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

[DrTim58]

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.

Yeah, people tend to never put past quarrels behind them, they even, in some cases, reference that quarrel as an insult to the person they were arguing or fighting with

[DrTim58]

I would so vote for you.

Mag you crack me up

Edited August 17, 2014 by Timinator58

[schererererer]

...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. 

 

Afaik, people are still free to approach any mod to ask about it in addition to applyformod.

[nevastop]

NEW question added at top. please vote. 

[kittypuppet]

 

 

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.

 

I do admit that's something that hadn't really crossed my mind. You are absolutely right here, that is bound to happen to a possible extreme in a community like this (especially with the whole C&S vs PVE). But it also shows that someone who has a lot of friends is willing to go out of their way to befriend a lot of people. We'd want well liked people as mods as well, am I wrong on that?

 

It should, at least, be a requirement, not an option, to state WHY you said yes/no to a person - a detailed explanation with good examples supporting your opinion. 

 

This can prevent straight up voting on the fly and keeping out the "unwanted" players. We could still, technically, keep it up to the mods this way, but we'd be able to see each individuals reasoning as to why the people were/weren't chosen. We need to see some reasoning for the players being chosen/rejected.

 

Or even releasing the final overall opinions as to why said persons were/weren't voted in. This would show us that you're not just rejecting people to spite them.

[EeHee2000]

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.

Again, the Head Admins have the final say in it. If someone is clearly not fit for the role but somehow stood a chance through mass player popularity, they still wouldn't get in. 

[SkrapssparkS]

In terms of past quarrels I think there should be a set time since a player has done something wrong if they are contributing to the community, at which point their slate is cleaned. I mean holding something against a player they did a year or more ago is counter productive with out number at this time. 

[Guest Former Staff]

This is a fantastic discussion, thank you for putting this topic into motion Nevastop (pardon the pun with your name there).

 

My votes have not yet been placed as I am not convinced that I can make the best decision without hearing everyone else out first. For me, the most important factor to consider with this subject is to remember that people are asked to become a moderator because their contribution to the community through activity and helpfulness builds up a reputation and trust. Ultimately, these are the people who are completing thousands of modreqs, enforcing bans and handling the subsequent appeals process fairly, contributing to upcoming revisions and many more activities.

 

When the selection process goes wrong, it can go wrong dramatically whether that be an instant action that affects the community or a prolonged affliction.

 

For all the reasons above, I feel it's important for the right people to be chosen. People who want to help the community and not seek to benefit from it for power. Transparency certainly plays a key role in ensuring that a fair decision has been made once the final list of names has been approved by the head admin team. It goes without saying that bias plays a key factor within the voting process in it's current state and possibly more-so should the voting be public.

 

Should staff members be voted in by the WHOLE community?

The benefits of having the entire community voting on staff means that everyone can have their say. Should a nominee be helpful to several people, without being noticed by staff then those additional votes from people who have first-hand witnessed them could help to sway the final decision. I understand that there were quiet periods on creative some time ago where potentially helpful people were overlooked because of a lack of staff interaction.

 

In terms of disadvantages, I feel that a popularity contest could emerge for some individuals nominated and that shouldn't be the focus as to why someone votes "yes - I trust you'll do good for the community as a whole". Should an individual receive a large number of yes votes for the right reasons, and they are not put through by the head admins (possibly for good reason) then this can lead to a backlash for not only the head admin team but a lack of faith in the voting process.

 

Which leads me swiftly to...

 

Should nominations be handled differently?

Just as a small disclaimer, I haven't witnessed a full nomination cycle recently so my comments will be brief and I apologise in advance should my suggestions already be in place.

 

People who do not get chosen by the head admin team after a voting thread has closed, whether they received low or many votes can become a subject of mystery. While it goes without saying that those reasons need to be disclosed to the individual by a head admin, it would be nice to see a public notification acknowledging those who voted for that person and that a private discussion had taken place to help for future nominations.

[DrTim58]

Why all the downvotes? If somebody gets a ton of votes by popularity, we have to count on the head admins to decide if that person is responsible by getting to know them, or watching the chat and see how they act or have acted to their peers, its simple really. Head admins and admins learn about this player, or use former knowledge to decide if they are responsible, mature, and on enough for them to be brought in as a staff member. And even if they abuse their power, we just demote them like all power abusers.

[SwitchViewz]

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.

 

As I said in a reply earlier, we are not perfect nor is anyone or system perfect.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

I was not and am not judging the community on that thread, I was merely using that as a example of what could possibly happen in a public nomination thread.

 

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 am not picking on one thread, I simply pointed out that thread because it recently happened and was fresh in our minds. There are plenty of other examples of this here on the forums, in game, the subreddit and other places. I'm not going to go digging for them though.

