Moderator Elections

[jonesy]

* Money. Another tangible advantage liking voting rights to being a community supporter may lead to more money flowing to the creators of this site, which would especially help at this time period in the gaming industry.

Voting rights would certainly be a nice benefit for paying members, but you are talking about a single election for a single person to be a moderator. A one time event is a curiosity at best, and I don't really see how it would make anyone want to become a CS. Regular moderator elections on the other hand would promote anarchy as in "a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power" (with the emphasis heavily on the word inefficiency).

* Many Hands Make Light Work. Extra moderators means distributing the burdens more lightly among them all.

True, but not exclusive to your proposal.

* A Republic, not a Mob. Since community supporters are rather like delegates (they're heavily invested in the system and the society), such a representative would be both responsible and open up the process of site governance.

Where do you see a mob in here? Why do you assume that non-CS's can't be responsible? And how exactly are CS's rather like delegates? I am not a CS and yet I still represent this community in and outside this community. I've encouraged people interested in our interests to come over and check the place out to see if they'd like to join. Representation and participation are not unique qualities of the paying members. And if you want to suggest "opening up the process of governing" you need to start talking about actual decision making, not a single election to elect someone to make decisions for you. It's just another moderator, it doesn't alter anything.

* Promotes Discussion. A Community Supporter Representative would have more influence with moderators to express particular viewpoints.

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.

You propose that paying members should influence the moderation more, and then suggest that there are better ways than that? Which is it?

* Influence, not Anarchy or Disruption. Obviously, when there's just one elected moderator, the other moderators and site owners have the power. The real-world analogy would be that this moderator acts more like a "citizen advisory board member" than like a governor.

We have influence here. More so than in most other sites I've been a member of. We have awesome moderators and I wouldn't want to disrupt that.

Citizen advisory board member? So the elected mod wouldn't be a real mod? How does a vote in an election for a moderator with less than the normal amount of influence make anyone want to join the site to become a paying member? That's a rather far-fetched theory you have there.

Besides, are you sure you don't want anarchy? It would be great to have a community where everyone has "absolute liberty without the implication of disorder". A good idea in principle, but rather impossible in practise. You know, just like most any political ideas.

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.

Let's not muddle up things here. The vast majority of online communites are owned by businesses and businesses run their business as they see fit. Calling the members of those communities "citizens" doesn't give them any rights to dictate themselves how things are done. All the options are usually the same because "things seem to work" and the businesses usually can't be bothered to spend resources to inventing something new.

As for EN World, it is improving, and mostly because of feedback from its members.

I think you need to focus your enthusiasm on sites that don't allow members to give feedback on their sites. Oh, that's right, you can't because they don't allow it.

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.

We have one of the nicest friendliest communities on the internet here and you suggest rebooting it on the off-chance that it "might" become better? No, thank you.

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.

A car is good thing to own. But it also might not be.

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.

Social pressure? On EN World? The whole place is already one huge stress remover. It's a site dedicated to a hobby we all love. And if you have a problem with someones moderation talking to the moderator himself is far better than going through an extra layer. It's called personal contact. There are sites out there that don't even let you talk about moderation at all, to anyone.

Someone who is so insecure that he can't take criticism constructively is someone who shouldn't be a moderator in the first place.

I happen to consider the moderators here very fair. I don't see how adding another layer of moderation would make it any more so. Added bureoucracy doesn't equal added fairness. I've worked for a government agency and can claim that it's actually the other way around.

Sorry if I came across a bit snarky.

 

[hong]

All the moderators here beat me with sticks.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

Unfunny. And inaccurate. It's tough enough making this kind of suggestion and coming up with responses to everyone on the thread without this kind of thing too.

 

[roguerouge]

"And if you want to suggest "opening up the process of governing" you need to start talking about actual decision making, not a single election to elect someone to make decisions for you. It's just another moderator, it doesn't alter anything."

Hey, I'm more than willing to discuss the much more radical step of going to a direct democracy system in online communities. If you want to advocate for THAT radical an approach, go ahead. I made the suggestion I made as minimal a change as possible (ONE moderator amongst MANY to be elected) because I anticipated some of the responses in this thread. I took the rhetorical strategy of "baby steps".

