SoHiAllTheTime
Ex-Bluelighter
I dont understand why if everyone is in agreement over this why xtcxtc doesnt just tell C-22 to take a hike?
Skydancer -- A Democratic Bluelight *see first post for link to Skydancer's response*
- Thread starter xtcxtc
- Start date
Morrison's Lament
Bluelighter
Hear hear! A long hike along a short pier even.
--- G.
--- G.
xtcxtc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 1999
- Messages
- 1,978
from an email from a staff member several days ago >>
In my perfect democracy a graduated/proportional vote (according to level of responsibility) would be taken as to whether C-22 should remain in power :
3 votes per admin, 2 votes per Senior Mod and 1 vote per Moderator.
I bet he'd be voted off the island by a landslide.
In my perfect democracy a graduated/proportional vote (according to level of responsibility) would be taken as to whether C-22 should remain in power :
3 votes per admin, 2 votes per Senior Mod and 1 vote per Moderator.
I bet he'd be voted off the island by a landslide.
Blowmonkey
Bluelight Crew
Yeah, but then what..?
Have Skydancer do it all on his own..?
Or immediately re-instating someone else, so we can have an even less organized site in the coming few months..?
The way I see it is that things have to change, but at what cost..? Is it really that hard to try and get in touch with either one of the Senior Admins (I understand that the 4 Admins speak to them on a weekly, if not, daily basis) and try and work things out?
There are lot's of points in this thread already at what there has to change, and the most important one is; clear communication between the users of Bluelight and the people that actually decide on the future of BL.. Atm there's none.
Let's have someone sum up all of the complaints made in this thread.
Have Skydancer do it all on his own..?
Or immediately re-instating someone else, so we can have an even less organized site in the coming few months..?
The way I see it is that things have to change, but at what cost..? Is it really that hard to try and get in touch with either one of the Senior Admins (I understand that the 4 Admins speak to them on a weekly, if not, daily basis) and try and work things out?
There are lot's of points in this thread already at what there has to change, and the most important one is; clear communication between the users of Bluelight and the people that actually decide on the future of BL.. Atm there's none.
Let's have someone sum up all of the complaints made in this thread.
SoHiAllTheTime
Ex-Bluelighter
I am confused, how is it that the person who pays for the site has no power?
What are the chances of persuading the decision makers to adopt term limits for ALL Admins/Mods, or at least some form of periodic retention/review procedure, in a written BL administrative code?
If, say, an Admin/Mod was subject to a year-long term of service with the option to be retained for another term upon a majority vote of all Admins/Mods near the end of his/her term, wouldn't that resolve the problem? That would also address the question of succession, as it would put the BL administrative community on sufficient notice of the need to replace anyone who declined to stand for retention, or for that matter someone who needed to be replaced for whatever reason.
Enforceability of such a code might be a problem, but at least it would lend some legitimacy to the notion that the BL administrative hierarchy is responsive to the community.
NOTE: Again, not knowing the inner administrative workings of BL, I apologize if my suggestion has already been considered and shot down long ago.
If, say, an Admin/Mod was subject to a year-long term of service with the option to be retained for another term upon a majority vote of all Admins/Mods near the end of his/her term, wouldn't that resolve the problem? That would also address the question of succession, as it would put the BL administrative community on sufficient notice of the need to replace anyone who declined to stand for retention, or for that matter someone who needed to be replaced for whatever reason.
Enforceability of such a code might be a problem, but at least it would lend some legitimacy to the notion that the BL administrative hierarchy is responsive to the community.
NOTE: Again, not knowing the inner administrative workings of BL, I apologize if my suggestion has already been considered and shot down long ago.
Last edited:
Morrison's Lament
Bluelighter
SoHiAllTheTime said:
Because he believes in democracy, that is the entire point of all of this. He won't act without our support. Which is why our support, and public outpouring of said support, is crucial.
Catch-22 on the other hand, is willing to do whatever he likes with no support what so ever. Consider the difference. Consider the choice we all have to make here.
