Proposal for refined open mod selection process

[randycaver]

"What happens if an established and respected staff member gets butthurt when someone else gets in that they don't like?"


Yeah, what if? Would you (or anybody) threaten to step down if someone that you didn't like got put on board? Would it really be made into an issue or would you do everything possible in your power (ie, abuse it) to make sure they didn't receive the same status?

I'm fully aware that people still have issues with me even though I was a moderator for over three years, and 'acted up' for a very brief amount of time, and even after full, genuine apologies and straightening my act up, I still wasn't good enough for the fucking GALLERY - a forum I moderated from the very beginning.

I don't really think you have much to worry about as long as personal issues still take a forefront to the person actually being a good moderator able to contribute to BL - and MAKE IT FUN for those involved.

 

[5-HT2]

Right, mod applications are effective for showing interest. Someone is throwing their "hat into the ring." 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.

My previous posts provide ample evidence that I agree with this statement.

(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.

It doesn't. All I meant to say was that personal experiences can be an important factor, not that they are a requirement.

If people do choose to display relevant experience, how would we know if they were being truthful anyway?

Looking at their past posts, and how other people reacted to them, is a good way to start, but I agree, we can never completely verify that people are being truthful.

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.

Agreed. However, it's much easier to push the user base when you're not spread thin as I currently am and have been for the past few months.

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.

Xorkoth recently stepped down from CD for the same reason (see here and here). PD is a demanding forum and I want to give it the time and effort it deserves. I've actually been contemplating stepping down from BDD ever since I got re-modded in PD, and recent debates over moderators/moderating were merely the catalyst that pushed me out of my dithering.

I've long been in favour of open selection as opposed to shoulder-tapping.

I'm not a big fan of shoulder-tapping unless it takes the specific form of encouraging good posters to apply to an open application process, if they are interested.

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).

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.

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?

I have thought about this more and have come to agree with the detractors of a public comment process. There are too many ways that completely public "hearings" could be derailed (trolls, alter egos, etc.), unless of course the admin and smod in charge of the specific forum are willing to put in the effort to make sure this doesn't happen.

I think BB's idea of running it by staff is a good idea, but I do not think any staff should have veto power. My intent was not to propose a change to the core decision-making process, and I'm sorry that it has been misinterpreted as such. Let me try and make myself clearer than I have previously:

The actual decision-making process should be limited to the mods (and smod, if (s)he chooses to participate) of the particular forum (hereafter referred to as "forum X") which is looking for a new mod. Discussions about candidates would still be conducted privately among the moderators of forum X. The candidate chosen by the moderators of forum X would then have to be unanimously approved by the admins, as is currently the case. If ONE admin who may not be that familiar with the workings of forum X can veto a candidate agreed on by all the mods of forum X, then why not open up the application process to comment by all staff? The mods of forum X could still choose to disregard comments made by mods of other forums and nominate the candidate whom they feel is best.

 

[forgotten]

I'm not opposed to a staff review of new mods prior to placement, but there would have to be strict time limits. Additionally, it would be for input only, and there would be no veto powers, as mentioned above.

 

[Infinite Jest]

The actual decision-making process should be limited to the mods (and smod, if (s)he chooses to participate) of the particular forum (hereafter referred to as "forum X") which is looking for a new mod. Discussions about candidates would still be conducted privately among the moderators of forum X. The candidate chosen by the moderators of forum X would then have to be unanimously approved by the admins, as is currently the case. If ONE admin who may not be that familiar with the workings of forum X can veto a candidate agreed on by all the mods of forum X, then why not open up the application process to comment by all staff? The mods of forum X could still choose to disregard comments made by mods of other forums and nominate the candidate whom they feel is best.

This is pretty much what I think as well. "Mod review" should definitely be for input only, and with a short time limit, as forgotten says (and as I said previously).

One way in which this could work - if there are two apparently equally good candidates, then maybe a mod of another forum could point out that candidate A has also made many good posts in that other forum. Or, conversely, that candidate A causes a fair bit of trouble (like someone who might be a good candidate for a HR forum, but constantly gets into flame wars in the social forums). Obviously, the mods of forum X, and the admins, would still have the final say.

 

[Mariposa]

Yeah, what if? Would you (or anybody) threaten to step down if someone that you didn't like got put on board? Would it really be made into an issue or would you do everything possible in your power (ie, abuse it) to make sure they didn't receive the same status?

