despite what people think...the ultimate decision is made by the admin...period!
Instead of going into the circular argument, I will say kuddos to everyone... :) I agree Admin/director has the sole authority of choosing the RIGHT and Deserving person :) (Notice I did not say: "should have" nor I am saying he "shouldn't have")
I had said initially I would not write my opinion, which I did not anyway, but I did involve in questioning session with users to see where everyone is coming from. I think I have achieved my purpose of questioning.... Mic over to X2 :)
Instead of going into the circular argument, I will say kuddos to everyone... :) I agree Admin/director has the sole authority of choosing the RIGHT and Deserving person :) (Notice I did not say: "should have" nor I am saying he "shouldn't have")
I had said initially I would not write my opinion, which I did not anyway, but I did involve in questioning session with users to see where everyone is coming from. I think I have achieved my purpose of questioning.... Mic over to X2 :)
oh but AQ...i wasnt even arguing with you. I was talking to arshad :)
I think some people are missing the point that X2 was trying to make.
AFAIK, he is referring to have a system where members VOTE to elect moderators and admins and potentially the directors. That approach is as flawed as they come..., bad idea, not going to work and it will only cause more controversies. Members should not be taking part in such matters, they shouldn't even be talking about who "should" be the director or mod and not who is fit for the job.
Director/Admin is the only person who has the right to carry out such appointments and no body else. People can recommend the person they see fit for the job but admin/director can ignore such recommendations and does not have to give any feedback as to why recommendation was not considered. This is a website and not a country. People come here because they want to, their intellectual and social needs are fulfilled, and as a result if they buy something from the advertisers or click an ad, its just giving back to the community and people who looked after the website.
Even if we have survey based system, where users are asked to fill out a questionnaire after a mod/director has been appointed, you still run into issues where people might report their own personal biases or issues they've had with the people who mod or administer the website.
Since this is a forum, a place where debates occur, opinions are exchanged and disagreement between people is an everyday thing - people will automatically base their recommendations, votes, survey answers in the light of who they disagreed with, who was impressed by their comments and which moderator gave them a warning/edited their post, etc.
For these reasons, members voting or recommending users to influence how this website is run is not a good idea. As far as advisory group is concerned, I am not too sure about that... if there should be one, it should not be public. Why? Because no matter who picks the mods and admins and directors, people will have issues with them... then instead of users blaming the director or mod, they will be picking on members of the advisory group as well and then you run into other issues where people of the advisory group take stabs on those who picked on them... and the saga continues.
Other than the financial aspect of paying for the servers and stuff (sorry Azkar, you'll have to keep footing the bill), I think we all need to take ourselves a little LESS seriously here.
Jeez Louise... this is an online discussion forum we are talking about....!!! To the best of my knowledge, no world problem has ever been solved on Gupshup.
Anyways folks, whether people are taking it or themselves too seriously, or too casually..lets continue talking. thats the goal here.
here is yet another thought i would like to throw out..
mod ratings by members..
i.e. members can rate the mod and that is information shared with director of the forum and may not be public, the director can then use that in conjunction with other factors to evaluate mods. This way user views do factor in as a metric in the evaluations.
I still dont see an issue with the concept of a 50-50 break in appointed vs elected and then staggered terms meaning that for both groups you will see half leave and half new come in.
director holds veto power.
i suppose this can create some tensions in mod teams..the appointed versus elected ones..but as long as it is channeled properly and it does not become a territorial ego fest, what harm could it do?
Mod rating, you are still involving the users. Mods are on to make sure rules are followed, people don't get into mud sling contests, etc. and not if they please the visitors/users.
Thread reporting, mod log (in vbulletin) are some of the features that can help you keep tab on the objectionable content that is posted and what / how mods deal with it - no users/visitors in that picture.
If mod deletes a post or edits it, mod log should show what was edited and by whom and if an issue develops out of that then admin and director can go back and look at the issue... some form of involvement is required by both the director and admins even though there are mods taking care of the immediate content scanning.
Keep it short, simple and sweet. If ain't broke then don't fix it. The present set up is fine, just change some faces if you want, if anybody needs to resign. I prefer continuity in mods. than frequent changes. Only thing that I would suggest is a selection panel of 3 active GS members, just because I have seen a lot of changes in mods. in some forums which suggests that the something is wrong with the present appointment process.
While mods are supposed to be more facilitators, they usually act more like a policeman.
So taking that analogy a bit further, if a city is run on tax-payers money, you can have a good case to suggest that poeple vote for the City Sheriff (top dog). However, if you have every damn cop being voted in and out, no good officer will survive there, and no one will want to be a cop either. And those who will want to be a cop there or survive, will be lousy cops because they will just be pandering to the population rather than carrying out their duties. So to speak.
X2....I dont like the mod ratings idea. Many members who were given warnings, had their posts moved/deleted/edited etc may give mods negative ratings just for doing his/her job.
While mods are supposed to be more facilitators, they usually act more like a policeman.
So taking that analogy a bit further, if a city is run on tax-payers money, you can have a good case to suggest that poeple vote for the City Sheriff (top dog). However, if you have every damn cop being voted in and out, no good officer will survive there, and no one will want to be a cop either. And those who will want to be a cop there or survive, will be lousy cops because they will just be pandering to the population rather than carrying out their duties. So to speak.
If we have top-dogs every where, then cats will run away and one day only dogs will be barking on those empty roads! ...
While the idea should be to bring more people, many people don't like top-dogs for some obvious reasons!
X2....I dont like the mod ratings idea. Many members who were given warnings, had their posts moved/deleted/edited etc may give mods negative ratings just for doing his/her job.
I agree. I think these volunteers have enough on their plate without worrying ratings. Instead of shackling them we need to empower them.
X2....I dont like the mod ratings idea. Many members who were given warnings, had their posts moved/deleted/edited etc may give mods negative ratings just for doing his/her job.
indeed, as they say numbers only tell part of the story, but whats wrong with capturing the story? It can always be set up in a way that u can run something showing avg ratings by ppl who were later banned, warned etc :)
Keep it short, simple and sweet. If ain't broke then don't fix it. The present set up is fine, just change some faces if you want, if anybody needs to resign. I prefer continuity in mods. than frequent changes. Only thing that I would suggest is a selection panel of 3 active GS members, just because I have seen a lot of changes in mods. in some forums which suggests that the something is wrong with the present appointment process.
no one is talking frequent changes, but regular changes. rotate ppl around, move em out, move em in. etc.
Butthanks for noting that if it aint broke dont fix it. as we discuss in this thread more and more people are saying that the curent structure and approach works. Thats a good endorsement :)