--- G.
xtcxtc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 1999
- Messages
- 1,978
glowbug said:
i can see a lot of merit to the idea. i would guess the Admins become jaded over time and the argument re those deposed 18 mths ago seems to have been they weren't putting enough effort into BL.
if there were 6 Admins and 1 was rotated out every 2 mths it would certainly pressure them to provide valuable input or be replaced by someone ambitious for a 1 yr term.
j22
Bluelight Crew
c-22 could realize he's on his own and bow out gracefully of course.
Roger&Me
Bluelighter
Blowmonkey said:
I was up very late last night putting together a "government model" for BL that would work. It's based on the concept of a democratic republic with three different branches that each have a check on the power of the others. It's basically three different democratically elected committees that carry out different functions of the site. I PMed it to xtcxtc to see if he likes it, and then I'll post it in here for public scrutiny.
We need a total reform IMO, and power needs to be distributed equally, not in the arms of any one person.
Pleonastic
Bluelighter
I think that's basically the right direction, but going about it the wrong way. What's wrong with going back to the previous system of two levels of staff (perhaps 3 since the senior mod positions are probably worth retaining). Remove the title of "Senior Admin", and make all administrators of equal power. The only exception would possibly be skydancer in terms of hardware operations. But for people management we don't need a single all powerful "leader". Nor do we need a democratically elected commitee, because that lends itself to campaigning and on a site like this still ends up being a popularity contest anyway. Plus it would take far too much time and resources.
The way I see it, bluelight isn't exactly at risk of a corperate takeover, and since it's not a pay site it's under no obligations to "cost-cut" inactive staff. Nobody's on a wage, so killing off staff that don't meet a posting quota is just arogant. And since this is a volunteer site with the staff being able to commit varying amounts of their own personal time to doing what they can, electing people for fixed terms is risky because they might have to suddenly devote less time to the site (for whatever reason). And on the other hand, if someone is actually doing a kick arse job and hasn't let the power go their head, and are still willing to commit to the site after their term is up, what sense is it to deny them the opertunity to help?
In my opinion, what's needed is a rule by a comitee of admins (at least 7) who have no individual power or rank between themselves. They should not set an agenda, but should do what they deem is needed to be done at the time. Ideas should be floated past the rest of the staff (and can be suggested by the staff) in the private forum. Reasons should be given for decisions. Basically, return it to the way it was 18 months ago.
I'm not privy to the inner workings right at the moment, but the results speak for themselves. I'm sure a lot of the changes that have happened have been good, and it would be foolish to abandon them all when changing the system. But the fundemental change needs to be the removal of outright power from a limited number of individuals, and a shift in focus towards maintaining rather than changing what's already working.
The way I see it, bluelight isn't exactly at risk of a corperate takeover, and since it's not a pay site it's under no obligations to "cost-cut" inactive staff. Nobody's on a wage, so killing off staff that don't meet a posting quota is just arogant. And since this is a volunteer site with the staff being able to commit varying amounts of their own personal time to doing what they can, electing people for fixed terms is risky because they might have to suddenly devote less time to the site (for whatever reason). And on the other hand, if someone is actually doing a kick arse job and hasn't let the power go their head, and are still willing to commit to the site after their term is up, what sense is it to deny them the opertunity to help?
In my opinion, what's needed is a rule by a comitee of admins (at least 7) who have no individual power or rank between themselves. They should not set an agenda, but should do what they deem is needed to be done at the time. Ideas should be floated past the rest of the staff (and can be suggested by the staff) in the private forum. Reasons should be given for decisions. Basically, return it to the way it was 18 months ago.
I'm not privy to the inner workings right at the moment, but the results speak for themselves. I'm sure a lot of the changes that have happened have been good, and it would be foolish to abandon them all when changing the system. But the fundemental change needs to be the removal of outright power from a limited number of individuals, and a shift in focus towards maintaining rather than changing what's already working.
