Should staff members be voted in by the WHOLE community? (IE: a public vote)

[nevastop]

Keep the drama to a minimum please.... 

DUE TO NEW THREAD BEING LOCKED, NEW POLL IS POSTED HERE! VOTE QUICK!
 

[kittypuppet]

I feel mod votes should be public considering there tends to be a bias towards and against certain mods in the mod community.

 

As in, people favor people. And though there are favorites in the communities and such, I feel it would be more unbiased if the whole community could vote.

[Magnyus]

I would so vote for you.

[EeHee2000]

I'm really biased about this actually, but we're too small a community for our staff alone to have a healthy variety of differentiating opinions on players, so I agree with the point of this topic. 

[schererererer]

Question: would this vote be from a raw slate, or on nominees presented after a mod discussion? If it's the latter, it's hardly a discernable change in policy. If it's the former, all sorts of ugly problems emerge. Currently, very frank debate and discussion happens prior to nomination in a discreet environment. With such a change, to have a necessary level of discussion and debate on nominees, that frank conversation would be the province of public chat. Would nominees (including those who end up rejected) be willing to have their histories inspected with a fine-toothed comb, their behavior potentially characterized as hostile or immature, perhaps even be subjected to accusations - all in the public sphere?

If the "weeding out" section of a mod nomination round happens in public, expect an enormous amount of friction to tear the community apart over even a few individual nominees.

[bmx20042004]

I feel like there should be a better way for people to apply for mod or atleast have more transparency. It feels like only the people that are liked by staff get through and if someone has a problem with them then they would never have a chance.

[Trooprm32]

I feel mod votes should be public considering there tends to be a bias towards and against certain mods in the mod community.

 

As in, people favor people. And though there are favorites in the communities and such, I feel it would be more unbiased if the whole community could vote.

 

You are actually joking right? The community is extremely biased, and while the staff can also be biased, it's not anywhere close in comparison

[EeHee2000]

I'd like everyone to keep in mind that the Head Admins have always had the final say, and will continue to do so regardless. 

[SwitchViewz]

I feel mod votes should be public considering there tends to be a bias towards and against certain mods in the mod community.

 

When players become a staff member they have to be willing to put aside there differences with other players and act maturely when preforming there duties. This of course includes discussing new moderators and then voting on them. Staff members have to put aside personal bias and grudges they hold and legitimately vote on whether or not they think this person will be a good staff member. If a player can not do this then they do not deserve to be on staff.

 

As in, people favor people. And though there are favorites in the communities and such, I feel it would be more unbiased if the whole community could vote.

 

Lets look at a real scenario that happened on these forums not to long ago. This thread. What exactly is in there? Bickering, arguing, reputation wars, and some useful stuff. Could you imagine what would happen if we opened a thread for the community to vote on moderators?

 

If you think there is bias in staff when our job is not to be bias, how can you expect there to be even less bias in an entire community?

[SpiderMan]

When players become a staff member they have to be willing to put aside there differences with other players and act maturely when preforming there duties. This of course includes discussing new moderators and then voting on them. Staff members have to put aside personal bias and grudges they hold and legitimately vote on whether or not they think this person will be a good staff member. If a player can not do this then they do not deserve to be on staff.

 

Do you honestly believe people have ever done this in the history of the election system.

 

 

If you think there is bias in staff when our job is not to be bias, how can you expect there to be even less bias in an entire community?

 

wat.

 

-gsand

;D

[SwitchViewz]

Do you honestly believe people have ever done this in the history of the election system.

 

 

 

wat.

 

-gsand

;D

Of course not but we hope for the best. We hope that people can be mature and preform there duties and not be bias. Is the system perfect? No, but no system is.

[Rokku117]

I feel like there should be a better way for people to apply for mod or atleast have more transparency. It feels like only the people that are liked by staff get through and if someone has a problem with them then they would never have a chance.

 

But how could we accomplish more transparency in applying for moderator? I do agree with you in that there should be a better way, but having a good idea could sway some minds.

[EeHee2000]

When players become a staff member they have to be willing to put aside there differences with other players and act maturely when preforming there duties. This of course includes discussing new moderators and then voting on them. Staff members have to put aside personal bias and grudges they hold and legitimately vote on whether or not they think this person will be a good staff member. If a player can not do this then they do not deserve to be on staff.

