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

[XkinOEC]

Just going to put this out there, but like now, head admins have a, final say, and we will likely have a restriction of how we vote to avoid the obvious forum account spoofing that would occur.

[TornadoHorse]

I don't think allowing everyone to have a vote would improve the nomination process as it stands - replacing staff vote with whole community vote, other things would have to change. 

 

Regardless of what happens in the discussion phase or vote, it comes down to the heads to choose from the bunch of nominees. If they believe a certain player can't be trusted or wouldn't be a good mod they won't get accepted even if the player has strong support. 

 

If we made a change like this I can only see the results being biased in favour of PvE. P outnumbers S and C's player bases by far, so any vote would probably go their way. Although the stereotype isn't true for all our players, it does exist that P, C and S players don't get along too well. I'm having trouble putting my thoughts in to words so I'll use an example: Four_Down gets put forward by S players due to having lots of support from on S but P players don't like him so all so they all vote no. Due to P having far more players than S Four_Down will get far more no votes than yes. I can see lots of situations like this happening without any easy fix.

 

Without having a more equal representation of all players in this community at higher levels (admins, head admins) I can't see anyway of the nomination process getting any better. 

 

EDIT: Sorry if it doesn't make sense in some areas, very tired. 

EDIT2: Used Four_Down as an example because I found it easier to explain, what I said isn't actually the case however... S players hate him too >:)

[EeHee2000]

I don't think allowing everyone to have a vote would improve the nomination process as it stands - replacing staff vote with whole community vote, other things would have to change. 

 

Regardless of what happens in the discussion phase or vote, it comes down to the heads to choose from the bunch of nominees. If they believe a certain player can't be trusted or wouldn't be a good mod they won't get accepted even if the player has strong support. 

 

If we made a change like this I can only see the results being biased in favour of PvE. P outnumbers S and C's player bases by far, so any vote would probably go their way. Although the stereotype isn't true for all our players, it does exist that P, C and S players don't get along too well. I'm having trouble putting my thoughts in to words so I'll use an example: Four_Down gets put forward by S players due to having lots of support from on S but P players don't like him so all so they all vote no. Due to P having far more players than S Four_Down will get far more no votes than yes. I can see lots of situations like this happening without any easy fix.

 

Without having a more equal representation of all players in this community at higher levels (admins, head admins) I can't see anyway of the nomination process getting any better. 

 

EDIT: Sorry if it doesn't make sense in some areas, very tired. 

EDIT2: Used Four_Down as an example because I found it easier to explain, what I said isn't actually the case however... S players hate him too >:)

I agree with your points that a full community vote wouldn't work, now that you've put all that forward.

However, what about individual server voting? 

[nevastop]

I agree with your points that a full community vote wouldn't work, now that you've put all that forward.

However, what about individual server voting? 

Stay tunned for tomorrows question.

[sansapants]

I am not taking a position on this issue at this time. However, I want to discuss several issues that would arise were we to move to public staff voting, some of which have been briefly touched upon already by others.

 

There are currently no formal requirements and/or qualifications for becoming a staff member. Were public nomination and/or voting implemented, it would be a good idea to have qualifications for candidates.

 

For example, candidates must have played a certain number of hours over the past two (or more) revisions of their “home” server, and/or a certain number of hours across any combination of servers in a certain period of time. This would help ensure that potential staff are active members of the community. Additionally, official mutes, notes, and bans should be taken into account.

 

Less formal and harder to quantify are possible instances of “bad behavior” that did not merit official action by a staff member, yet were still egregious enough to cause concern about a candidate’s ability to be a responsible staff member. Server and head admins would need to ability to block a candidate for cause. Admins are often privy to private discussions among themselves and with players regarding specific incidents. Candidates might need to agree to waive their server privacy rights to have logs of questionable instances and/or the content of private conversations with/among admins made public.

 

Additionally, candidates should agree that all of their alts, even their “secret” ones, should be made public. This would be in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, as it would enable voters to make the most fully informed decision about a candidate’s ability to be a responsible staff member.