If I simply did not like the person, I'd say nothing and be open-minded about changing my mind about them. However, if someone were to be considered that did me or someone I'm close to some sort of serious harm, I would assuredly speak up to the mods/admin of the forum they would be joining. In any event I would not threaten to step down. I would not abandon my team just because I didn't approve of another forum's mod choice. And while I hope the mods/admins in such a circumstance would consider what I had to say (as with any Bluelighter) I would respect that they have the final say in the matter. I wouldn't like anyone to tell me how to run my forum, and I would extend the same courtesy to others.

 

[frizzantik]

open applications are a PITA.. 2/3 of the people who apply don't even know enough to know they shouldn't have applied lol

it's much easier to just ask someone who seems qualified and possibly interested. if there's a large pool of qualified people, then perhaps an open call for mods would be useful but most of time i don't think it's really worth it

 

[Finder]

I'm also of the opinion the best candidate doesn't apply for the position a lot of the time.

 

[5-HT2]

^^^I can't dispute that. That's why I don't mind asking qualified candidates to join an open application process, if they are interested.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I think the area that 'posa and rc are speaking of - personal issues influencing decisions - is hopefully behind us. I have full confidence in the Admins, smods, and most of the mods (sorry, I haven't had time to get to know all of you well enough) are mature enough by now to judge a candidate based on their actions, looking for whichever candidate is best for any given forum - and put aside any personal problems, since they aren't a part of this site's operation. I recall DD saying it perhaps best, recently, (excuse the paraphrasing)

...[in some forums] the rule has been.. we see post counts, we [forum mods] ALL discuss they're contributions to the board, how extreme in viewpoint they may be, the quality of their contribution, their levelheadedness, and how well behaved they are and have been known to be.

And we vote.

...

No one can ever accuse me of selecting a mod to join one of my teams because i chit chat with them in AIM or IRC chat or b/c i've hung out with them. Never.

I'd like to see this quality permeate the other forums and whether intentional or unintentional, people..as mods, shouldn't feel ostracized in voicing their opinions

I believe we'd all want these thoughts as a core part of how ALL our forums operate. The point of entrusting someone with a position is that they are the best qualified applicant to do the job, based on their past and current actions on the site. Get an application to show they have interest, then make the decision that is best for the forum and its members based on all the information you have to review.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

The best candidate may indeed not apply - usually by their own choice of not wanting the job. That shouldn't warrant giving them the job by private decision, just because they are the best candidate in the mods mind. I've seen instances where a person thought to be the best candidate was given the position (without applying) and it backfired on the forum Just letting people know there is an opening to be filled and having them apply is a decent test of the individual to see if they are actually interested and to see what credentials they can offer to the position, and it gives the mods a pool of names to pick from that the already know are actually interested in the job. I've no problem if a mod PM's a good candidate and asks them to apply - it shows the individual that they are valued, and may get the position if they are interested in actually applying for it.

To the latest version from 5-HT2, most of that sounds fine, and like several others have said, I wouldn't have a problem with a quick run by the staff overall for any additional information before someone is given a modstick. Short time frame (2 days?) and no veto, just a question for any FYI stuff. Running it by only the smods, or the entire moderator staff - that could be debated. Right now it *is* run by the Admins, usually for 24-72 hrs before the changes are implemented.

The only concern I have with running thru the entire staff, is that invariably an applicant is friends with mods of other forums. This can lead to 'hey, you should be given the spot any day now' when in fact they may not; or you may have 'you didnt get the position because <pick any mod names> dont like you and are trying to keep you out'. There is a strict policy of what is said in the staff forum stays there (we've had leaking problems before), but I can't see this kind of subject not getting leaked while in process. Would this possibly lead to friction amongst staff because other mods are perceived to be interfering with the selection of a mod for YOUR forum - one they may not ever enter? I'd hope not, as all input is valued, but nobody can guarantee rising above butt-hurt

Still, mods are given their position because they are trusted - to not fuck up their forum or abuse their powers, and to work in the best interest of the site and members. This would include speaking up when you have knowledge that should be shared (in staff discussion, or PM with an Admin if more sensitivity is required), and knowing that your opinion and thoughts DO matter - you shouldn't feel pushed into shutting up when the site has an opportunity to make a great leap forward or an ugly step in the wrong direction. But that trust also extends to keeping private what needs to be private - you are trusted to know the difference and act accordingly.