 

I'm agreeing with gsand here, the staff are terrible at putting aside past disagreements in order to actually decide whether or not someone is staff material. 

[tobylane]

No.

Edited August 18, 2014 by tobylane

[WyndySascha]

I've only been around nerd.nu for a little while, but here's my two minutes of thought:

 

No system of people choosing other people for something has ever been free of bias, drama, or disappointment.  The best systems are structured so the outcomes are as effective as they can be, while the people are as flawed as the human beings they are.

 

As an ordinary player - not a mod, or mayor, or anything like that - I'm happy that my modreqs are actioned just fine.  Water is made to flow.  The skeleton in P's Creeper Grinder is occasionally replaced.

 

That's why I'm voting No.  I'd certainly like to see a bit more transparency in some areas, consistency in others - that's a discussion for another day perhaps - but, unless someone can ELI5 that the server is somehow fundamentally broken and things aren't functioning as tolerably as they seem to me to be, I'd prefer to stick with the Devil I've Got.

Edited August 17, 2014 by WyndySascha

[barneygale]

Question: would this vote be from a raw slate, or on nominees presented after a mod discussion? If it's the latter, it's hardly a discernable change in policy. If it's the former, all sorts of ugly problems emerge. Currently, very frank debate and discussion happens prior to nomination in a discreet environment. With such a change, to have a necessary level of discussion and debate on nominees, that frank conversation would be the province of public chat. Would nominees (including those who end up rejected) be willing to have their histories inspected with a fine-toothed comb, their behavior potentially characterized as hostile or immature, perhaps even be subjected to accusations - all in the public sphere?

If the "weeding out" section of a mod nomination round happens in public, expect an enormous amount of friction to tear the community apart over even a few individual nominees.

 

This problem can be solved in a very simple way: Only allow self-nomination.

 

This is something I've advocated before. The last time I brought this up we ended with nerd.nu/applyformod, but we still essentially run a "don't ask us, we'll ask you" policy. If we only allow self-nomination, then only those who are happy to have their previous bans/incidents inspected in public will be up for nomination. I really don't see the issue with this - it runs along the same lines as ban appeals being public. Staff don't pull any punches even with minor griefers, I think potential staff members should be made of strong enough stuff.

[Guest]

Lets look at a real scenario that happened on these forums not to long ago. This thread. What exactly is in there? Bickering, arguing, reputation wars, and some useful stuff. Could you imagine what would happen if we opened a thread for the community to vote on moderators?

 

If you think there is bias in staff when our job is not to be bias, how can you expect there to be even less bias in an entire community?

 

I am really confused regarding the relevance of this (as I am sure others are too). It's not like letting your community vote on the representatives for the community would be a bad thing - In fact, it would be a good thing. I am really disappointing that you judge the entire community on that thread, Switch.

 

Of course not but we hope for the best. We hope that people can be mature and preform there duties and not be bias. Is the system perfect? No, but no system is.

 

You do understand that staff members can have personal disagreements (either with past drama issues regarding users, or with personal issues that root back from before one becomes a staff member). This all being said, I still think that assuming that becoming a moderator removes all bias, thus the point irreverent.

 

I feel as though giving users the ability to vote on the people who represent them in the server's staff community is very important, and I think this should be considered in a more realistic manor.

[barneygale]

Lets look at a real scenario that happened on these forums not to long ago. This thread. What exactly is in there? Bickering, arguing, reputation wars, and some useful stuff. Could you imagine what would happen if we opened a thread for the community to vote on moderators?

 

If you think there is bias in staff when our job is not to be bias, how can you expect there to be even less bias in an entire community?

 

Christ another example of someone picking up on one thread where frustration becomes sarcasm and saying "the community can't treat anything seriously, no-one can give constructive feedback!" We spent 30mins on mumble with slide while he repeated this myth. He pointed to exactly that thread.

 

... Except the only reason we *have* these threads is that everyone is so frustrated with the lack of response from staff when we *do* put work in. Case in point: TornadoHorse and Four_Down organised 2 survival mumble meetings. They had proper agendas, great attendance, wide-ranging and positive discussion. They were fully minuted and a report was written up afterwards listing all proposals and ideas that had broad or unanimous support. These were posted publicly.

