me, that's made the most sense in the forums i've moderated. i recognise that i may not know what's best in other forums and i'm happy to leave those decisions to the moderators of those forums (who moderate those forums for a reason).

alasdair

 

[5-HT2]

I'm not really trying to solve a problem so much as initiate a dialogue with the aim of improving the process in order to make the mods more responsive to forum needs, and to increase the quality of applications. I guess you're right that it does not need to be formalized in the sense of a one-size-fits-all thing, but I just wanted to bounce it off others, and then I will use the final plan to select my replacement. I just want to formalize it to the point that the community has a clear idea of what the general process will be. Others can then use it as a template if they wish, and modify it as needed.

 

[randycaver]

If you're too embarrassed to apply for a position publicly, then how are you going to be a good mod? srsly

 

[Finder]

We've never had people apply publically.

 

[Beatlebot]

The problem with this method, is it seems rather long, complicated and arduous. It already takes quite some time to select a new moderator for a forum, if you open it up to public opinion it would take much longer and there is potential for alot of nasty drama.

However, it will be interesting to give it a trial and see how it goes in this instance.

And what if you reach a point of someone being publicly 'voted' in, but the mods or Admins have non-public information which would prevent the candidate from being put in position? How would any explanation short of airing private, dirty laundry, explain the decision - which the current 'private' selection accommodates?

Even with private selection, people who are unsuitable sometimes get modded. There could be information about an applicant the mods of the forum and the admin are not aware of, such a thing has happened quite recently I believe.

Perhaps we should at least have announcement in TPH and run mod choices by all the other staff so we could cast a wider net to get information about potential applicants?

 

[9mmCensor]

Y'all should have a big mod pow-wow do all sorts of crazy drugs then consult a wi-ji board or something to pick a new mod.

 

[5-HT2]

The problem with this method, is it seems rather long, complicated and arduous. It already takes quite some time to select a new moderator for a forum, if you open it up to public opinion it would take much longer and there is potential for alot of nasty drama.

I'm not trying to make a standardized process that could be applied to every forum or situation. Obviously the process I'm proposing could only work when the presiding staff want to make a big investment in picking replacements. As mentioned before, there would be a strictly delimited time for public comment, no more than one week probably. During this week, of course, the forum staff would continue to deliberate. The periods of mod discussion before and after the public comment period would be short, only a few days.

Perhaps we should at least have announcement in TPH and run mod choices by all the other staff so we could cast a wider net to get information about potential applicants?

Maybe if public comment turns out to be too prone to drama, this could be done. Right now the Lounge application thread is open for public comment, so if the Lounge mods dare to try this, then I might as well do so for BDD.

Again, I reiterate, my main purpose in making this thread was to generate ideas. There is a pretty large knowledge base here on BL, and maybe we can come up with some thoughts on how the staff can tap it more effectively. BL, especially the HR side, should be driven by the needs of the community so that they can get the information that they need to be safe and responsible. Based on my experience, I think can make a pretty educated assessment of what the community needs, but who knows, I could be missing something, and so it might be helpful to have more feedback.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I was thinking similar thoughts, but unfortunately we're not bringing in many ideas from other people here

I'm going to bounce this thru a few forums in hopes that some people will follow it and join in. Buckle up.

 

[Banquo]

My public comment:

For the forums I've modded, posts made, quality of posts, expertise, and knowledge were the best and most comprehensive indicators of mod fitness. Applications played a small part (or non-existant one in the case of Legal Disussion). Public applications usually become a cheerleading or popularity contest. If something needs to change, then it should be kept to the forums where the mod selection process has become and issue... there is no reason to change the whole board.

The problem with this method, is it seems rather long, complicated and arduous. It already takes quite some time to select a new moderator for a forum, if you open it up to public opinion it would take much longer and there is potential for alot of nasty drama.

Agreed. Getting two or three mods to agree already takes long enough. Keeping the forum mod and admin portions of the selection process closed prevents drama and preserves the privacy upon which this board operates.

 

[_a_A_C_c_]

i really think it depends on the forum. there is a huge difference between the way social forums and HF are run. for a forum like BDD, it makes sense that a new mod has knowledge of various drugs and the ability to give useful advice. its pretty clear cut what would make a good mod. and its prolly ok to post peoples applications without names because there is a relatively low amount of drama.

the lounge mod thread is already a popularity contest that about half the people who post in the lounge are treating as a joke. posting who applied or the application would just fuel drama. and people will start bringing up personal things that have nothing to do with BL.

for a forum like TDS, you want a mod who is compassionate and has the patience of a god. and its good if they have some experience the many areas covered in that forum. and its possible that potential mods will share more information if the process is kept private. people might not want to admit publicly their job or issues they have dealt with in the past.