 

A procedure would need to be developed for “campaigns” by candidates, as well as public comment by players as to whether a candidate is suitable to be a staff member. For example, it would need to be made clear that the no-spam rule for game chat would include a prohibition on “too many” campaign messages by both candidates and voters (though what is “too many” would need to be determined, and could end up being a complete prohibition of campaign endorsements in chat).

 

Regarding voters, some sort of minimum eligibility would need to be implemented, along with a registration system. This would ensure that only currently active members of the community are voting, and prevent (along with minimum qualifications for candidates) frivolous candidates being elected due to ballot stuffing by people who are not active community members and/or members who create alt accounts to vote more than once. Registration should be required for each election, to ensure that long-inactive members are not registered to vote in perpetuity. Criteria for both candidates and voters could, for example, be the same, or voter qualifications could be less strenuous (i.e. fewer required hours of game time) than for candidates.

 

Regarding how candidates are selected, would it be useful to require candidates to have sponsorship from one (or several) current staff member(s)?

 

Another issue is term limits and/or re-election. Currently, staff are only removed for serious infractions, and/or at their request. Would a public voting scheme also bring with it term limits? Would current staff need to run for re-election against new candidates, or only against other current staff members? Term limits also begs the question about term limits and election of server and head admins, but that should be a kept a separate issue from public staff votes, to avoid muddying the waters.

 

The above is not meant to be an exhaustive list of issues that would arise were we to implement public voting for staff. They are meant to show that moving to public elections would require some serious work to ensure free and fair elections.

 

TL;DR: minimum qualifications for candidates; admin involvement in candidate selection; voter registration; term limits/re-election of staff.

[Trooprm32]

I agree with your points that a full community vote wouldn't work, now that you've put all that forward.

However, what about individual server voting? 

 

Individual server voting wouldn't really work because being a mod on one server = being a mod on the other two.

[SkrapssparkS]

Individual server voting wouldn't really work because being a mod on one server = being a mod on the other two.

There are quite a few mods that don't go onto the other servers though, I think EeHee is getting at the fact that the mods on that server would know that player best and be able to determine if they were mod material better than the mods on another server.

[EeHee2000]

There are quite a few mods that don't go onto the other servers though, I think EeHee is getting at the fact that the mods on that server would know that player best and be able to determine if they were mod material better than the mods on another server.

Hah, I was wondering how I'd respond to Trooprm32 there, but you said it best and I agree wholly. 

[zifnab06]

I would be in favor of a moderator and player vote (two seperate threads, two seperate outcomes). If a moderator is voted 'yes' by the staff, but 'no' by the players, there might be another issue at play. 

[kittypuppet]

I would be in favor of a moderator and player vote (two seperate threads, two seperate outcomes). If a moderator is voted 'yes' by the staff, but 'no' by the players, there might be another issue at play. 

That's what I was thinking. Have two different votes and then have a comparison sort of thing. 

 

I was also thinking of adding a requirement to the apply for mod page. Instead of just a name, you have to put an explanation as to why. so in a way, we'd be able to give our input there as well. That could prevent people from putting in trolls and spamming and such.

 

 

 

There are currently no formal requirements and/or qualifications for becoming a staff member.

 

This bothers me more than it should. 

[jllmprrt]

That's what I was thinking. Have two different votes and then have a comparison sort of thing. 

 

I was also thinking of adding a requirement to the apply for mod page. Instead of just a name, you have to put an explanation as to why. so in a way, we'd be able to give our input there as well. That could prevent people from putting in trolls and spamming and such.

 

 

This bothers me more than it should. 

Why does no requirements bother you? They don't just pick anybody. It's kind of like when the high-ups in the Catholic Church (for example) decide who would become the next pope, they already have somewhat of an idea.

