January 2015 Mod Vote For Everyone

[Natdog]

(This is an unofficial vote please keep in mind any data gained from this poll may or may not be used)

 

Hello everyone,

 

Its that time again- time to vote in some new mods.

 

The list of players above was compiled based on nominations and feedback in the Moderator Nominations forum and reviewed by the admin team.

 

Everyone on this list has been contacted and asked if they would like to be included in this vote.

 

A few things to keep mind before you vote:

• "Yes" means "I am supporting this person, and want to see this person as a moderator."
• "No" means "I don't think this person should be a moderator."
• "Don't know well enough" means "I don't know this person well enough to make a decision."
• The results are public, so anyone will be able to see who you voted for.

As always, if anyone has any concerns about anyone on this list please contact any of the head admins (jchance, MrLoud15, Dumbo52, scherererererererererer, and cyotie911)

 

Voting will end in 1 week on Jan 12, 2015 and new mods will be announced no later than Jan 19, 2015 after voting has ended.

 

(This is an unofficial vote please keep in mind any data gained from this poll may or may not be used)

Edited January 6, 2015 by Natdog

[XXX]

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting this? The public's positive reception towards candidates has no direct influence on the outcome; that is solely for staff to decide amongst themselves. If anyone has objections over the nomination of a candidate, then they can bring up their concerns with the head administrators - just like the announcement says. If you want to nominate yourself or someone else for the position of moderator, then use this link: http://nerd.nu/applyformod/

The only purpose I see this poll serving is being the catalyst for drama and friction within the community.

[TornadoHorse]

Natdog has done this for a few voting rounds now, I believe it started off when players weren't happy with the votes being unrepresentative from the staff so it was quite an interesting experiment. Unless there are inappropriate comments then I don't see how this thread is any different to the staff vote. If there are inappropriate comments then they will be removed instead of the whole thread being locked. If you don't want to be a part of the vote then you don't have to.

[Rokku117]

Can I get any sort of clarification on why this post is here? Are the admins actually supporting this or is it just a random selection of "Players who I think should be mod"

[tobylane]

Can I get any sort of clarification on why this post is here? Are the admins actually supporting this or is it just a random selection of "Players who I think should be mod"

 

It's a repost of the vote in mod-chat. This poll is open to members of the forum, by a member, where the results will only be used by members.

[XXX]

Unless there are inappropriate comments then I don't see how this thread is any different to the staff vote.

Because the people who show their disdain for the candidates by voting 'No' are being just as unconstructive as those who downvote someone's post without an explanation. If you have issues with the nomination of one of the candidates, then express them to a head administrator, instead of being passive-aggressive with a poll.

To summarize, anything other than 'No' is irrelevant, and 'No' is only relevant if people provide their reasoning along with it. I doubt everyone who voted 'No' has provided their reasoning to a head administrator, but if they 'have', then what good is a tally of dissatisfied people going to do to dissuade the head administrators from promoting someone to moderator if the reasonings provided haven't already done so?

EDIT:

The opposite situation would also fit, if the public was overwhelmingly voting 'Yes', while the staff was overwhelmingly voting 'No'.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Sir_Walmsley

[TornadoHorse]

Not at all. This vote is no different to the staff vote apart from who can vote. It may not effect the final result of the staff vote, but it gives an idea of which people are supported amongst the community, after all were meant to be a community server, right? I think doing this is a good compromise between allowing players vote on staff and not having any say at all. Unless you are overly sensitive and looking for negatives there are no downsides to this poll. It might be a bit pointless in the end, that's fine, no one is forcing you to be a part of it.

Why are players not allowed to vote no here, but staff are allowed to vote no in their thread? Everyone is allowed an opinion and if it's presented in an appropriate way as it is here then that's fine. I don't really follow your argument and this really isn't a major issue. No one should be offended by this and it's fine if you don't want to be involved.

[XXX]

It may not effect the final result of the staff vote, but it gives an idea of which people are supported amongst the community, after all were meant to be a community server, right?

Please provide an example of where the measurement of "support" is applicable.

