Proposal for refined open mod selection process

^well possibly you could clear up what sort of experience or knowledge you guys are looking for instead of just announcing an open position. that would at least weed out the unqualified applicants and create less clutter while giving potential candidates a better idea of where they stand.
 
if you are active in the forum you are applying to mod, you should have an idea of what is expected of you.

besides, many times there is not one clear cut reason why someone does or does not get position. its generally a variety of factors.
 
animal_cookie said:
if you are active in the forum you are applying to mod, you should have an idea of what is expected of you.
Click to expand...

thank you. active participation in a forum will give an applicant the best possible idea of what is expected. this is the pool of people new mods should be chosen from anyway.

additionally, this talk...

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

... doesn't make much sense to me. if an applicant didn't put a sufficient amount of work into their application, then don't select them. it's pretty simple. if someone can't be bothered to make an effort when applying for a mod spot, why do you think they would be a good candidate to take on a moderator's workload?

isn't this all common sense? i'm a bit surprised that this is such a hot issue. as far as the rest of the points in this discussion, i agree 100% with what atlas had to say.
 
Beans said:
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.
Click to expand...

ime, the average applicant would get a response along the lines of "i'm surprised you can turn your computer on, let alone type at all."

:)

just for some perspective.

ps: i am not talking about people who apply to be a lounge moderator.

:)
 
Beans said:
^^ 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.
Click to expand...

Many applicants don't put any effort into their applications - I've had plenty of one or two line applications. Usually from people whose names I barely recognise (even though I read every post in the forum(s) I mod). I don't see why I should give that person a personalised response, when they clearly weren't motivated enough themselves.
 
@lterEgo said:
if an applicant didn't put a sufficient amount of work into their application, then don't select them. it's pretty simple. if someone can't be bothered to make an effort when applying for a mod spot, why do you think they would be a good candidate to take on a moderator's workload?

isn't this all common sense?
Click to expand...
+1

alasdair
 
After reading all the good points that people have made in this thread, I have decided that it is probably best not to post applications publicly and allow public comment on candidates. Though posting applications publicly might motivate applicants to put more effort in, I think that the motivation should come from within, rather than from a fear of having a potentially inadequate application posted publicly. However, I think Beatlebot's idea of running the candidates and their applications by the other staff is a good idea, and will institute it.

Also, I have observed that some of the points raised in this thread have made their way into the new mod handbook. Therefore, I really believe that we've done something constructive here, and I thank everybody for their input, even if it was in opposition to my original proposal.

atlas said:
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.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with your opinion, atlas, and now believe that my attempt to address some of these issues through revising the mod selection process was somewhat misguided. IMO, BL does not currently have an effective, drama-minimizing mechanism to deal with intra- or inter- forum moderator conflicts, but that's a topic for another thread.
 
I think it would be a polite thing to do to tell those not chosen (even if its just the shortlisted ones if there are too many) why they were not chosen- especially if they put effort into their applications. Hearing the reason why you were not chosen from a third party later on is a bit lame, especially if the reason appears to be a personal grief or whatever.
 
^^^I will write letters to the candidates that were rejected. Some of them were quite promising and only need a little nudge in the right direction to become good mod material.
 
zephyr said:
I think it would be a polite thing to do to tell those not chosen (even if its just the shortlisted ones if there are too many) why they were not chosen- especially if they put effort into their applications. Hearing the reason why you were not chosen from a third party later on is a bit lame, especially if the reason appears to be a personal grief or whatever.
Click to expand...

90%* of the mod applications i have seen, across a slew of forums, read essentially like this:

'OK i will do it what do i need to do'

'ya pick me i rule'

these are nearly invariably from someone that is relatively new or someone who isn't active in the forum at all. while perhaps it would be polite to answer each of them individually, it would have been just as polite for them to not waste anyone's time, and the only thing they really deserve is a smack upside the head.

*yet again, i am talkinmg about forums besides the lounge, not that it's immune from this sort of thing.
 
^
My experience concurs with Michael. It is relatively rare that I've had to make a choice between two excellent candidates, and leave one disappointed. It has happened, but for every good application there are many bad ones (either one-liners, as Michael suggested, or applications from newbies who never post in the forum).
 
Alright- Ill interject with an experience I had a while back when Paradoxcycle etc etc were going to expand the modship in Drug Culture.

PD contacted me and said he wanted me to do it.

I replied I could possibly do it but only with the 100% approval and back up of all mods involved. (Earlier to this KB also suggested I be a DC mod pre- PD, but apparently the admin in charge -Frizz I think) didnt approve. I cant remember why, this was a long time ago.

Later PD said he couldnt have me on deck due to some sort of personal issue some admin has with me.

Recently I was told the real reason I would not be considered for SLR. No harm done there either- Mr Candyslut is a suberb choice of mod for that forum, so the job gets done brilliantly.

The admin have appointed members who have previously trolled this website. I dont know if that is because they don't know that the person in question was one of the biggest trolls on this board or if they chose this person because they were stumped for any other choice. Regardless, saying you have really high standards and dont play favourites is a big load of B.S.

I really dont give a shit, just get a little pissed off when admin/other staff CLAIM that mod selection process is all above board and personal grudges dont come into it. Its a total crock of shit and I have pm/email to prove it. Come on, its just what happens in any organisation.