Pleonastic
Bluelighter
^^^^^
Exactly - by people choosing to look at only certain forums, it essentially makes bluelight a huge number of combinations of "what bluelight is to me".
Anyway, I waffled on a bit and realised I actually didn't say the point I started out to make in my last post...
In regards to removal of power of an admin, if the system has at least 7 members, then it can be done by a simple vote of no confidence. Perhaps the steps could be something like 1) A thread is started in an admin only forum detailing the issues. 2) The admin in question can respond and defend themselves, or come to an agreement to modify their behaviour, etc. 3) If there is no unaniomous resolution it can be taken to a vote (excluding the admin in question). 4) In the event of a tie the admin in question can have the deciding vote (knowing that with three against you it'd probably be better to quit anyway).
Other staff could also instigate this process by contacting one of the other admins and getting them to get the ball rolling. If the situation is that a coup is required, a thread could be started in the general staff forum, requiring a 2/3 majority to remove an admin or group of admins. This however requires that the admins are honourable enough to see the writing on the wall and actually remove themselves if the vote dictates it - but it's as close as we'll probably get to an accountable system given the nature of forums and the software that runs them.
Power for mod selection for forums should be returned to the mods of those forums, with a veto given to the admins (via majority vote) to be used in extream circumstances. Other than that, the admins should only be involved in the physical change to someone's privlages. Posting quota's should be scrapped entirely, and removal of mods should be left to the remaining mods of the forum to work out themselves (save for a breech of policy by the mod or some other infraction).
Exactly - by people choosing to look at only certain forums, it essentially makes bluelight a huge number of combinations of "what bluelight is to me".
Anyway, I waffled on a bit and realised I actually didn't say the point I started out to make in my last post...
In regards to removal of power of an admin, if the system has at least 7 members, then it can be done by a simple vote of no confidence. Perhaps the steps could be something like 1) A thread is started in an admin only forum detailing the issues. 2) The admin in question can respond and defend themselves, or come to an agreement to modify their behaviour, etc. 3) If there is no unaniomous resolution it can be taken to a vote (excluding the admin in question). 4) In the event of a tie the admin in question can have the deciding vote (knowing that with three against you it'd probably be better to quit anyway).
Other staff could also instigate this process by contacting one of the other admins and getting them to get the ball rolling. If the situation is that a coup is required, a thread could be started in the general staff forum, requiring a 2/3 majority to remove an admin or group of admins. This however requires that the admins are honourable enough to see the writing on the wall and actually remove themselves if the vote dictates it - but it's as close as we'll probably get to an accountable system given the nature of forums and the software that runs them.
Power for mod selection for forums should be returned to the mods of those forums, with a veto given to the admins (via majority vote) to be used in extream circumstances. Other than that, the admins should only be involved in the physical change to someone's privlages. Posting quota's should be scrapped entirely, and removal of mods should be left to the remaining mods of the forum to work out themselves (save for a breech of policy by the mod or some other infraction).
xtcxtc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 1999
- Messages
- 1,978
Roger&Me said:
my PM tray had hit the 100 limit when yours came in RM. when i saved some my sent folder somehow deleted ALL from jan '04 again and yours from my inbox ( only yours so far i think ).
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180016&r=12
if you can email it to me ( or PM again ).
I don't think an "administrative oversight panel" should be emplaced by a pure democratic vote. I think it would be best done as some US states do their judicial retention process, wherein judicial candidates are initially selected by administrative panel to serve a certain term, and upon expiration of the term stand for retention through the democratic process.
In this instance I think it would be far better to have the retention process be by vote of all the administrative staff, rather than the BL general population. The initial appointment to such a position would be by consideration of applicants' qualifications by the administrative oversight panel, not the general BL population. Clearly, the applicant's prior service as a Mod would be the most important factor in consideration. Any Mods wishing to be considered for the position to be vacated would nominate themselves and the position would be filled upon vote of the Admin panel. Whether the Admin were retained upon expiration of his/her term of service would be subject to vote of the entire administrative staff, both Mods and Admins.
