|
Post by prettypenguin on Jul 20, 2010 13:36:32 GMT -5
Wait... so it's a popularity contest? o.o Yah that'll get good mods You may say "don't vote based on who you already like." but you know people will vote for friends or against enemies. Just how it'll be.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jul 20, 2010 13:44:17 GMT -5
Please then discuss a better method, prettypenguin. No need for a circular argument or a pissing match. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Jul 20, 2010 13:49:22 GMT -5
I assume most people on The Moon are mature enough to pick who will be the best Mod. If they pick their friends, it will be because their they believe their friends would make a good mod (I consider Zak a friend, but would I vote for him to be a mod? HECCCCCK no xD). You can't vote AGAINST people anyway, but of course you're not going to vote for people you don't like. But that really shouldn't be a problem, should it? Yeah, Person A might hate Person B. But not everyone on the forum hates person B. Person A is just one person. (XD)
|
|
|
Post by prettypenguin on Jul 20, 2010 13:58:18 GMT -5
You have a majority age of 16, and... well haha not gonna comment too much on the maturity level here. If you want them to still vote, i'm not saying it's a bad idea just a mere vote isn't the best, than maybe you should include some tasks. Say something like: - Find 5 threads that should be warned/closed give your reason why with a link back.
- When you get the nominees have them have to work together as a group to see how they are in a group environment. Unless you want them to be bad team players.
- Give them a "mod" prompt and have them explain how they'd handle it.
Get creative! I mean anyone can talk themselves up. Actually showing to the public if they are qualified or not is another thing. That way it's not a "look at me and what I've done. LOOK AT ME!" You can have some completely hidden gems that could make excellent mods but you wouldn't know it just because of their posting style.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jul 20, 2010 14:02:36 GMT -5
Hmm, prettypenguin... you might be on to something there. I foresee some sort of moderated debate of sorts where the nominees get to answer questions like that. Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jul 20, 2010 14:36:44 GMT -5
You have a majority age of 16, and... well haha not gonna comment too much on the maturity level here. Seriously? That's a ridiculous (and pretty immature) thing to say. This forum is full of intelligent and mature young adults. So what if most people here are 16? That doesn't mean anything. The people here are mature enough to pick people that would be good for the job, rather than just picking their friends. And the original post did say that there would be a "trial period," so if someone is picked and they're not good for the job, the admins will see that and revoke the person's powers.
|
|
|
Post by prettypenguin on Jul 20, 2010 14:55:55 GMT -5
I really don't want to go through and quote immature things people say, darling. I do not want to go through and quote immature things people say and point at the correlation of the age of said members. I do not want to go through and quote immature things people say, quote their age and describe how immature each statement is.
I HIGHLY doubt that people would vote Zak* for moderation even though he's an intelligent guy. Thus this develops into not picking their friends or "voting against" a member. They place a vote for another to vote against whoever. "Well I don't like Zak and I don't care for ____ but I really don't like Zak." You know the presidential elections? People do the same thing there and they could be very well educated and mature.
There shouldn't be a necessity for a trail period. You shouldn't pick someone and go "oops I guess they didn't work out!" They should prove to be good choices prior to actually giving them power.
*Nothing against you Zak but you're just an example
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jul 20, 2010 15:26:09 GMT -5
Thank you for the condescension. You prove that there is not a direct correlation between age and maturity.
Oh, and I didn't realize that saying immature things means you'd make a bad mod. By that logic, I don't think any of the admins should have powers, either. Penis.
And, yes, Zak is an intelligent guy. But he's also said that he's not going to be online much anymore, and when he is, it's just for teh lulz. That hardly makes him qualified to be a mod. How am I wrong for thinking he shouldn't be a mod?