 

Also, about the spoof forum accounts created simply for polling, you can tell right on their page when people made the account, and IPs on the forums are also trackable. So in theory, if I made the forum account "eosFxx" or something, and voted on who I wanted to become moderator, then there would be sufficient punishment and that vote would not be counted somehow.

[ROCKONN]

Community-wide voting is just as susceptible to any form of tampering as staff member-only voting is. The only real way for a voting system to work is for it to be a blind voting session, with reasoning attached to each vote for yes, no, or neither. No results should be given as they are received.

Final nominations should also not be voted on until potential candidates are asked, and until potential names have been posted. The time during this interim could be used for voicing concerns against a certain user's potential moderating abilities. The current system allows for no such interim, a serious drawback in my eyes.

 

Seeing as the final results of nomination voting are not definite, there is no reason why a blind voting session should be an issue. Opinions are already voiced in MCP, and though some of them may disturb some of the potential staff members, they should be able to handle critical evaluations of their actions before even considering a position as a staff member.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ROCKONN

[Denevien]

Final nominations should also not be voted on until potential candidates are asked, and until potential names have been posted. The time during this interim could be used for voicing concerns against a certain user's potential moderating abilities. The current system allows for no such interim, a serious drawback in my eyes.

If I understand this right, you say that a list should be posted in the private thread, then we contact the people on that list to see if they want to be in the voting thread. Once we get an answer from everyone, then move to the public view voting? If that is what you meant, just here to say that is how it is done now. The past few rounds have been changed to work like that, and (until this one) I personally sent out the PMs to potential mods.

[ROCKONN]

If I understand this right, you say that a list should be posted in the private thread, then we contact the people on that list to see if they want to be in the voting thread. Once we get an answer from everyone, then move to the public view voting? If that is what you meant, just here to say that is how it is done now. The past few rounds have been changed to work like that, and (until this one) I personally sent out the PMs to potential mods.

That was a suggestion for an addition to the current methods, which I should have cited.

Final nominations should also not be voted on until potential candidates are asked, and until potential names have been posted.

 

Should've made the intention there a bit clearer

[schererererer]

That was a suggestion for an addition to the current methods, which I should have cited.

Final nominations should also not be voted on until potential candidates are asked, and until potential names have been posted.

 

Should've made the intention there a bit clearer

I still don't quite understand what you mean by this. Potential names are posted at the top of the publicly visible voting thread. Are you suggesting a waiting period where the names are posted in a separate thread without voting? The only difference between that and the current setup is that any nominees struck from the list would be removed before any votes are cast, as opposed to after the submission of some ballots. The names would still have been made public, and everyone would still know who had been removed.

[ROCKONN]

Are you suggesting a waiting period where the names are posted in a separate thread without voting?

That was indeed my suggestion. As I went on to say, the current method does not allow sufficient time for potentially relevant information that may have been overlooked to be presented. A period with potential names being listed BEFORE being voted on, say of 2-4 days, would be an easy remedy to this.

[BCB228]

Individual server voting wouldn't really work because being a mod on one server = being a mod on the other two.

Yes it would. Just because you get mod on one of the servers doesn't really mean you need / deserve it on the other two. If the servers had server specific moderators instead of server wide moderators there would be less exploiting for mod. If mod powers were only on 1 server it would stop moderators from pve from voting for a friend  on S so they can get powers and play on pve for example.

[Trooprm32]

Yes it would. Just because you get mod on one of the servers doesn't really mean you need / deserve it on the other two. If the servers had server specific moderators instead of server wide moderators there would be less exploiting for mod. If mod powers were only on 1 server it would stop moderators from pve from voting for a friend  on S so they can get powers and play on pve for example.

 

So your argument is you don't want people to vote for their friends on the other servers? If you haven't read this thread, peoples concerns are more towards people ignoring the other servers in favor for their home server.

Besides from that, splitting up server permissions would only cause a greater rift than what already exists between our servers. That is a bad thing.

[BCB228]

So your argument is you don't want people to vote for their friends on the other servers? If you haven't read this thread, peoples concerns are more towards people ignoring the other servers in favor for their home server.