 

As for your second point I do agree that the staff has a inability to get things done sometimes. I tried to get the nerd.nu general meeting rolling by taking charge and setting up a agenda which people seemed to like, but since we are now waiting on head admins for times there is nothing we can do as the weeks go by. But that is a entirely different subject about leadership that may deserve it's own thread.

 

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.

 

As I said in another reply, it is in our job description to not be bias but just like any other job or system not everyone will follow it. You seem to have this attitude that the staff is very bias which is completely and totally inaccurate. While I haven't been on staff a very long time, the time I have been here I have seen lots of very professional and well behavior from other staff members. We are not perfect and I have personally witnessed bias from several people multiple times but it really does not happen like you make it out to be.

 

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.

 

Your acting like we completely ignore any input from the community and they have no influence at all. The entire reason nerd.nu/applyformod even exists is so that community members can suggest players they feel would make a good mod, as well as have people that want to be a mod put there own name in.

 

You make this other community sound like its some "heaven" of all communities where the community isn't biased at all and elects its members honestly. Hate to break it to you, but no such community exists. No system is perfect, and I guarantee you there is some popularity going on over there.

 

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. 

 

That is not what I am saying at all, not even in the slightest. This is one of the best communities I have ever been apart of and for you tell me that I don't believe in this community astonishes me. I am a strong believer in this community but just like any other community we have our faults.

 

You seem to think that staff is this high bias group when voting in new moderators, and let's believe for a minute that its true, even though its not. If the staff is SO bias, what makes you even remotely think that the community isn't just as bias? The staff members came from the community. They are apart of the community. They are not above anyone, they are normal players just like you. And if they have just as much bias as you say they do, then the rest of the community has to have bias as well.

 

Can you honestly tell me, that if we opened up moderation votes to every player, that there wouldn't be popularity involved? People voting for there friends? Voting for people just to cause drama? What about creating more forum accounts? Or older players coming back to just vote on a thread to help out a friend get moderator or to even prevent someone from becoming a moderator? Or any of the hundred of other possibility's?

 

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 makes you say hes hated by staff who don't know him? Have they openly expressed this? How do you know other staff members turn there heads away? How do you know they are ignored when mod nominations are brought up? Do you know what goes on in the thread in mod chat private? No, you don't know. You act like we ignore people and turn our heads away. We discuss anyone that is brought up to us as well as the people that are entered on nerd.nu/applyformod. We don't "ignore" people just because a staff member doesn't like them. We openly discuss any staff member that is brought to our attention.

 

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.

 

The entire point of nerd.nu/applyformod is for players to apply and other players to suggest new mods. You can also come to any staff member and ask them to include a name to be considered. If your not communicating who you want to see as a staff member then how are we supposed to know who you think would be a good mod?

 

Since when did the staff not trust the community? If you take a look in the past there are plenty of examples of staff posting threads for opinions on policies,

 

A recent example, the thread about alt accounts. People want it changed from a permanent ban and the staff is listening and discussing it. We trust the community to make a better policy and to help improve things. If we didn't trust the community we would just close the thread and say that it wasn't open for discussion. This very thread is also a example of us trusting the community to reasonably talk about a policy and maybe even possibly have change.

[EeHee2000]

I'm going to throw it out there that it's fucking disgusting to see staff members voting "no" on players they've never bothered to speak with in any way, yet they somehow know them thoroughly enough to determine that said player doesn't have the capabilities to be a staff member, and the fact that we have the "I don't know this player well enough" option adds to the bullshit. For about 4 rounds straight now, certain staff members have been voting "no" on everyone that doesn't actively play on their server and "yes" on those who do, completely missing the point of the "I don't know this player well enough" option and encouraging the other servers to follow suit - as that's really the only way their potential staff stand a chance.
It's actually a large chunk of the reason this thread was made, because this bullshit has been going on for too long. 
I'm not pointing out any staff in particular, the members I'm talking about are illuminated in the results of the current mod-voting thread. 
Tell me, if you're going to vote "no" on us because we don't play on your server, (which is exactly what you are/have been doing) how in all fuck are we supposed to become staff? 
If you don't know a player from your own experiences, either get to know them or use the third vote option. 

Edited August 17, 2014 by EeHee2000

[DrTim58]

I'm going to throw it out there that it's fucking disgusting to see staff members voting "no" on players they've never bothered to speak with in any way, yet they somehow know them thoroughly enough to determine that said player doesn't have the capabilities to be a staff member, and the fact that we have the "I don't know this player well enough" option adds to the bullshit. For about 4 rounds straight now, certain staff members have been voting "no" on everyone that doesn't actively play on their server and "yes" on those who do, completely missing the point of the "I don't know this player well enough" option and encouraging the other servers to follow suit - as that's really the only way their potential staff stand a chance.

It's actually a large chunk of the reason this thread was made, because this bullshit has been going on for too long. 

I'm not pointing out any staff in particular, the members I'm talking about are illuminated in the results of the current mod-voting thread. 

