Proposal for refined open mod selection process

[5-HT2]

For the forums I've modded, posts made, quality of posts, expertise, and knowledge were the best and most comprehensive indicators of mod fitness.

Agreed.

Applications played a small part (or non-existant one in the case of Legal Disussion).

I feel that applications reflect the motivation of a candidate to perform mod duties (as opposed to just sharing their knowledge/experiences) in a manner that a survey of their posts does not.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding my proposal. Did I not write it clearly or word it carefully enough? The people who make the decisions stay the same, and those discussions will be kept private:

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.

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 was just thinking about extending the opportunity to comment to more of the community.

 

[animal_cookie]

^doesn't the community already comment in the application thread? currently in the lounge there is euphoricnod campaigning for himself, some people voting for gP and some other random banter. along with that is our private discussion of the people who applied.

 

[tambourine-man]

Why change anything? We have a perfectly functional system of "community input" as it is.

If someone gets appointed that a small section of the community disagree with, that small section need only insult and harass the person until they leave.

It can't go wrong! :D

 

[Banquo]

I feel that applications reflect the motivation of a candidate to perform mod duties (as opposed to just sharing their knowledge/experiences) in a manner that a survey of their posts does not.

Right, mod applications are effective for showing interest. Someone is throwing their "hat into the ring." They should probably be used in mod selections unless a forum's current staff has a clear candidate in mind who is uniquely qualified. Though, it's not something that needs to be mandated, imo. The situations are too fact-specific. It depends on the forum and the moment in time.

I think you're misunderstanding my proposal. Did I not write it clearly or word it carefully enough?

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.

(1) Some people do not want to share that type of information on a public message board where there are heightend privacy issues and (2) some people should not share that type of information on a public message board where there are heightend privacy issues. None of my relevant experience will ever be shared on BL. This should not make me less qualified to be a moderator. If people do choose to display relevant experience, how would we know if they were being truthful anyway? Instead of putting work into an application, we should continue pushing people to work harder at posts and replies, which is much more valuable -- since that is the medium of information exchange here. This product benefits the forums, the staff, and the user base, rather than a one time self-promotion effort. Motivation does not count for much if there is no substance behind it.

I was just thinking about extending the opportunity to comment to more of the community.

Having public comment threads would lead to the same type of cheerleading and popularity comments that currently go on when a mod discussion becomes public -- utterly useless and misleading.

 

[VerbalTruist]

I'm campaigning for myself because I know I'd make an awesome mod...

However once I turn in my application unless accepted I dont want it to be public...

If it were TDS I'd run away like a scared little girl, definately that person should be tapped for sure.

In the drug forums I think open is appropriate with a locked thread. So that of course no drama insues.

In the lounge its all gravy people.

 

[Finder]

You're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If I recall correctly, you were made BDD mod (asked?) because the current moderator was resigning and the forum needed help sooner than a public application process would have provided it nor did the exiting mod have any input on a successor. In fact, because you're resigning your position now just to prove a point you're really only doing a disservice to the forum you're trying to help because your knowledge leaves with you. Now, if you just don't have the time to answer the same basic questions over and over, I would totally understand.

As far as the entire staff having input on each the moderator selection process for each forum is entirely unnecessary. Currently the mods of a forum along with their respective admin and possible senior admin collectively make the decision when a new moderator is appointed. Plenty of input from various sources. I fail to see why any other staff should be a part of that process. This all adds unneeded bureaucracy to the process.

 

[forgotten]

in most forums, there can be qualified people who don't have a high post count.

If someone does not contribute enough to the position they desire, they aren't qualified.

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.

Anyone who wants to provide information that they don't want public could state so, and I'm sure concessions could be made.

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.

I don't agrre with that either. I think the names should be stripped from the apllications, so that people can make comments based on the content of the application.

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

I feel that 5-HT2 is taking opinions because he wants to find any flaws in his proposal. The whole purpose of this discussion is to determine if this (or something like it) could be useful for the entire board, and to discuss what changes to such a system would be needed to adapt it for other forums.

We've never had people apply publically.

It was done once in OD, but it didn't work because it was done in an impropper manner.

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.

Selecting a new forum moderator should not be a quick and dirty process. If there are problems with forum coverage, such issues can be handled by sr mods.

Applications played a small part (or non-existant one in the case of Legal Disussion).

In such a forum where there are so few qualified candidates (legal), using this system would be a bit silly. This is another instance where such a process would have to be adapted for other forums.

the lounge mod thread is already a popularity contest that about half the people who post in the lounge are treating as a joke.

Becoming a lounge mod has always been a popularity contest. Also, a lot of people are treating the lounge application process as a joke, not just the applicants.

In fact, because you're resigning your position now just to prove a point you're really only doing a disservice to the forum you're trying to help because your knowledge leaves with you

He told me he was stepping down because he no longer has time, and would like to focus his efforts on other areas of the site, rather than be spread thinly across many areas. Has he told you something different?

 

[Finder]

^I was not aware. My comment was based on the "putting my money where my mouth is" part in the original post. As I was making the wrong assumption, you can disregard.

 

[Banquo]

Anyone who wants to provide information that they don't want public could state so, and I'm sure concessions could be made.

But that's putting people who don't want to be public at a disadvantage, since forwarding personal information will now be the norm, an expected part of the process.

More generally, the impetus and timing of these proposed changes is really questionable. There's a good reason that most of these processes have evolved into their present state.