Besides from that, splitting up server permissions would only cause a greater rift than what already exists between our servers. That is a bad thing.

Yeah, it can be exploited so they get power just to use it on another server they did not get nominated on. Who cares if a player favors one server over the others, they might not enjoy them.

 

EeHee2000, on 17 Aug 2014 - 9:16 PM, said:

I agree with your points that a full community vote wouldn't work, now that you've put all that forward.

However, what about individual server voting? 

this is kinda what i was thinking about with the voting thing.

[barneygale]

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.

Because we've never seen that when staff vote.

[tobylane]

I think the current system is considerably more than the lesser of any evil options. If we switched to public voting by anyone then we could never change back. If we switched I think we'd be bouncing between different implementations with no real difference between them, nothing stopping anger and gaming the system building up. The current system is out of our hands. By not feeling in control of this, we don't feel in control of a million things that follow on from mod nominations, the tasks those mods do. It is better that way, there's already so much discussion over what happens just when the admins offer us some options. I'd like the admins to reign in what the playerbase thinks the playerbase is in control of. It would make the fewer discussions better and calmer, because we can only feel in control of less. I wouldn't like to see changes go through based on comparing ideals of one person's idea with the reality of the current setup. The reality of the idea is just as messy, if not worse. Some people say - ideal communism > ideal democracy > real world democracy > real world communism. I'm trying to be mildly radical because a new group of ideas that comes out of one spark can be very beneficial, but it does require seeing the idea for itself, not who said it.

[BCB228]

I think the current system is considerably more than the lesser of any evil options. If we switched to public voting by anyone then we could never change back. If we switched I think we'd be bouncing between different implementations with no real difference between them, nothing stopping anger and gaming the system building up. The current system is out of our hands. By not feeling in control of this, we don't feel in control of a million things that follow on from mod nominations, the tasks those mods do. It is better that way, there's already so much discussion over what happens just when the admins offer us some options. I'd like the admins to reign in what the playerbase thinks the playerbase is in control of. It would make the fewer discussions better and calmer, because we can only feel in control of less. I wouldn't like to see changes go through based on comparing ideals of one person's idea with the reality of the current setup. The reality of the idea is just as messy, if not worse. Some people say - ideal communism > ideal democracy > real world democracy > real world communism. I'm trying to be mildly radical because a new group of ideas that comes out of one spark can be very beneficial, but it does require seeing the idea for itself, not who said it.

you try to hard

[Difficult1]

I totally agree with diamond and den, no from me as well, accept something i would like to see different with mod nominations is how people are chosen. Im all for people who strive to help the community, but people who are just on a lot shouldn't be considered only for that reason.

[nevastop]

NEW POLL, in new thread, since this one is getting pretty full, and i dont want the new one to be overlooked.

https://nerd.nu/forums/index.php?/topic/2462-new-poll-should-mods-only-be-voted-on-and-have-powers-on-one-server/

 

edit: since the new thread has been LOCKED, i have posted the new vote in this thread. sorry about that, but please re-vote.

[EeHee2000]

The reason individual server voting would work is because:
The people that know said person best decide, as compared to getting voted off simply for not knowing the staff that decide whether they get mod or not. 
If someone's mature enough to be seen as mod-worthy on one server, it's very unlikely for them to run amok on the other two. 
Whether or not the individual server votes are kept to being staff-only, I can guarantee it'd work better than the current system we have where being PvE based is by far more beneficial than being Creative/Survival based. 
Considering the misuse of the "I don't know this person well enough" option in modvotes, (staff voting 'no' on people they never bothered to speak to and the like) individual server voting would be far more balanced and much less biased than the current system is. 
If we're getting worried about mods voted in by their friends going rampant with their powers and trying to ruin the servers, please keep in mind the Head Admins have the final word on each candidate - I find it very unlikely that they would let someone through if it's obvious they have little intention of helping nerd.