Moderator Elections

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't know if you're joking about Rel,

I was joking and forgot the smiley to convey that. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it now.

I think the reason why I suggested this idea is that, in my 7 years of teaching media studies, no student of mine has ever belonged to an internet community where they had even minimal or indirect say in the governance of their community.

I had one time where I thought a moderator had reacted a little rashly in a thread that was starting to show signs of veering into trouble for a bit, but had put itself back on track by the time it was closed. I e-mailed the moderator and explained how I saw it. They agreed they overreacted to a reported post and reopended the thread when they had time to look at it a little more. I personally think this shows that while it is a dictatorship the community at large can have some amount of influence.

They all spend an awful lot of time in virtual communities that might best be described as benign dictatorships or oligarchies. (No offense intended.)

And that really, really worries me, given how much time we spend online.

What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?

I don't see EN World as being much different than the companies I have been employed by. Those companies have certain expectations as to how their employees will conduct themselves. I can choose to follow the rules or ignore them, but there will be serious consequences if I choose the latter. As an employee, I have no direct say in the policies put forth by senior management. I can make suggestions, but management is under no obligation to proceed with them, even if the majority of the employees agree. The risk they take is that the employees will leave if they feel they are not being treated with respect, which is the same risk EN World has.

Personally if I were teaching media studies, I might use EN World as an example that even on the internet there can be expectations upon a community that, when enforced fairly, can lead to a community that for the most part is pleasant and constructive and polices itself.

 

[Crothian]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. EN World works great as is let's leave it that way.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Just because someone is paying for the site doesn't necessarily make them a good candidate for being a moderator.

 

[roguerouge]

Of course, if more and more real life institutions are run undemocratically, that's not exactly a good sign, either. One could also suggest that there are better or other ways to running THIS site than as a corporation, local government or a school would. Alternatively, you could site other models similar to this proposal of governing social institutions, particularly in education and communities of interest.

And they are also perfectly free to actively or passively choose to leave. People come and go from online communities all the time because they don't like their tone and governance, and they find someplace new to hang out.

While on the one hand, when joining an existing community like ENWorld you may not have direct input, if you want to you can easily create your own place with your own rules.

I'll also point out that if the vast majority of online communities are not responsive to the will of its "citizens," then there's not much real choice as all the options are the same. And, of course, there's an obvious response to the "love it or leave it" argument, which is that one can love EN World and want to improve it as well. (Again, the tone meant here is not combative. The RL quote reference is intended to communicate with clarity, not antagonism. Also, I am not perceiving the quoted posters as being combative either.)

As to the point about it being more difficult to "reboot" a community as having elections, well, EVERY society that has elections had to make that cross-over. And, in some ways, it would actually be easier to pull-off such "nation-rebuilding" here than in real life.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, but the question remains: other than being an interesting social experiment (and I don't really want my site being used as a guinea pig for such!), why? Why would that make it "better" rather than "different"?

 

[roguerouge]

I dunno why, but this sounds like a bad idea. I liked the idea that non-CS are still "part of the community" in many ways, just had no access to the more involved features, like search (well, and PM).[/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]

Okay, adding an additional layer of hierarchy might be a cost to this proposal, which may or may not counter-balance the benefits of it.

Erm... so basically, moderators should stop trying to keep everything civil and instead favour CS? Or do you mean something else - because what is the other influence of a moderator besides moderating the discussion?[/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]

I'm not fully sure what the proposal means yet. The idea is in its very early stages of discussion. Moderating the discussion is a pretty huge power, of course. But the mods influence the owners and administrators of the site, and they do other things as well: they generate content (such as the April Fool's Day), they run the business, they determine who gets to advertise (c.f. the heated discussion of "God Hates Elves" parody ad banner). Perhaps they would work as a moderator and an advocate for their constituency's interests or perhaps they would work solely as an advocate.

I think the particular duties of this position would be best decided through discussion.

Personally, I think the moderators keep selecting new moderators, when they need them - so I assume we already have a fitting number of moderators. And having too much of them is bad as well... so if you want to keep the current number, who do you want to get rid off?[/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]

It was an argument for a benefit in the spirit of "Many hands make light work," not "Let's toss Moderator X off the island." The proposal is not to get rid of the moderator system entirely, but to experiment with a change to the system that might lead to important benefits, both tangible and intangible.

It's an experiment, not a radical change.

First, we already have the meta boards and e-mails for contacting moderators for such issues, [/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]

Certainly! Of course, to make a Simpsons reference, Homer could contact his new alien overlords in many different ways, but that doesn't make for an effective form of self-determination.

Furthermore, on which grounds are you going to select candidates? Popularity vote? Current mod vote (which close to the current process)? [/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]

Good question. One would assume that anyone could run, but there could be a run-off system that gradually eliminates fringe candidates. Anyone got any ideas?

I fear "elected" mods may be worse - and how do you get rid of them, if they're doing things wrong, they're community elected, after all. [/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]

Fear of change is an important emotion to acknowledge, and obeying that emotional response may be the wisest course. But it also might not be.

As for the later concern, a recall system or term limits or limited duration terms should be discussed.

 

[roguerouge]

I dunno why, but this sounds like a bad idea. I liked the idea that non-CS are still "part of the community" in many ways, just had no access to the more involved features, like search (well, and PM).

Okay, adding an additional layer of hierarchy might be a cost to this proposal, which may or may not counter-balance the benefits of it.

Erm... so basically, moderators should stop trying to keep everything civil and instead favour CS? Or do you mean something else - because what is the other influence of a moderator besides moderating the discussion?