I think doing this is a good compromise between allowing players vote on staff and not having any say at all.

You 'do' have a say in the matter, though. If you disagree with the consensus of the staff, then I see no reason as to why your complaint (if it's valid) would be viewed any lesser than that of a staff member; the truth is the truth regardless of who says it.

Why are players not allowed to vote no here, but staff are allowed to vote no in their thread? Everyone is allowed an opinion and if it's presented in an appropriate way as it is here then that's fine.

I've already addressed this, but I guess I'll repeat myself. This is 'not' an appropriate way for people to express their viewpoints, because all it shows us is that people are dissatisfied, but we're left without reasons as to why. Taking the passive-aggressive approach is a very roundabout way of achieving your goals. Allowing things to snowball just turns headaches into migraines for everyone involved. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you're off in the corner throwing a temper tantrum over something that others are oblivious to. Like I keep saying, if you have a problem with a nominated candidate, then take that up with a head administrator in private.

 

The fact that I have to repeat myself just goes to show that this conversation is going around in circles. You yourself have agreed that this poll is a bit pointless in the end, so I don't know what else there is to discuss.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Sir_Walmsley

[Deaygo]

I am in agreement with Sir_Walmsley on this, if there are concerns with people that have been nominated, bring it up with the head admins on what your concerns are.  There is no indication as to reasoning of votes here.  I would suggest if you have issues, bring it to the heads.  This seems like a frivolous thread.

[TornadoHorse]

What do you mean "where applicable"? If lots of players support a nomination, that may change someone's point of view. The nominee may act differently to players than they do staff, this vote would help show that.

In an ideal world that would be the case but I don't think it is. Many players have felt this also as is apparent from many of the forum and subreddit threads. Not all no votes mean the player is an insult saying that the player is awful, it's just that you don't think they would make a good moderator, that you don't think there needs to be any more mods or any number of reasons. A no vote isn't a complaint, it just isn't support.

I understood you the first time, but I disagree. This way is totally acceptable and appropriate and as I have said many times, there should be no way for anyone to get offended by it so there's no reason for it not to be here.

Pointless was the wrong word. I meant to say that nothing negative will come from it. The positives are that the right people get modded and the community supports the staff decisions.

[djt832]

Natdog has done this a couple times now, I don't think its caused any issues in the past, so I don't see why it has to now. Its just a fun post for the rest of the community to vote, it doesn't have any implications towards their chances of getting staff. Its not anything serious, so lets not take this and turn it into something that will cause drama. Just have fun with it!

[SpiderMan]

Natdog has done this a couple times now, I don't think its caused any issues in the past, so I don't see why it has to now. Its just a fun post for the rest of the community to vote, it doesn't have any implications towards their chances of getting staff. Its not anything serious, so lets not take this and turn it into something that will cause drama. Just have fun with it!

 

It didn't cause ANY drama the past few times.

 

I think people should stop making mountains out of molehills.

[admanta]

I think this poll was a good idea; it allows a simple way to gauge the communities perception of the people being nominated.

It also helps make the leadership processes more transparent, reducing drama and conflict over the longer term. 

 

[XkinOEC]

As a voice who has been ignored by a head admin in the past, I see this as a wonderful way for all of them to realize that not everyone is comfortable with the choices they (many of whom do not partake in the "community") make in terms of who we can vote for. As it stands, contacting any of them personally Usually leads to the others not finding out and/or nothing getting done about it. This theory has been tested many times, by not only myself but other members on the server. The players voices do need to be heard, as that has been what has slowly been killing off our player base on nerd.nu.

 

Jchance did a good job as a cadmin with cleanup of many years with little to no improvement on C. World Edit has been a requested feature since the early days, and no jumps were made to even give us a single one of those features until his arrival. He listened to the player voices, and now C is quite a happier place. But that's just C.

This method gives a list of people who feel one way or the other, and allows the admins to ask us specifically why we feel that way. Just as it should be when our concern is preventing this Minecraft community from dying off.

