To a certain extent, yes, but not quite with the same pitfalls.
No. And my company SUCKS.
(alpha) Reinventing Sciforums -1- Choosing New Mods
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
To a certain extent, yes, but not quite with the same pitfalls.
Any voting process would have to be assured bias-free. Old members only, no socks, and they're probably well enough known anyway.
Alternatively, maybe it would be better just to approach Plazma en masse - a technique known in Eastern circles as an angry mob - to discuss the moderator in question. I can think of few generally questionable ones at this time, however.
Alternatively, maybe it would be better just to approach Plazma en masse - a technique known in Eastern circles as an angry mob - to discuss the moderator in question. I can think of few generally questionable ones at this time, however.
How is that even possible?
You can't have "he said - she said" when it is all written down and viewable by the Admins.
So have you recommended your unique ideas to them, you know, voting against a board member?
I would, but I stopped taking the Voice of the Employee survey a few years ago after writing a scathing three page letter about how senior management doesn't take the survey seriously and how I would never partake in the farce again.
That was a damned good letter. I wish i had a copy to share.
I even had a reference to the only purpose of it being senior management sucking each other's dicks over how well they listen to their employees.
One of my finest moments at the company.
Time to catch up with the 21st century...
What, really? Nice.
And you still work there?
Yes.
Not only that, but the specific behavior I was referring to which caused my complaint, ceased folowing my letter.
I felt quite accomplished.
Briefly, I speak again for myself and not as an administrator.
I think that Avatar's suggestion is overly prescriptive, and seems to be based fundamentally on a lack of trust in the administrators/owners of sciforums. It assumes that moderators and administrators need to be restricted in many ways in their choice of moderators.
I also don't like Stryder's suggestion of CVs. Like Ben, I wish to keep most aspects of my private life separate from my online life. This follows from a somewhat nasty experience I had with a disgruntled poster in the past on another forum. Thus, I am happy to be evaluated on the basis of my posts and on my ability to moderate objectively and so on, but not on what my job is in real life, or my family circumstances, or where I live, or anything like that.
But let's look at the process. Suppose I wish to reapply for a position as administrator after the spill suggested by Avatar. What do I have to do?
1. First, I need three recommendations for science subforum moderators. This begs the question of how "original" moderators are to be appointed in the first instance.
2. I need one recommendation from an admin. Not a problem, since this is already necessary for any moderator appointment.
3. Then, I create a thread in OG forum asking whether the members approve of me becoming a mod.
4. 50 votes are needed, of which at least 34 must be in favour of me. Of course, it goes without saying that those who bear a grudge because of any past actions as admin or moderator (and there are quite a few) will rush to vote against me. And getting a quorum of 50 votes with the current membership is in any case a difficult proposition.
5. I then need to get recommended for admin by 4 out of 5 moderators. So, if there are 10 moderators in total, I need 8 recommendations before I can even consider running for admin.
6. I then need 2/3 of admins or supermods to vote for me. This is actually not prescriptive enough. And administrator or supermoderator must, in my opinion, have the confidence of ALL other administrators and supermods.
7. Then there's finally another vote (among just moderators, or all members?). Again, I assume I need 34 votes out of 50.
This is a ridiculously complicated and unnecessary process. It also would not guarantee any kind of "unbiased" outcome, which I assume is Avatar's aim in making the suggestion.
I understand that the aim here is to remove power from the moderators and administrators and give it to the general membership, because of the idea that the admins and moderators can't be trusted.
I wonder why anybody would want to participate in a forum where the moderators cannot be trusted to handle the day-to-day running of the forum.
I think that Avatar's suggestion is overly prescriptive, and seems to be based fundamentally on a lack of trust in the administrators/owners of sciforums. It assumes that moderators and administrators need to be restricted in many ways in their choice of moderators.