That way you eliminate the popularity contest problem, while still allowing the input of the BL general population to be heard, since the staff members voting will have some idea of the general BL population's consensus on the job being done by the staff member in question , and the community's voice will be heard through their retention/nonretention vote.
The issue of a sudden resignation could also be addressed in a written administrative code with contingencies for such an occurrence, perhaps promoting another Mod willing to serve out the term as interim Admin and stand for retention in that position if he/she so desires.
As far as someone doing a great job, yes, I think allowance ought to be made for retaining that person beyond an initial term, but I think it's always a good idea to have established procedures in place to rotate qualified "new blood" into service positions.
I just think the benefits of having an established written code governing the appointment/retention/succession of BL administrative staff, with term limits in place, far outweigh the potential detriment of "rigidifying" the BL administrative infrastructure. It lends a greater sense of legitimacy to the administrative staff (as viewed by the BL general population) and it largely reduces the risk of abuse by emplacing accountability upon even the Admins.
In this instance I think it would be far better to have the retention process be by vote of all the administrative staff, rather than the BL general population. The initial appointment to such a position would be by consideration of applicants' qualifications by the administrative oversight panel, not the general BL population. Clearly, the applicant's prior service as a Mod would be the most important factor in consideration. Any Mods wishing to be considered for the position to be vacated would nominate themselves and the position would be filled upon vote of the Admin panel. Whether the Admin were retained upon expiration of his/her term of service would be subject to vote of the entire administrative staff, both Mods and Admins.
That way you eliminate the popularity contest problem, while still allowing the input of the BL general population to be heard, since the staff members voting will have some idea of the general BL population's consensus on the job being done by the staff member in question , and the community's voice will be heard through their retention/nonretention vote.
The issue of a sudden resignation could also be addressed in a written administrative code with contingencies for such an occurrence, perhaps promoting another Mod willing to serve out the term as interim Admin and stand for retention in that position if he/she so desires.
As far as someone doing a great job, yes, I think allowance ought to be made for retaining that person beyond an initial term, but I think it's always a good idea to have established procedures in place to rotate qualified "new blood" into service positions.
I just think the benefits of having an established written code governing the appointment/retention/succession of BL administrative staff, with term limits in place, far outweigh the potential detriment of "rigidifying" the BL administrative infrastructure. It lends a greater sense of legitimacy to the administrative staff (as viewed by the BL general population) and it largely reduces the risk of abuse by emplacing accountability upon even the Admins.
Roger&Me
Bluelighter
Pleonastic said:
Would this commitee of admins be the current admins? Because most of them (not all) have always been very Catch22-like in their actions. I would trust them as a group about as far as I can throw them.
-Thoth
Bluelight Crew
Over my years on staff, I too became pretty dissolusioned about the manner this site has been managed and the way it values it's volunteers. There is quite an elitist top-down style in which descisions are arrived at, and frequently changes are only able to be debated after the fact at which point it's generally futile.
Bluelight.nu should incorporate itself as a proper non-profit organisation, with it's own constitution and in line with relevant law. It should be run by an executive comittee, elected periodically and who are accountable to its membership. They should vote on relevant issues pertaining to the running of the site. There should be yearly bugetry audits etc, and all the other details that go with running such an organisation.
Bluelight has become to big, and too important to not be run like any other non-profit NGO in the world. At the moment, it's being run by the seat of its pants like an amateur fucking bake sale. It's leading to problems. More transperency and accountability is needed.
Bluelight.nu should incorporate itself as a proper non-profit organisation, with it's own constitution and in line with relevant law. It should be run by an executive comittee, elected periodically and who are accountable to its membership. They should vote on relevant issues pertaining to the running of the site. There should be yearly bugetry audits etc, and all the other details that go with running such an organisation.
Bluelight has become to big, and too important to not be run like any other non-profit NGO in the world. At the moment, it's being run by the seat of its pants like an amateur fucking bake sale. It's leading to problems. More transperency and accountability is needed.