[EeHee2000]

There really isn't a problem with this thread, don't have a fucking hissyfit just because players want to voice their opinions. It's healthy to be able to compare staff opinions to player's opinions. To echo pretty much everyone above, this isn't causing any issues and more to the point there's no need to paint it in a light that depicts it as 'drama-starting'. 

[Magnyus]

Can we stop just picking players that play a lot and and start getting moderators with different timezones? It's pretty ridiculous to see that we still don't have mods online around the clock.

[kittypuppet]

Can we stop just picking players that play a lot and and start getting moderators with different timezones? It's pretty ridiculous to see that we still don't have mods online around the clock.

 

Yeah.. I've gone hours (and I mean, 4, 5 hours) online before without seeing any mods on any of the servers.

And I'm getting irked at everyone supposedly being AFK and/or not around when there's an issue. Sure, I can put in a modreq, but with all the mods that we have, how is it that half the time there's still nobody around? I mean really - we have 51 mods (not including inactive), and 22 admins (including headadmins) and we still go hours without staff. I get that people have lives they need to attend to, but you'd think that with 73 staff members, SOMEBODY would be online on each of the servers.

[Pyr0mrcow]

Who would you suggest for off-hours staffing? Purely curious.

[schererererer]

Yeah.. I've gone hours (and I mean, 4, 5 hours) online before without seeing any mods on any of the servers.

And I'm getting irked at everyone supposedly being AFK and/or not around when there's an issue. Sure, I can put in a modreq, but with all the mods that we have, how is it that half the time there's still nobody around? I mean really - we have 51 mods (not including inactive), and 22 admins (including headadmins) and we still go hours without staff. I get that people have lives they need to attend to, but you'd think that with 73 staff members, SOMEBODY would be online on each of the servers.

This is actually one of the focal concerns this round that we discussed when reviewing mod nominations - trying to focus on hours of need. Some thought that (at least at the time) we had no need of new mods, but others among us noted exactly what you're bringing up. This round of mod nominations took into much stronger consideration what hours players are online and aimed to pick up people who frequent the servers during times lacking in coverage. Many of the nominees were discussed with this at the very fore of their consideration, but more recently mod coverage across the board has seemed to be dwindling, and so we didn't want to constrain ourselves unnecessarily.

[XXX]

What do you mean "where applicable"? If lots of players support a nomination, that may change someone's point of view. The nominee may act differently to players than they do staff, this vote would help show that.

How? You just run into the same problem that you do by voting 'No'. It doesn't matter if the opinion of the public outweighs the opinion of the staff, because the numbers from this poll don't prove anything; the majority is not right by default. The poll results may lend themselves into 'showing' that there is a problem, but they don't 'prove' that there is a problem, and nothing gets accomplished unless you provide proof. You can kill two birds with one stone by providing proof, because it also shows that there is a problem at the same time, thus making this poll completely unnecessary, because you can't provide proof of the problem with it, only show it. If you want to prove something, then outline 'why' the opinion of the staff is wrong. How can you expect to fix something if you aren't telling the people in charge what to fix, how to fix it, and why they should fix it?

I find it unsettling that you think inapplicable statistics potentially peer pressuring a staff member into making an irrational decision is a positive thing.

 

In an ideal world that would be the case but I don't think it is. Many players have felt this also as is apparent from many of the forum and subreddit threads. Not all no votes mean the player is an insult saying that the player is awful, it's just that you don't think they would make a good moderator, that you don't think there needs to be any more mods or any number of reasons. A no vote isn't a complaint, it just isn't support.

I understood you the first time, but I disagree. This way is totally acceptable and appropriate and as I have said many times, there should be no way for anyone to get offended by it so there's no reason for it not to be here.

Pointless was the wrong word. I meant to say that nothing negative will come from it. The positives are that the right people get modded and the community supports the staff decisions.