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 20, 2010 15:39:03 GMT -5
And, yes, Zak is an intelligent guy. [And when he is here,] he is it's just for teh lulz. That hardly makes him qualified to be a mod. How am I wrong for thinking he shouldn't be a mod? Or an admin Bree
|
|
|
Post by prettypenguin on Jul 20, 2010 15:40:33 GMT -5
It's an example. Or should I clarify when I make examples? I could swear I had. Here, I'll be more efficient so you can understand when I make an example. As an example: People most likely wouldn't vote for Zak (aka any semi-disliked member. This is the example just to clarify so you understand anyone could be put here, like you, chelsea, for example.) and instead vote for another because he's disliked. Opinion: People who tend to make immature comments or make immature actions tend to not do a proper job. This is not always true but ( METAPHOR)you don't give a known serial killer a gun and tell him to protect a group of people. Glossary: Example - Something that serves to illustrate or explain a rule.
Something that is representative of all such things in a group.Opinion - A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue. Metaphor - A metaphor is an analogy between two objects or ideas.Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 20, 2010 15:46:18 GMT -5
I wish it had a pronunciation key. I don't know if most of the members here can even say those big words.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Jul 20, 2010 16:01:10 GMT -5
Opinion: People who tend to make immature comments or make immature actions tend to not do a proper job. This is not always true but ( METAPHOR)you don't give a known serial killer a gun and tell him to protect a group of people. I disagree with your opinion. Maturity is all about timing. You just have to know when to stop. I'm extremely immature. Every admin is immature. Dan is immature. Everyone on this forum I consider a leader is immature. We don't "tend to not do a proper job." And in fact, this is the case for just about every forum I've ever been a part of. ;p There are only a few members of this forum that don't know when to flip the maturity switch. Just because you could probably find me saying "PENIS" in 40 different places doesn't mean I can't be mature when I need to be.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jul 20, 2010 16:04:00 GMT -5
It's an example. Or should I clarify when I make examples? I could swear I had. Here, I'll be more efficient so you can understand when I make an example. As an example: People most likely wouldn't vote for Zak (aka any semi-disliked member. This is the example just to clarify so you understand anyone could be put here, like you, chelsea, for example.) and instead vote for another because he's disliked. Opinion: People who tend to make immature comments or make immature actions tend to not do a proper job. This is not always true but ( METAPHOR)you don't give a known serial killer a gun and tell him to protect a group of people. Glossary: Example - Something that serves to illustrate or explain a rule.
Something that is representative of all such things in a group.Opinion - A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue. Metaphor - A metaphor is an analogy between two objects or ideas.Hope that helps I understand that it was an example. I was just pointing out that it was a terrible example, and that it's possible that people would have legitimate reasons for not wanting certain people to be mods other than "I don't like them," even if that person is not well-liked. That's also a terrible metaphor. Making a few immature comments here and there is hardly comparable to being a serial killer. I'm sorry we can't all have sticks up our asses. Some of us like to joke around every once in a while
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Jul 20, 2010 16:10:04 GMT -5
Why the hell cant our work be our play?
Edit: What I mean is that we can be a mod/admin/whatever and still be immature. I'm 14, I make tons of perverted jokes and immature things are said(BTW you just lost the game and PENIS) but I still am serious when it counts. I have fun and I get my work done. You ever heard of the company Pixar? Watch a video on how their office is run. Its just a ton of fun and they make billion dollar movies.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 20, 2010 16:47:11 GMT -5
Why the hell cant our work be our play? Edit: What I mean is that we can be a mod/admin/whatever and still be immature. I'm 14, I make tons of perverted jokes and immature things are said(BTW you just lost the game and PENIS) but I still am serious when it counts. I have fun and I get my work done. You ever heard of the company Pixar? Watch a video on how their office is run. Its just a ton of fun and they make billion dollar movies. I'm sure Martin Luther King did the same thing as Pixar.