I also don't like Stryder's suggestion of CVs. Like Ben, I wish to keep most aspects of my private life separate from my online life. This follows from a somewhat nasty experience I had with a disgruntled poster in the past on another forum. Thus, I am happy to be evaluated on the basis of my posts and on my ability to moderate objectively and so on, but not on what my job is in real life, or my family circumstances, or where I live, or anything like that.
But let's look at the process. Suppose I wish to reapply for a position as administrator after the spill suggested by Avatar. What do I have to do?
1. First, I need three recommendations for science subforum moderators. This begs the question of how "original" moderators are to be appointed in the first instance.
2. I need one recommendation from an admin. Not a problem, since this is already necessary for any moderator appointment.
3. Then, I create a thread in OG forum asking whether the members approve of me becoming a mod.
4. 50 votes are needed, of which at least 34 must be in favour of me. Of course, it goes without saying that those who bear a grudge because of any past actions as admin or moderator (and there are quite a few) will rush to vote against me. And getting a quorum of 50 votes with the current membership is in any case a difficult proposition.
5. I then need to get recommended for admin by 4 out of 5 moderators. So, if there are 10 moderators in total, I need 8 recommendations before I can even consider running for admin.
6. I then need 2/3 of admins or supermods to vote for me. This is actually not prescriptive enough. And administrator or supermoderator must, in my opinion, have the confidence of ALL other administrators and supermods.
7. Then there's finally another vote (among just moderators, or all members?). Again, I assume I need 34 votes out of 50.
This is a ridiculously complicated and unnecessary process. It also would not guarantee any kind of "unbiased" outcome, which I assume is Avatar's aim in making the suggestion.
I understand that the aim here is to remove power from the moderators and administrators and give it to the general membership, because of the idea that the admins and moderators can't be trusted.
I wonder why anybody would want to participate in a forum where the moderators cannot be trusted to handle the day-to-day running of the forum.
I am calm, but I stepped away for a bit to have my diapers changed.
Maybe they don't bitch as much as me because they haven't had to deal with SAM like I have. There is also the possibility that some are too afraid to speak up on the forum because they don't want to be insulted with all their personal info thrown in their face, which I get a lot. They rather just do it in PM which to me seems rather cowardly. If I have something to say, I will say it to your face.
You personally did not mention the conspiracy theory but SAM seems to be paranoid that when ppl leave suddenly or PM someone, something is going on.
Just because you may have noticed a bit of "click" of members going on doesn't mean they are up to anything other then talking about more personal things they don't want on the forum.
Members here have their own brains and they can see what is going on here for themselves. You can't seem to wrap your brain around the fact that there are a lot of members here that can't stand SAM. They were here before me, they will be here even if I leave. Stop trying to use me for the reason that SAM is so disliked.
The last few threads I saw about De-modding SAM or whatever were started by members I don't even talk to.
Also if I had that much influence on these members why don't they all hate Orleander too, because I can't stand her either. I still talk to them regardless of who they like or dislike that is up to them not me.
Really.
It was very nice.
It was also at this company when a supervisor was yelling at me (not MY supervisor) for something I did not do.
The month prior he tried to call a colleague of mine out to the parking lot.
I looked up at him smiling and said, "You seriously overestimate how important this job is to me. I'm not <colleague's name>, I'll take you outside and wipe the fucking floor with you. If you want to be treated with respect, you need to learn how to show some respect. I've never given you any reason to speak to me like that, and it better never happen again."
He walked away and never yelled at me again.
It was a very freeing feeling.
Now I outrank him.
Really.
It was very nice.
It was also at this company when a supervisor was yelling at me (not MY supervisor) for something I did not do.
The month prior he tried to call a colleague of mine out to the parking lot.
I looked up at him smiling and said, "You seriously overestimate how important this job is to me. I'm not <colleague's name>, I'll take you outside and wipe the fucking floor with you. If you want to be treated with respect, you need to learn how to show some respect. I've never given you any reason to speak to me like that, and it better never happen again."
He walked away and never yelled at me again.