There seem to be some misconceptions here, so I will attempt to clear them up. Regardless of why people are voting 'No' (or 'Yes' for an inverse situation), they should be constructive and provide their reasoning along with it. I couldn't give a fuck if you hurt the feelings of the candidates that you are voting 'No' for, and that is not why I wrote these posts; when I said that this poll would only serve as the catalyst for drama and friction within the community, that is not what I meant by it. What I was trying to get across, is the fact that people who choose not to fully express themselves and deal with the problem in the moment are only allowing the problem to unnecessarily perpetuate and/or escalate. This poll may not be doing any apparent harm, but it's passive-aggressive and doesn't solve anything, either. That's really the whole point of my posts, is to show everyone that there are far more productive ways of achieving their goals.

[TornadoHorse]

How? You just run into the same problem that you do by voting 'No'. It doesn't matter if the opinion of the public outweighs the opinion of the staff, because the numbers from this poll don't prove anything; the majority is not right by default. The poll results may lend themselves into 'showing' that there is a problem, but they don't 'prove' that there is a problem, and nothing gets accomplished unless you provide proof.

 

It isn't a problem that the community may influence a staff's vote. We're meant to be a community server and the staff are meant to represent the players, what's so bad about them doing just that? You're absolutely right, this poll doesn't prove anything, but it may show if there is a problem. That's exactly what it's meant to do and I'm glad that you can see that. If there's not a problem there's nothing to show and it just acts as a fun vote than shows that the community supports the staff's decision.

 

How can you expect to fix something if you aren't telling the people in charge what to fix, how to fix it, and why they should fix it?

 

Well, they're not children. We don't need to tell the heads exactly what to do in every situation, and also because that's their job. If there are problems and issues with the vote (which this vote shows them) then they can look into it. At that point, those who have brought up concerns will likely be spoken to.

 

Regardless of why people are voting 'No' (or 'Yes' for an inverse situation), they should be constructive and provide their reasoning along with it. I couldn't give a fuck if you hurt the feelings of the candidates that you are voting 'No' for, and that is not why I wrote these posts

 

That doesn't happen in any of the public votes anymore. I'd be inclined to agree that if we aren't saying why someone isn't fit for the role then they simply won't learn what they need to improve on, however that hasn't been how these votes run for many nomination rounds now and since this way doesn't seem to be broken, there's no reason to change it. I also agree that if players take these votes to heart and get upset about it then they probably aren't ready to be staff, maybe we could work on a way to give feedback to the unsuccessful nominees in future.

 

This poll may not be doing any apparent harm, but it's passive-aggressive and doesn't solve anything, either. That's really the whole point of my posts, is to show everyone that there are far more productive ways of achieving their goals.

 

I still have to disagree that it's passive-aggressive and it can show problems and/or support whilst not being negative. But I understand what you mean now that if anyone has any important concerns they need to be brought to the heads rather than covered with a vote here.

[Narissis]

Regarding the minor controversy in this thread: I think it's important to look at the results from a mature, objective standpoint, which means understanding that a "No" vote does not mean "I dislike this person" or really anything negative about the individual. It only means that the voter does not necessarily see that individual becoming a moderator. Most likely because they've already voted "Yes" to somebody that they feel is more deserving. That should be interpreted as a compliment to the person that they're supporting, not as an insult to those whom they are not.

 

To be completely frank, if any of the candidates takes "No" votes personally, I would see that as a sign that they are not cut out for a moderator position. People who hold this role should be mature enough to understand that not everyone will agree with them or support them every time, and that's okay.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Narissis

[EeHee2000]

Whilst I agree with Narissis in general in his above post, it's important to note that not all staff are able to vote properly. For example, a past admin once voted 'no' on literally everyone that wasn't from their 'home' server despite there being an "I don't know this player well enough" option - however for the most part the current voting round seems to be in order. 

[Sapphric]

Whilst I agree with Narissis in general in his above post, it's important to note that not all staff are able to vote properly. For example, a past admin once voted 'no' on literally everyone that wasn't from their 'home' server despite there being an "I don't know this player well enough" option - however for the most part the current voting round seems to be in order. 

 

To be fair, having a "Don't know well enough" option is fairly recent, like the last 2-3 mod votes, IIRC. "No" used to mean either "No" or "I don't know them well enough". That's why the options were separated. 

[XXX]

It isn't a problem that the community may influence a staff's vote. We're meant to be a community server and the staff are meant to represent the players, what's so bad about them doing just that?