If a particular admin (you know who you are :p) really does have an issue with me, I actually did not notice, nor do I really care as as far as I am aware we have had virtually nothing to do with each other- but if you want the populace to believe you have a fair selection process then you really shouldnt have a problem with being honest about your selection process.
 
I don't want to get involved in any shit slinging, but I was made a mod without ever speaking to, or knowing any of the mods/smods/admins prior - outside of my activity within the forum publicly.

I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, doesn't happen, or never will, because I don't know about anyone else's experience but my own within SLR, but I can definitely say that I was not chosen as part of some clique, friendship, or favoritism.:\
 
^ I don't want to shit sling either. However, shit has been slung at me by mods/admin who I have had nothing to do with- who I have never met or interacted with at all anywhere (that Ive noticed anyway). I hear about it from other sources which is the disappointing thing.
 
michael said:
90%* of the mod applications i have seen, across a slew of forums, read essentially like this:

'OK i will do it what do i need to do'

'ya pick me i rule'
Click to expand...

this would NOT be considered an application anyways so it would not even be accoladed with a response. it would of course be up to the mod to determine which applications deserve acknowledgment and which do not.


michael said:
these are nearly invariably from someone that is relatively new or someone who isn't active in the forum at all. while perhaps it would be polite to answer each of them individually, it would have been just as polite for them to not waste anyone's time, and the only thing they really deserve is a smack upside the head.
Click to expand...

perhaps mods should lay out a guideline of minimum requirements [e.g. member for x amount time] to apply for the position. therefore you will be able to limit the demograph of applicants to the more favorable of candidates.

michael said:
*yet again, i am talkinmg about forums besides the lounge, not that it's immune from this sort of thing
Click to expand...

the lounge HAS and ALWAYS will be nothing more than a popularity contest anyways.


i know if im not selected for the position of moderator i would appreciate a short missive stating something constructive so that i could prepare better for future elections. [considering i was a reasonably candidate of course [which i think i am :D]].
 
zephyr said:
^ I don't want to shit sling either. However, shit has been slung at me by mods/admin who I have had nothing to do with- who I have never met or interacted with at all anywhere (that Ive noticed anyway). I hear about it from other sources which is the disappointing thing.
Click to expand...


I heard the same thing about me regarding an admin that i've never once interacted with. regarding the same forum.


I just would like to say that whatever happened happened and it shouldn't take away from the caliber of the mods selected for the forum. i think they're the best choice that any community forum has had for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
^ We ARE on topic.

This isnt "dirty laundry", its history. You've posted the story behind your original departure from PD a few times. Its just what happened at the time. Whats the difference?

At the end of the day- its up to the new mod of any forum to prove themselves. Surely the mods who have been around for a while who choose them would have done their own homework and not relied on second hand information.

If the purpose of this thread was to decrease the squabbling about who gets chosen- how much serious argument is there over new mods anyway? Most mods seem to be welcomed openly.

All I suggest is maybe when a new mod gets chosen post publicly why she/he was the best choice above all others and a pm to close seconds just to be polite. Not that hard a task to unruffle feathers.
 
If you are still talking about SLR, I thought that we DID talk about why you weren't chosen and you knew EXACTLY why you weren't chosen. Did I just dream that? Because I'll admit that sometimes I dream things happened and think they really happened but they didn't ACTUALLY happen anywhere but inside my head. So, is that what happened here?

I just don't think you have anything to complain about in regards to SLR. But if you do, feel free to talk to me about it at anytime.
 
I'm really late into this conversation, but we're soon to be starting the process of selecting a new moderator for Aus Social (Mary Poppins is standing down).

The standard practice that we've followed in Aus Social is that we post a thread announcing that we're looking for a new mod, and then applications are forwarded to all of us via PM. The mods/admin and senior mod/s discuss who the best candidate is (searching for posts, etc as well) and then when we've come to a decision, the admins will give their final approval.

Speaking for myself, when I applied for the mod spot, i treated it as i would when applying for a job, and set out the application in a selection-criteria style, as did other applicants.

I'm happy to continue in this way, but i'm open to perhaps trying this more open mod process? Kat is away till Sunday, however when she comes back, i'll direct her to this thread.

I've never been a fan of closed-selection process, or tap-on-the shoulder style. There was a problem in Aus Social with this, when one of the members was urged to apply, and when we received the application, it was basically 2-3 lines of "yeah, pick me".

As for running it by the entire mod/smod staff, well, i can see merit in the argument that they may be privy to info regarding trollish or at least annoying behaviour in other forums, but i think that could be remedied by researching the applicants past posts and threads in all forums? Also, each forum is run differently and what may be ok in one forum may not be ok in another forum... ergo, the contribution of a member in one forum doesn't necessarily make them mod material in the forum they're applying in?

The problem I see with the open process is that by opening it up like this, we're making ourselves more "accountable" (for lack of a better word) to our members. That's all well and good, but how do you tackle a situation such as if 8 members openly apply by posting in a mod-application thread, but 2 or 3 members chose not to. Members engage in discussion regarding the applications in the thread, however, the outcome is that one of the private applications is the best and that member is appointed. Then there may be public outcry from the members regarding appointing a person not discussed in the thread... they may ask what the point is in opening it up to public discussion when we're just going to chose someone privately anyway?

Food for thought?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top