It was a very freeing feeling.
Now I outrank him.
Verily, you are the essence of yeck fu philosophy.
I shall follow your ways for a thousand moons or until I get sleepy.
:worship:
Bells
Staff member
I am calm, but I stepped away for a bit to have my diapers changed.
Maybe they don't bitch as much as me because they haven't had to deal with SAM like I have. There is also the possibility that some are too afraid to speak up on the forum because they don't want to be insulted with all their personal info thrown in their face, which I get a lot. They rather just do it in PM which to me seems rather cowardly. If I have something to say, I will say it to your face.
You personally did not mention the conspiracy theory but SAM seems to be paranoid that when ppl leave suddenly or PM someone, something is going on.
Just because you may have noticed a bit of "click" of members going on doesn't mean they are up to anything other then talking about more personal things they don't want on the forum.
Members here have their own brains and they can see what is going on here for themselves. You can't seem to wrap your brain around the fact that there are a lot of members here that can't stand SAM. They were here before me, they will be here even if I leave. Stop trying to use me for the reason that SAM is so disliked.
The last few threads I saw about De-modding SAM or whatever were started by members I don't even talk to.
Also if I had that much influence on these members why don't they all hate Orleander too, because I can't stand her either. I still talk to them regardless of who they like or dislike that is up to them not me.
Which again brings forth the problem of the voting method. It would simply be a popularity contest, regardless of how it was implemented.
You don't like Sam. That much is obvious. You have been spewing it all over the forum for months now. And yet, you are unable to give one single example of how she is somehow an unqualified or bad moderator of the subforums she happens to moderate in. You have yet to cite one single incident where she abused her powers in the sub-forums she moderates in.
Your response in this thread is a perfect example of how the voting system can (and has failed dismally in the past) fail.
I have given you more then a few examples for the past yr. I can't give you them now because they have all been deleted. Whenever I would post in her FORUM, half of my posts would be deleted.
She would let Spud, Orleander etc post a lot of shit in there and joke around. As soon as I said something remotely similar it was deleted. When I would try and ask her why my posts were deleted, she would just repost with a warning. She never sent me a PM explaining why they were deleted. It was just basically, because I said so now shut up because I am warning you not to ask again. It was frustrating as HELL. There were others who got sick of their posts just disappearing with no explanation either. But her little "click" of members could continue to post BS, and she just laughed.
She would let Spud, Orleander etc post a lot of shit in there and joke around. As soon as I said something remotely similar it was deleted. When I would try and ask her why my posts were deleted, she would just repost with a warning. She never sent me a PM explaining why they were deleted. It was just basically, because I said so now shut up because I am warning you not to ask again. It was frustrating as HELL. There were others who got sick of their posts just disappearing with no explanation either. But her little "click" of members could continue to post BS, and she just laughed.
You could have fooled me sweetheart.
SAM is a scientist, but even children can connect dots.
I'm looking, currently, for threads that you've started during your tenure here at SciForums. And, in fact, I see mostly "Free Thoughts" and "About the Members". This isn't surprising, however; what IS surprising is that you've only started one thread (of 127 total) in Biology and Genetics. If I extrapolate this ratio of about 1% to your post count, I can conclude that you've only made 100 posts in a forum moderated by SAM. This seems generous, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps I am concluding things that I shouldn't be concluding, and you can correct me (as I'm sure you will), but it seems to me that most of your interaction with SAM is outside of her jurisdiction, so to speak.
So really, it seems that you have a problem with SAM the member, and not SAM the moderator. Just because you dislike SAM's opinions, as I'm sure many here do, this gives you absolutely no grounds for claiming that she's a bad moderator.
You may hate me, but I've never seen you post in Physics and Math. So should I (or anyone else) take you seriously when you complain that I'm a bad moderator?
BenTheMan um ben, compulsery voting in australia rember. If he is over 18 he has no choice BUT to vote
The question was more rhetorical than anything.