I never said that I disagreed with the community influencing the staff's decisions - assuming their influence is in the form of proof. I said that I have a problem with inapplicable statistics potentially peer pressuring a staff member into making an irrational decision. There's a difference.

 

 

You're absolutely right, this poll doesn't prove anything, but it may show if there is a problem. That's exactly what it's meant to do and I'm glad that you can see that. If there's not a problem there's nothing to show and it just acts as a fun vote than shows that the community supports the staff's decision.

You can't show that a problem exists with these poll results alone, though; the poll results can only be used 'in conjunction' with proof from other sources, which is why I said that the poll results only "lent themselves" in showing that a problem exists. Even though you may vote together unanimously against the staff, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to have identical and coherent reasons that led them to their vote. This is why everyone needs to share their opinion individually, because these poll results will not display everyones' diverse reasonings, and it allows the head administrators to weed out any irrelevant and/or invalid opinions before taking the poll results into consideration. Even then, the leftover poll results would only serve as a tally of the people who have voiced relevant opinions, because you've already shown that a problem exists by providing your proof that the problem exists. So why do you need to provide the head administrators with a tally of these people? Do you think that the head administrators are incapable of accumulating the opinions of these people and piecing them together amongst themselves to paint a picture of the communities' opinions without a tally?

If what Nickeox said is true, and the head administrators are indeed incapable of doing this, then you should be seeking to rectify 'that' problem, while 'also' showing and proving that the consensus of the staff is wrong at the same time. You should be requesting that there be a place where you can submit your opinion on each separate candidate, which has a further subdivision of 'Yes' and 'No' sections for the sake of tidiness; only the head administrators would have access to viewing the submissions. If there needs to be clarification on something, then a head administrator can message the person and paste the conversation into this person's submission for the rest of the head administrators to read. You would no longer need to cherry pick one of the head administrators and hope that your opinion gets shared with the rest of them. This solution would also reduce the amount of messages being sent to the head administrators that they have to sort through.

You would still need a way to gauge whether or not the head administrators actually listened to the community, though. How do you propose that be done? Do you expect each individual head administrator to publicly share how they voted and why, so you can scrutinize them if their reasons are bogus?

 

 

Well, they're not children. We don't need to tell the heads exactly what to do in every situation, and also because that's their job.

Yup, all of your problems will be solved, just as soon as they get around to reading your mind.

Yeah, no. That's why it took so long for the staff to comprehend why they needed to split the 'No' vote into 'No' and 'I don't know this person well enough' when voting for moderators. I complained to a moderator about it more than a year and a half ago, back while I was being nominated for moderator, but nothing was done about it until recently. After I was voted in, I declined the moderator position, because (among other reasons) a lot of the people who voted 'Yes' for me hadn't even met me, and I was told by the same moderator that they were likely basing their decision on anecdotal evidence they had received from others, instead of making an informed decision based on first-hand experiences.

Whose fault is it that it has taken so long for the 'No' option to be split? I could sit here and easily place the blame on the staff, but how were they to know if I wasn't making certain that they were aware of the issue? Should the moderator whom I complained to done a better job of echoing my voice? Perhaps, but people only have themselves to blame if they don't speak on their own behalf to ensure that their voice actually gets heard.

 

That doesn't happen in any of the public votes anymore. I'd be inclined to agree that if we aren't saying why someone isn't fit for the role then they simply won't learn what they need to improve on, however that hasn't been how these votes run for many nomination rounds now and since this way doesn't seem to be broken, there's no reason to change it. I also agree that if players take these votes to heart and get upset about it then they probably aren't ready to be staff, maybe we could work on a way to give feedback to the unsuccessful nominees in future.

I apologize for being unclear, I did not mean that people should be voicing their opinion publicly. I assumed that since I had repeated myself so many times with "message a head administrator", that I was merely being redundant, and no longer felt it necessary to include. Also, when I said that I didn't care if the candidates had their feeling hurt, I meant by simply receiving a 'No' vote in this poll. Oops.