I'm not fully sure what the proposal means yet. The idea is in its very early stages of discussion. Moderating the discussion is a pretty huge power, of course. But the mods influence the owners and administrators of the site, and they do other things as well: they generate content (such as the April Fool's Day), they run the business, they determine who gets to advertise (c.f. the heated discussion of "God Hates Elves" parody ad banner). Perhaps they would work as a moderator and an advocate for their constituency's interests or perhaps they would work solely as an advocate.

I think the particular duties of this position would be best decided through discussion.

Personally, I think the moderators keep selecting new moderators, when they need them - so I assume we already have a fitting number of moderators. And having too much of them is bad as well... so if you want to keep the current number, who do you want to get rid off?

It was an argument for a benefit in the spirit of "Many hands make light work," not "Let's toss Moderator X off the island." The proposal is not to get rid of the moderator system entirely, but to experiment with a change to the system that might lead to important benefits, both tangible and intangible.

It's an experiment, not a radical change.

First, we already have the meta boards and e-mails for contacting moderators for such issues,

Certainly! Of course, to make a Simpsons reference, Homer could contact his new alien overlords in many different ways, but that doesn't make for an effective form of self-determination.

Furthermore, on which grounds are you going to select candidates? Popularity vote? Current mod vote (which close to the current process)?

Good question. One would assume that anyone could run, but there could be a run-off system that gradually eliminates fringe candidates. Anyone got any ideas?

I fear "elected" mods may be worse - and how do you get rid of them, if they're doing things wrong, they're community elected, after all.

Fear of change is an important emotion to acknowledge, and obeying that emotional response may be the wisest course. But it also might not be.

As for the later concern, a recall system or term limits or limited duration terms should be discussed.

 

[roguerouge]

Yes, but the question remains: other than being an interesting social experiment (and I don't really want my site being used as a guinea pig for such!), why? Why would that make it "better" rather than "different"?

First off, let's be clear, I certainly know that nothing's happening without the buy-in of the administrators and owners of this business site.

There are four advantages that I can think of right now:

1. Voting may increase Community Supporter purchases, as this "new feature" may have a market demand to those community members who have not taken that step.

2. Since no one else in the niche market of gaming discussion communities has taken this step, it may provide a market advantage at an especially important time. It could attract new members, of which some would buy Community Supporter accounts. It could lead members to spend more time on the site, which would increase ad revenues. It's at least possible that people who felt stifled at another community might "buy-in" literally to this idea.

3. It promotes discussion and the ultimate good and primary service of this site is discussion. Reasoned and interesting discussion attracts viewers, gets them to stay longer, and gets them to click on more pages where ads are seen.

4. It provides a safety valve to release social pressure. Rather than act out against the moderators or simply leave, the upset poster now has another option: talk to his or her representative. That may make moderator's work less emotionally stressful, ultimately. People respond better to tough calls when they feel that a fair process resulted in the tough call and that their voice was heard. Those who feel unable to express their choices through the formal system of a vote may be more likely to resist or fail to support decisions made through it.

In short, an experiment in limited representation (in some form) may directly increase purchases, may increase ad revenues, may provide a competitive advantage in this niche market at this time, and may ultimately lead to more stability and less moderator stress.

That's the goal of all of us on this thread. The question is how to get there.

 

[Umbran]

Of course, if more and more real life institutions are run undemocratically, that's not exactly a good sign, either.

Yes, but... (there's always a "but"...)

IF more and more real life institutions... That's a big "if". So far, we've only your opinion on that. In fact, we've only your opinion that this place qualifies as an "institution" such that it actually matters what we do here, locally.

But, I think that's perhaps a fiddly-bit argument, compared to what follows...

One could also suggest that there are better or other ways to running THIS site than as a corporation, local government or a school would.

Quite true, maybe there is a better way. In fact, I would venture to say that there probably is a better way, given that the number of ways to run the place is large to the point of being nigh infinite, it would be hubris to expect we'd just happened to have (perhaps somewhat intelligently) stumbled upon the optimal one.

But one needs more than a suggestion to get action. For, you see, with change there is risk. We'd need more than a "suggestion" that the payoff to the users (and thus to Morrus) is large enough to take on risks. In fact, to do otherwise would be ignoring our obligation to our users.

Consider it this way - it is quite possible to make Perfect the enemy of Good. This place is not explicitly democratic. But the mods, admins, and Morrus do listen. The place is good, gosh darn it. Maybe not perfect, true. But flailing around trying different systems can do a great deal of harm, in terms of stability and respect. So, I, personally, would need more than suggestion that this would be better to risk harming our users.

If the place sucked the scum off the floors of bathrooms in Grand Central Station, I might well jump at a reasonable suggestion - not much to lose, and a lot to gain. But it would not be serving our users to fuddle with something good on that same basis.

I'll also point out that if the vast majority of online communities are not responsive to the will of its "citizens," then there's not much real choice as all the options are the same.

Except, of course, that one fails here - while we are not explicitly democratic in our written rules, the fact of the matter is that we are responsive to the will of our citizens. Moreso than most, I expect. Most of the moderation here is done at the suggestion of the citizenry. Reported posts are the mods' bread and butter here, you know - the Reported Posts and Meta forums are the first places I go every single time I come to the site. We have created (and removed) whole forums at the request of the citizenry. EN2 is coming up including things the citizens have asked for.

It is kind of difficult to sell us on the "you ought to be democratic, so that the citizens voice can be heard" when, honestly, we are hearing and enacting their will every day.

 

[howandwhy99]

You could just declare yourself a Moderator, rouge. It has it drawbacks though. Namely, getting booted off the site, if it isn't April 1st.