Edit: I'm not surprised that you don't find this an open form of government that I'm proposing. I'm essentially proposing a form of democracy most seen in the 1800s in which the propertied classes are the only ones allowed to vote. Except here, the propertied classes get only one representative, rather than an entire "House of Commons."

And many in this thread see this ancient form of governance as impossible and radical when it's in an online setting.

And that's why I started with the proposal that I did. So, by all means, advocate for a more open style of governance. I'd most likely provide support.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

For the sake of arguement, let's say EN World takes up your suggestion:

How would prospective candidates be put onto a ballot? Nominate themselves, or does somebody else have to do it?

Will it be a series of rounds until one person gets more than 50% of the vote or a single vote and the candidate with the most votes wins?

Polls on this site occasionally are skewed by an influx of non-regulars because of a posting on another site (I seem to recall some wild fluctuations when there was voting over the best campaign settings and Monte Cook posted it on his own forums). How would that be controlled to prevent the vote from being "fixed" by people from outside?

How would you prevent outright fraud by people creating multiple registered user accounts just for the purpose of voting multiple times?

You could limit voting to CS supporters, but then it isn't a democratic election, it is an election by those who have the cash to purchase a CS accout. It would also disenfranchise long time non-CS users who are strong members of this community - just not financially.

How long would a "term" last?

What mechanism would exist for ensuring the winner would enforce moderation rules following the same guidelines the rest of the mods use? What mechanism would be in place to remove them if they are abusing their power?

More importantly, if they use the same guidelines as everyone else, how does their election change the community in any way other than there being one additional moderator on the beat? I am far from convinced that an elected moderator would somehow have anymore influence with the admins and Morrus than any member who presents a well thought out suggestion.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

With all due respect, it's not about you. It's not about how you or the other moderators do your jobs. It's not about whether this is a benign (a.k.a. responsive and competent) or malign (selfish and/or unjust) oligarchy. For all this proposal cares, you could have the omniscience of the divine right of kings. This proposal didn't spring from discontent.

Your opinion or my opinion or Hong's opinion as to whether the virtual trains run on time is not the point. What matters is whether the addition of a very limited form of virtual enfranchisement would make this virtual community better.

I've argued that it might do so by fostering more involvement, bringing in more money, gaining a competitive market advantage, sparking more discussion, and decreasing work loads and stress.

Whether more enfranchisement than this proposal offers would make the site even better is definitely something I'd be willing to discuss.

Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?

He may not be, but it is a possibility that should not be overlooked. Let's say the elected mod goes a bit power mad, and begins arbitrary moderation with which the other moderators disagree. They case chase him around the boards, patching up the problems he creates, which publicizes a schism in with the mods and diminishes their respectability. Or, they can remove him, which can cause an uproar among the general voting populace, and guaranteed to cause one in a vocal minority.

Having a democratic representative among the mods isn't something I particularly care about. Having a good one would be a token nod and not worth much (it'll still be Morrus' site after all, and what he says goes), and having a bad one is, well, bad. But this thread does remind me that I need to pick up my CS, at least for the enjoyment CM brings if nothing else.

 

[Umbran]

Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?

The essence of "franchise" is having the system reliably listen to your ideas, opinions, wants, and needs, and respond accordingly. The point of having a vote is to make sure your own needs are represented.

I'm arguing that this community is already enfranchised to a large degree - and not just the Community Supporters, either. I mean everybody. The people who come here do have a say. They talk, the system listens and responds - and it always has.

What we are discussing, then, is the form of enfranchisement, and whether having some codified system with some particular subset of the community electing some official with as-yet ill-defined powers is in any way better than the current system.

Note that, without a complete overhaul of the business (with legally binding contracts and such), then there's actually no difference between your method and the current one - without contracts it is all still "at the whim of the owner", and there really is no more security or responsiveness than he allows.

 

[Dinkeldog]

All the moderators here beat me with sticks.

Bad hong! Back in your cage. :beatwithstick:

 

[Qualidar]

I think this is a bad idea. Democracy does not equal "best way to run things". Baseball teams aren't run by democracy. Abdominal surgury isn't run by democracy. New editions of popular game systems aren't designed by democracy.

It's a form of government, not a solution for every issue in life.