 

[wesmdow]

i think that it would be appropriate to show the names only of 'likely' candidates.

after reading the applications, itd be cool for those who are being considered to know, and those who arent wont have the suspense--its not like theyre not gonna find out later~

 

[randycaver]

I'm also of the opinion the best candidate doesn't apply for the position a lot of the time.

The best candidate should want the position, not be coerced into it.

posa - i'm confident you would have the balls to say how you felt about someone in on the forum - others I am not/was not so sure about.

 

[Pander Bear]

Why atlas thinks this thread is silly:

Back when I was doing my mod selecting, we did the normal open application thread, we solicited applications (public or private) from individuals we wanted, we talked with them individually about how they would work with the staff, what their plans for the forum were, et cetera, and then we all came to a consensus.

That's the way it's supposed to work. It works when mods are good stewards of power and authority. When it breaks down, its not because of a disconnect between the mods and the bluelighters, its due to a failure within the mods to act as a single body. Transparency isn't going to solve that: better mod selection is.

I've seen teams that work really well together (SLR, for one, always has at least seemed to have mods that were respectful of one another, and on the same page, CE&P also) and I've seen teams that didn't work so well together (the lounge at times, other drugs at one time, TDS at one time).

If you aren't interested in participating in a team effort, then what are you modding for, other than your e-penor. Step down, and let someone who wants to be a team player a shot. Nothing undermines a forum like competing voices of authority. That is the source of cliques. Not the other way around.

 

[SA]

Today is the first day I have read any of this (including the "deleted" thread, parts of which I have just read). Much of this I will leave in everyone else's capable hands. One thing, however, I was grossly unimpressed by. m885, please empty some space in your PM box.

 

[Splatt]

I think public posting apps is a bad idea as people can read them all, pretty much reword the best so far candidate, adding something they left out..., basically to make themselves look betgter for the job. I mean when you go for a job interview so you get to read through other peoples resumes and application/ionterview notes??

 

[5-HT2]

^^^Good point. However, even in the original form of the proposal the applications would only be viewable after the deadline closed, and thus they could only be misused by future rounds of applicants. In the current form the applications would only be viewable by the rest of staff, after the deadline closed.

 

[rm-rf]

I think people would put more work into their applications if they were on display to the rest of the board.

I agree

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.

The problem with this, is that some people may exploit the "supplimental information clause" and allow for mods to be chosen for other reasons, perhaps ostracizing a better choice. I could see how poster Dudeman420RollBalls might not want the fact that he or she is a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Nameless to be public information - but this would be great attributes for a mod in the respective forum. I could also see someone selecting their "buddy" to be the mod, who may have absolutely no usefull skills, knowledge, or contribution to the forum, on the grounds that he or she submitted "supplimental information." This just sort of seems to me to be the reasoning behind having a standardized mod selection process.

Im all open for anything that provides for extended user feedback from the community. The nameless application posting sounds like a good idea. Besides, if a person gets into a mod position and exhibits deconstructive traits to a forum, the admins can deal with that appropriately.

 

[wesmdow]

i think the idea that those who apply for modship dont desrerve it (because they applied) is SILLY!

think of a job... if you didnt hire applicants and only sought out people who met your expectations, those who DO qualify to be invited are probably already involved in other activities. (why do yall think mods change so often?)

applications are definitely the way to go... although im not opposed to anonymity, it might be nice to get a personalized letter of rejection if you were one of the prime candidates, stating why you werent picked.

 

[Beans]

^^ I agree with both parts of your post.

if an applicant takes the time and effort into applying for the position, the least BL can do is provide a reason why he/she was or was not selected for the position that was applied for.

This proposed selection process sounds like it should definitely be at least beta tested and then some post analysis should prove whether it is a feasible way to select new mods for BL.

 

[alasdairm]

if an applicant takes the time and effort into applying for the position, the least BL can do is provide a reason why he/she was or was not selected for the position that was applied for.

i'm not sure i agree.

i've applied for many jobs in my career and, while i've often been sent a form 'no thanks' letter, i don't expect an employer to tell me why i didn't get the job. it goes without saying that another candidate was better qualified (they get to decide what 'better qualified means)

alasdair