 

And what happened?

 

Nothing.

 

There are so many examples of this. I was recently speaking to a former head admin, who said:

 

I completely see what you mean about the servers feeling immobile. There were discussions about a year ago for the xxx server; as an example where we wanted to try out xxx.

Usually such projects would go through the following steps:

[idea] --> [Discussion] --> [Creating] --> [Testing] --> [Launch]

From what I am seeing at the moment, everyone has ideas which are put forward in a discussion publicly.

Then either one of three things happens:

• The community agrees that said idea is not a good one, with a constructive discussion.
• The discussion just keeps continuing with no clear goal in sight.
• The discussion ends positively but no-one plants a flag down and says "I'll do it, I will take charge of this project!"

The only thing that can happen after one of these three outcomes is nothing! No action is taken, the idea never goes any further and may be brought up again in six months.

I understand that putting things together takes time, time that staff may not be able to complete alone. Even with the 50 people really passionate and free to create content, they aren't going to progress without a leader tasking each person, communicating updates and keeping each part of the project on track.

Edited August 17, 2014 by barneygale

[kittypuppet]

When players become a staff member they have to be willing to put aside there differences with other players and act maturely when preforming there duties. This of course includes discussing new moderators and then voting on them. Staff members have to put aside personal bias and grudges they hold and legitimately vote on whether or not they think this person will be a good staff member. If a player can not do this then they do not deserve to be on staff.

 

 

Lets look at a real scenario that happened on these forums not to long ago. This thread. What exactly is in there? Bickering, arguing, reputation wars, and some useful stuff. Could you imagine what would happen if we opened a thread for the community to vote on moderators?

 

If you think there is bias in staff when our job is not to be bias, how can you expect there to be even less bias in an entire community?

 

If you honestly think that, then you are niave. The staff is VERY biased whether you see it or not. 

 

And your basing that off of ONE thread. 

 

I am a regular at several different forums online, and one in particular had the community vote on who THEY want to see represent them. That one particular place was one of the most friendliest and welcoming places I've ever been to, because THE COMMUNITY MADE THE DECISIONS. We made the final decision. We got the occasional asshole, but they're kicked fairly quickly. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more those types of communities are the best.

 

Because we vote the mods in, we know they will do things in honest interest of the community. And yes, while we do get power hungry people on occasion, I'd say overall it's an awesome community. Essentially the mods would pick people THEY think would be a good mod, along with and explanation as to WHY. If we feel there is someone who we think would be a good mod, we'd put their name in the blank space when voting and provide our reason as to why we chose that person. 

 

If you don't think that we, as a community, can actually provide a good opinion on something, then that just tells us what you really think of the people below you. We are not mods, therefore we cannot make adequate decisions. That's EXACTLY what you're saying, and frankly, I don't want someone who doesn't believe in the community to be a moderator. 

 

edit: I would also like to add something to this. 

 

I have a friend who is generally hated by mods. Except, he's hated by the mods who DON'T KNOW HIM. The mods/staff that do know him? They know he's a very reasonable guy and that, if it ever came down to it, he'd make a great moderator. However, the other staff won't dare look at him as a potential selection. They turn their heads away. This is the kind of bias I won't stand for. What if we as the community want this person as a moderator because we took the time to get to know him, and we know that if it came down to it, he'd be a good mod? Part of our problem here is that the staff doesn't trust the community. Why should we act "mature" and such if we don't get a say in who gets to represent us? 

 

By not letting us vote, it'd be like letting politicians vote who they want as politicians.

 

Also, I guarantee you if Neva made the votes transparent, people who voted yes/no would've voted otherwise due to what their peers voted. 

 

 

---

 

I propose this - You need to state why you said yes/no for the people you vote for, and provide examples/logical reasoning as to why you came to said conclusion.

Edited August 17, 2014 by kittypuppet

[CROCKODUCK]

If you honestly think that, then you are niave. The staff is VERY biased whether you see it or not. 

 

And your basing that off of ONE thread. 

 

I am a regular at several different forums online, and one in particular had the community vote on who THEY want to see represent them. That one particular place was one of the most friendliest and welcoming places I've ever been to, because THE COMMUNITY MADE THE DECISIONS. We made the final decision. We got the occasional asshole, but they're kicked fairly quickly. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more those types of communities are the best.