Tell me, if you're going to vote "no" on us because we don't play on your server, (which is exactly what you are/have been doing) how in all fuck are we supposed to become staff? 

If you don't know a player from your own experiences, either get to know them or use the third vote option. 

I agree with you 100% eehee, that is just despicable that they just vote no to players who aren't on their server often. Why don't they just vote "Don't Know well Enough"

[SkrapssparkS]

Eehee I believe that staff should take the time during a thread to get to know all names brought up, if you see them online on the other server you should pop on and keep an eye on them and see how they act, you could even try talking to them. The only risk this runs is that players might twig that they are being discussed because staff are suddenly paying attention to them so if this approach is taken be careful about it. But I believe the only way you could have a true say on a player is if you have spent some time with them. In an ideal situation there should be no need for a don't know them well enough option.

[EeHee2000]

Eehee I believe that staff should take the time during a thread to get to know all names brought up, if you see them online on the other server you should pop on and keep an eye on them and see how they act, you could even try talking to them. The only risk this runs is that players might twig that they are being discussed because staff are suddenly paying attention to them so if this approach is taken be careful about it. But I believe the only way you could have a true say on a player is if you have spent some time with them. In an ideal situation there should be no need for a don't know them well enough option.

Of course they should make the effort to get to know candidates, but I very rarely see that happening, and when it does happen, I most certainly approve of it. I can guarantee you that the staff voting only for their personal server isn't a coincidence and happens all the time, regardless of whether the potential mods in question are suitable or not. 

Check the previous mod nomination thread, and the one before that, if you still disagree with me.

Edited August 18, 2014 by EeHee2000

[Sir_Didymus]

I'm fine with how things are.

Edit: Because I have had zero issues with anyone or anything on the server. My modreqs are actioned expertly, and I have fun. Apologies if I have somehow caused offence.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Sir_Didymus

[SkrapssparkS]

I'm fine with how things are.

Maybe so however it's still clear that there are players that aren't, so it's in our best interest to find a compromise.

[bmx20042004]

I find it odd that anytime people have ideas, everyone is instantly shutdown. It's not good for a community to speak up and instantly told no and made feel like your opinion is worthless for a community you're apart of.

[SkrapssparkS]

Eehee another possibility would be to have server specific voting threads, I am not really a fan of this idea as I believe mods should spend time on all three servers however it would rule out staff not voting a player in as they are on a different server.

[SkrapssparkS]

I find it odd that anytime people have ideas, everyone is instantly shutdown. It's not good for a community to speak up and instantly told no and made feel like your opinion is worthless for a community you're apart of.

All ideas should be looked into, if someone takes time to come up with an idea to further the servers it should be considered.

[bmx20042004]

All ideas should be looked into, if someone takes time to come up with an idea to further the servers it should be considered.

I agree with you. Sad thing is it doesn't feel like it happens at all.

[SkrapssparkS]

I agree with you. Sad thing is it doesn't feel like it happens at all.

We could have the staff team make a post every week or two weeks going over their discussions on the topics brought up, this would show the community that their ideas are being listened to and would also show the ideas that might link together. I don't really see much of a downside to this, it wouldn't take much effort.

[bmx20042004]

We could have the staff team make a post every week or two weeks going over their discussions on the topics brought up, this would show the community that their ideas are being listened to and would also show the ideas that might link together. I don't really see much of a downside to this, it wouldn't take much effort.

I feel like it's a great idea. I would like to see something like that for both the forums and mumble. Have people get together and allow people to vent and let them know what they feel is going on and needs to be changed.

[EeHee2000]

Eehee another possibility would be to have server specific voting threads, I am not really a fan of this idea as I believe mods should spend time on all three servers however it would rule out staff not voting a player in as they are on a different server.

Whilst there would be a lot of dislike for it, I believe it'd actually benefit us as we aren't simply trying to shut down the other server's chances of getting new mods, so I feel it's worth looking into this. Perhaps at the meeting - come to think of it, this entire thread needs to be discussed at the nerd.nu general meeting.

[SwitchViewz]

I find it odd that anytime people have ideas, everyone is instantly shutdown. It's not good for a community to speak up and instantly told no and made feel like your opinion is worthless for a community you're apart of.

Since for some reason I seem to be getting a bunch of downvotes, I am not trying to shut anyone down. I am simply pointing out a more accurate story then what some people portray the staff to be. I am more then welcome to have ideas thrown out there and have no problem with this thread, its just that some things people are saying about me and the staff are not true.

[SkrapssparkS]

Since for some reason I seem to be getting a bunch of downvotes, I am not trying to shut anyone down. I am simply pointing out a more accurate story then what some people portray the staff to be. I am more then welcome to have ideas thrown out there and have no problem with this thread, its just that some things people are saying about me and the staff are not true.

I think that was a reference to Sir_Didymus I may be wrong but I don't think he was referencing you there.