The Petition for the Reformation of the Adminstration and Staff into a Fair Democracy
Summary (basically what I am asking for):
Instead of having the same mods holding power and changing rarely, the mods are appointed via democracy.
There will be 6 normal moderators given power over one specific area of the forum each. There will be 3 super moderators who have power over all forums.
In the last week of the month, each member nominates 9 members for each position. The 9 members who have the most nominations are able to serve a term as a moderator lasting 1 month.
That is basically what I am asking for.
If you have any questions, read through the following text. It contains many of the answers to your questions, and the reasoning behind the petition.
READ IT.
Right now, the current mod system is extremely inefficient for doing the job correctly without any bias or prejudice. The mods continue to stay appointed and therefore still are affected by old judgements that may be inaccurate. Because the site has been growing in popularity recently, a new system is required so that attention is distributed, instead of the mods hogging all the attention from the people. There is a famous saying: you can't teach an old dog new tricks. This is exactly what is happening here. What I am finding is that the mods are proving to be a textbook example of that statement.
You may remember some of the previous bans, and how there were done with only the judgment of the staff (Macaque, me, and Haste), which is extremely unfair as most of the staff is composed of people who do not have any familiarity of newer members, therefore making those bans prejudiced. I am not going to point at any people, but Haste was banned for a crime that he did not commit, and partly because the mod who banned him found him extremely irritating the way he typed in third person.
As you can see from a thread that asked people if Haste's ban was unfair, everyone else disagreed with the mod's opinion, and that is the reason why keeping the same mods appointed for the entire span of the forum will lead to bias in decisions. Some people may argue that the mod who banned Haste only made a mistake, but the problem is that the mod had repeated the same mistake a few times in the past. He may argue that he is human and makes mistakes, but the point of making mistakes is to learn from them. But to keep repeating the same mistake and using the same excuse each time decreases your credibility as a mod successively with each mistake you made.
The mods do a very good job around the forum, but I sometimes feel that they tend to sometimes over-react in certain cases leading to making the incident even worse. A mod requires control over his anger. Control is one of the essential skills that a mod needs. Without control, a mod will resort to personal attacks to resolve conflicts. This is not ideal. The mod needs to do his job professionally, as that is what he was appointed for.
According to Leland Beaumont, each instance of anger demands making a choice
- Respond with hostile action, including overt violence
- Respond with hostile inaction, such as withdrawing or stonewalling
- Initiate a dominance contest
- Harbor resentment
- Work to better understand and constructively resolve the issue'
Of course, to be effective as a mod, the fifth choice is ideal to keep any hostile feelings at bay in both the mod and the "criminal" . I recall mods dealing with anger (caused by me) by choosing the first choice, shortly followed by the fourth choice. Not all the mods are like this. Most of the mods are usually very friendly, and make the right decisions most of the time. Having a mod who is does not have much control in the team for the long run of the forum is not ideal, which is why I am proposing a solution: replace the gene pool. Start over every few weeks.
Essentially, under this reform, there will be 6 normal moderators who can only have power over a few of the subforums. These subforums the moderator will have power over will be the ones the moderator is most familiar with and active in. The mods we have right now are the most active in General Discussion, and some don't even have the game. There will be 3 super moderators who have power over all of the forums. The administrators will remain the same throughout. These mods will only hold appointment for one month. In the last week of each month, users nominate 9 people to fill the positions via PM. The nine members who hold the most votes will be appointed for the next month.
You may argue that people will vote for the most popular members. Actually, voting for popular members is a good idea, as the most popular members are the most friendly and active, and tend to be the ones to do the most for the forum, which is how they become popular in the first place.
You may also argue that people will vote for friends. This is why with each nomination, you must give a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why you nominated that person. If a person does not give a proper reason for one of their nominations, then all nine of their nominations will not be counted.
Replacing mods, of course, will decrease bias and prejudice for other members, as you are bringing in a fresh set of people each month. This is ideal. Fairly new people would be given a chance as new people often have the best ideas and friendly temperament in their first few months.
This will also (almost) solve the problem of mods being inactive, as they will only be mods for one month, decreasing chances that their term will somehow overlap a week they have a vacation.
If this system were to be implemented, the current mods will be relieved of their position the day the voting concludes. To all mods who say that they were mods first and therefore deserve to be mod, I say that the mod position is a privilege you earn through hard work and being active in the forum, not an award you get for being a veteran. To compensate, however, former mods are able to remain a "VIP" member.
Finally, think of this: why is the President of the United States, or another country chosen through votes? Because it is the most logical way to govern the country. It is a democracy. Why don't we become a democracy, instead of remaining an oligarchy?
If you are planning to criticize this petition, please give proper reasoning behind your argument instead of saying "It's a dumb idea, shut up". If you have a question, read the entire post before asking it. I may have already addressed it.
UPDATE
ATTN: If you are planning to make a criticism, please go to the following link to make sure your argument has not been already addressed:
http://www.mariokartwii.com/492677-post124.html
Linear Mode