 

Because we vote the mods in, we know they will do things in honest interest of the community. And yes, while we do get power hungry people on occasion, I'd say overall it's an awesome community. Essentially the mods would pick people THEY think would be a good mod, along with and explanation as to WHY. If we feel there is someone who we think would be a good mod, we'd put their name in the blank space when voting and provide our reason as to why we chose that person. 

 

If you don't think that we, as a community, can actually provide a good opinion on something, then that just tells us what you really think of the people below you. We are not mods, therefore we cannot make adequate decisions. That's EXACTLY what you're saying, and frankly, I don't want someone who doesn't believe in the community to be a moderator. 

 

edit: I would also like to add something to this. 

 

I have a friend who is generally hated by mods. Except, he's hated by the mods who DON'T KNOW HIM. The mods/staff that do know him? They know he's a very reasonable guy and that, if it ever came down to it, he'd make a great moderator. However, the other staff won't dare look at him as a potential selection. They turn their heads away. This is the kind of bias I won't stand for. What if we as the community want this person as a moderator because we took the time to get to know him, and we know that if it came down to it, he'd be a good mod? Part of our problem here is that the staff doesn't trust the community. Why should we act "mature" and such if we don't get a say in who gets to represent us? 

 

By not letting us vote, it'd be like letting politicians vote who they want as politicians.

 

Also, I guarantee you if Neva made the votes transparent, people who voted yes/no would've voted otherwise due to what their peers voted. 

 

 

---

 

I propose this - You need to state why you said yes/no for the people you vote for, and provide examples/logical reasoning as to why you came to said conclusion.

Going to start here with this. First off this "perfect community" you describe I would love to see, because no functional community can run solely off of members. That would be best described as if the police in Seattle simply allowed everyone to enforce themselves. That's known as anarchy...

Your "friend" who is hated by all of staff apparently... How do you know he's hated? I don't hate anyone, therefore your claim can't be true. If you're going to dramatize things, we should focus on what matters.

No switch is NOT saying our community can't make decisions, but there are multiple if not hundreds of people who look to cause problems in our servers because of the servers age and other factors.

You are again creating some fictional hole between staff and players... WE ARE PLAYERS... I spend more time with normal new players and I know for a fact if you actually read the post about how staff are not a promotion but simply a job, you'd also know this.

[jllmprrt]

If you honestly think that, then you are niave. The staff is VERY biased whether you see it or not. 

 

1. And you're* basing that off of ONE thread. 

 

2. I am a regular at several different forums online, and one in particular had the community vote on who THEY want to see represent them. That one particular place was one of the most friendliest and welcoming places I've ever been to, because THE COMMUNITY MADE THE DECISIONS. We made the final decision. We got the occasional asshole, but they're kicked fairly quickly. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more those types of communities are the best.

 

3. Because we vote the mods in, we know they will do things in honest interest of the community. And yes, while we do get power hungry people on occasion, I'd say overall it's an awesome community. Essentially the mods would pick people THEY think would be a good mod, along with and explanation as to WHY. If we feel there is someone who we think would be a good mod, we'd put their name in the blank space when voting and provide our reason as to why we chose that person. 

 

4. If you don't think that we, as a community, can actually provide a good opinion on something, then that just tells us what you really think of the people below you. We are not mods, therefore we cannot make adequate decisions. That's EXACTLY what you're saying, and frankly, I don't want someone who doesn't believe in the community to be a moderator. 

 

edit: I would also like to add something to this. 

 

5. I have a friend who is generally hated by mods. Except, he's hated by the mods who DON'T KNOW HIM. The mods/staff that do know him? They know he's a very reasonable guy and that, if it ever came down to it, he'd make a great moderator. However, the other staff won't dare look at him as a potential selection. They turn their heads away. This is the kind of bias I won't stand for. What if we as the community want this person as a moderator because we took the time to get to know him, and we know that if it came down to it, he'd be a good mod? Part of our problem here is that the staff doesn't trust the community. Why should we act "mature" and such if we don't get a say in who gets to represent us? 

 

6. By not letting us vote, it'd be like letting politicians vote who they want as politicians.

 

Also, I guarantee you if Neva made the votes transparent, people who voted yes/no would've voted otherwise due to what their peers voted. 