|
|
|
Post by prettypenguin on Jul 20, 2010 16:47:33 GMT -5
Alright you lot are mixing up immaturity and being a fun person. *head desk* It's no wonder this forum is in such disarray. Let's take a good example of a current admin. Real: He is dedicated to the forum and it's ventures. He seems at least to think about what is said before he says it. That way his comments aren't quoted all over the forum as loop holes. He avoids "pissing matches", I respect him more for it. He says things like "penis" etc and I don't consider him immature. His decisions at least seem thought out and backed by reason. He seems open as a person to the community. I feel I could ask him anything and he would politely help me or respond to my inquiry unbiased. IE he seems like he avoids the drama while still offering an input. I can't say the same about other admins when in regards to being open. I feel the way they present themselves on the forums would reflect on how they would be in a PM or some other form of communication. People can go on and on how you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover but that's how it is. How you act does reflect your personality despite what you might say. Real has the maturity (in my eyes) to avoid needless confrontation and I respect him oh-so much for it. He can go on and on about random things such as "penis" but when it comes down to it I can tell he's more respectful to the general census and I'm more open to contacting him about things. I would rather not have people who seem unapproachable. SO: if you act like a douche it's no wonder people will think of you as one and not wanna talk to you. SO: If you post horribly, talk yourself up, people like you enough (because maybe you're just funny or something) to vote for you (or against others they don't like which results in a vote for you) and you make it, then I don't feel that person is that great of a candidate for the moderation team. It's ok though, they'll be put on a probation period so they can veto the publics choice if the douche turns out douchy .
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Jul 20, 2010 18:09:48 GMT -5
Why do we need moderators if we have so many admins? I'm all for moderators, but give the moderators purpose. Here is the way I would do this.
Targets: 1. The voters will choose policies not a person 2. The moderator will favour the people and hence be able to lead
Preparation: 1 single TRUSTED person is selected to manage this process, someone who is highly respected in such a way that there will be very little doubts of any corruption. Possibly not an admin, possibly not a very active person. Preferably a popular one. *cough*Dan*cough* : Lets call this person the Prompter. Another person preferably one with admin power will control the process. Lets call this person the Controller.
Phase 1: Criteria The public comes up with moderator criteria. Examples of criteria: Policy on SPAMMING, Policy on transparancy, Policy on the noble cause, Policy on etc. Basically pick the things which the forum has been debating for SO LONG and list them. Preferably user-admin conflicts. Around of 20 criteria/issues are selected.
Phase 2: Prospective admins will contact the Prompter with their Manifesto (consisting on opinion/amendments on each issue). The Prompter posts polls for each issue having amendments as options of the poll. So 20 issues = 20 polls 20 candidates = 20 amendments per poll. no reference towards who submitted which amendment is made. NB: Preferably, amendments are not posted in order of candidate.
Phase 3: Controller closes all polls as they are posted. And opens a certain amount of polls per week over say - 3 weeks.
Phase 4: When all polls have been voted on, the prompter will mail the controller with all the manifestos. The controller will then calculate which manifesto got most votes (taking each issue into consideration) and select a moderator.
Note this system will not only select a moderator but also a leader. Other limitations: Put a post count limit on the poll voting (60 posts is fine)
Didn't understand? here is an example Criteria chosen: User conflict, Spamming.
Joe, Angela and Maria want to be admins.
Joe thinks that users should be seperated by the ignore function if they argue alot. He also thinks that spammers must die. Angela thinks that any users who argue alot should be banned. She loves spammers and thinks no action should be taken against them. Maria doesn't mind user conflict and would 'let it be', she thinks a post limit should be implemented amongst spammers.
Joe, Angela, Maria give their manifestos to the Prompter. The Prompter creates a poll for User conflict and a poll about Spammers, with each of their opinions in each respective poll. The controller controls the voting - opening one poll for one week, and the other poll another week. The prompter mails the controller with the manifestos AFTER voting is done. The controller does the counting and releases the results.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jul 20, 2010 18:35:22 GMT -5
I'z real sorry we cant all be as gosh dern smart as you. Koudja speak real slow and 'splain it tuh me agin, grate all-knowin one? Now that you've totally contradicted yourself, I'm not even going to try to understand what you think. ANYWAY, I like what the admins came up with. I've tried thinking of another way, but I can't. I don't see anything wrong with it
|
|
|
Post by prettypenguin on Jul 20, 2010 19:25:43 GMT -5
How have I contradicted myself? Do I need to explain it all again for you? I'll do it.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 20, 2010 19:44:06 GMT -5
Guys, just calm down. Fighting over maturity and intelligence is immature and stupid.
|
|