 

[Beatlebot]

As far as the entire staff having input on each the moderator selection process for each forum is entirely unnecessary. Currently the mods of a forum along with their respective admin and possible senior admin collectively make the decision when a new moderator is appointed. Plenty of input from various sources. I fail to see why any other staff should be a part of that process. This all adds unneeded bureaucracy to the process.

I didn't say they should have input, I said the decision should be run by all staff before it is made final, just the same as it is run by all admin now. Exactly the same procedure, except it would access a wider pool of knowledge about a potential applicant. Surely you can't be opposed to that?

 

[alasdairm]

^ in that case why not run the decision by all bluelighters before it's made final. exactly the same procedure, except it would access a wider pool of knowledge about a potential applicant. Surely you can't be opposed to that?



obviously, i'm being deliberately stubborn but the point is made.

there's no doubt in my mind that the people best placed to choose a new moderator are the existing forum moderators and the system already accommodates any amount of public review they care to invite.

i'm still struggling to see what problem this thread is attempting to solve?

alasdair

 

[Finder]

^ in that case why not run the decision by all bluelighters before it's made final. exactly the same procedure, except it would access a wider pool of knowledge about a potential applicant. Surely you can't be opposed to that?

Exactly. If you're not saying they should have input then what is the point of running it by them?

 

[Infinite Jest]

$0.02, IMHO, etc.

I've long been in favour of open selection as opposed to shoulder-tapping. However, I'm not sure that open selection requires opening up the entire process. I'm not in favour of names of applicants being posted (you do then end up with a popularity contest).

I do think that anyone should be able to apply: thus, there should be a call for applications, not people being picked by the current mods. There should be a clear idea of what we are looking for, and a request that applicants provide evidence of this.

A possible option: make a public call for a new mod. Ask applicants to PM the current mods. Offer them the choice to post in the application thread. Offer others the choice to comment on the different applicants. But make none of this compulsory.

I also agree with BB about running it by other staff first - but only for a very short time - sort of 'if anyone knows why this person shouldn't be a mod, speak now or forever hold your peace' (and give some damn good reasons). That said, I'd hope that mods checked the posting history of applicants in all forums, anyway.

 

[Beatlebot]

^ in that case why not run the decision by all bluelighters before it's made final. exactly the same procedure, except it would access a wider pool of knowledge about a potential applicant. Surely you can't be opposed to that?



obviously, i'm being deliberately stubborn but the point is made.

Because you would then be running the idea past people who also applied for the position themselves, which seems a bit cruel.

"Hey guys, how do you feel about *applicant* getting the job you applied for?"

Why are you being deliberately stubborn alasdair? Do you think I just come up with these ideas with no good reason?

Exactly. If you're not saying they should have input then what is the point of running it by them?

What is the point of running a decision by the other admin then? 8)

 

[Finder]

Sorry, I forget to include a smiley. 8(

:D

I wasn't intending to be rude, just matter-of-fact. The difference is the scope of an admin's responsibility is the entire site, the scope of a moderator's duties is his/her forum.

 

[Beatlebot]

I think you're just arguing with me for the sake of it. My idea rocks and you all know it. I'm sure you would not suggest moderators can't be mature about mod selection for other forums.

And you smell, Finder.

 

[alasdairm]

i was being deliberately stubborn to make the point: you suggested that nobody could possibly be opposed to widening the pool yet in your reply you argue against widening it further.

as with many issues like this, it's a granularity issue an i just wanted to show that different people will draw the line in different places.

i don't think the process needs to be fixed because i don't think it's broken...

alasdair

 

[Beatlebot]

I did not argue against widening it further, I can simply see some problems with doing so. I would not want to apply all aspects of 5-HT2's idea to SLR but some if his ideas are good and I'm interested to see how it works out in his forum.

Also, just because you can't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one. Perhaps you need to broaden your own pool of knowledge before you try to strangle my idea. It is a very simple one to implement and wouldn't even make a difference 99% of the time. It is for that 1% of the time when someone DOES know something that would rule out a potential applicant.

 

[alasdairm]

Also, just because you can't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one.

i'd be the first to admit this. i think you're taking my comments too personally - i'm just trying to discuss the larger issue.

Perhaps you need to broaden your own pool of knowledge before you try to strangle my idea.

i'm absolutely not trying to strangle your idea. i'm trying to discuss it and any full and frank exchange is surely a healthy thing?

alasdair

 

[Mariposa]

Without jumping into the personality-fest we have here, I will give my opinions:

-Transparency and fairness are good.

-Opening a decision-making process up to be criticized by parties who have an end-user involvement is a recipe for aggravation.

-What is essentially being asked for is a predecessor to a direct democracy. What next, everyone gets to vote in a poll of all the applicants? Would the "campaigning" that would inevitably ensue (along with mudslinging, confidences being broken, and other forms of disloyalty) attract the best applicants, or would it detract from Bluelight's mission as a harm reduction viewpoint? I'll wager the latter.

The brightest lights in this place are not necessarily the ones that are turned on the most often.

And I wish the "do you know why __________ should not be a mod" was something that would work on a practical level. It's not. What happens if an established and respected staff member gets butthurt when someone else gets in that they don't like? Promoting harmony among staff and streamlining the moderator selection process are not issues that operate solely in theory. They should be our goals as staffers.

Last I checked, my job was to assist in directing discussion among members and participate in projects with both staff and members. I am well aware how difficult it is to please everyone, and 5HT-2 - I admire and respect your effort to put forth a policy that maximizes staff contributions. Having said that, I'll request that you respond regarding how the positives can transcend the personalities and politics.