 

 

---

 

I propose this - You need to state why you said yes/no for the people you vote for, and provide examples/logical reasoning as to why you came to said conclusion.

1. The thread was used as an example, there are certainly more threads than those where bickering and such occurred.

 

2. I'd say nerd is a pretty welcoming place, but I do agree that the regular players should be involved in the nomination somehow.

 

3. We do the same thing - if the mods/admins vote yes on a moderator, they have the option to explain why. Not many do it anymore but it's there.

 

4. I don't think he's saying that we can't make adequate decisions. Also this particular player (IMO) has a strong hold on what the community is. Moderators do not have special powers over regular players outside of modreqs. They are not "above" us and we are not "below" them. They don't get any special blocks to use in-game outside of mod requests.

 

5. I'm sorry that player can't become moderator like you want, but you are a fairly new player if memory serves me well, and the people who are able to withhold such positions (or at least part of the reason why they are chosen by staff) is because they put a consistent amount of time into the servers for a long period of time.

 

6. Politicians have a say in the voting of other politicians, at least in the United States... it's not like they're barred from voting simply because they work for the government? That's like saying when I start working for the FDA in a few years I won't be able to eat FDA approved food or something.

[Denevien]

I voted no here. Staff pick new staff because of the tools moderators are given to complete modreqs. They are not something that is trusted to just anyone, which is why discussion happens to see if a person could handle these tools maturely. I can personally tell you that removing someone from staff is not fun or easy. It isn't as simple as saying "you're out, tough", it comes with its own load of heartache and drama. I'm not saying that I think the community couldn't pick some good mods, but I also think it would turn into a popularity contest, and that is not always good. In discussion threads, I've personally voted against friends of mine, because I don't think they would have done well in the role. Before I got on staff, I think there was more of a problem of people just getting friends on staff, because they could. Over the years, I think staff has done a great job of being objective in picking new staff. There are a couple players that I would have liked to have seen, but many times they do not make it because they have done something that causes staff to hold off for some time (to make their nomination be not so close to some trouble the player caused). Before we were able to get to the next round, the player did something else again (often in response to not being made mod in the last round). The reason staff has always stuck to the don't-ask-we'll-ask-you policy is that it helps weed out the power hungry people. The ones who've been playing a week who ask how to become a mod. There isn't a set goal or criteria, per se. It is when the staff who deals with you day in and day out (being just normal gameplay, or by dealing with your modreqs) realize that you are active and helpful to the community, that's when you get brought up in a nomination thread. I've been asked before why the hermits never get mod: Because they keep to themselves and don't actively help other people. Sorry for the wall of text, I know some of that may be off-topic, but I still think the way it currently works is the best way.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Denevien

[schererererer]

This problem can be solved in a very simple way: Only allow self-nomination.

This is something I've advocated before. The last time I brought this up we ended with nerd.nu/applyformod, but we still essentially run a "don't ask us, we'll ask you" policy. If we only allow self-nomination, then only those who are happy to have their previous bans/incidents inspected in public will be up for nomination. I really don't see the issue with this - it runs along the same lines as ban appeals being public. Staff don't pull any punches even with minor griefers, I think potential staff members should be made of strong enough stuff.

Could still have chilling effects, and you still have the standard 'popularity contest' argument, as well as the issue with antagonistic factional politics (although we basically already have this, just in the shadows), but it's not a bad solution, as long as it's well advertised. Alright, I'd be receptive to an experimental implementation.

[SkrapssparkS]

I like the idea but I'd say no just because what is to stop a group of players deliberately fucking with the nominations? or to stop players making multiple forums accounts and voting no on one person?

 

Barney mentioned the nerd.nu/applyformod page, when I first brought this up I originally wanted players to be able to go up to mods and put their name forward, the mod would then say thanks I'll put you in the thread, we eventually settled for the nerd.nu/applyformod compromise however I still ran on the idea of players that asked me I'd add them to the threads, I'd like that to become a thing again as I don't really see the downside to it at all I was never spammed with names and if playres asked more than once we'd simply say we already have you in the threads. 

[Diamond_Lover123]

If we were to have a public vote, I feel like the people getting voted in would be the people who had the most friends instead of people who would actually make good moderators. No from me.