NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that we should have the right to elect moderators for the Forum. Here's my proposal:

On a bimonthly basis, there shall be an election for a new moderator. There shall be one moderator of the people, along with the current moderators who shall keep their positions.

At the beginning of the election, each region shall choose a candidate nation that is nonbiased and has at least two hundred posts in the forum to prove it, allowing a conclusive analysis of their political and religious stances and preventing an extremist from having their hand on the "DEAT" key (That means nations like me and MKULTRA are automatically out). This will prevent censorship of the new mod's ideological opponents.

Once each region has chosen a candidate (the region must contain more than two nations to ensure a fair process), a topic shall be listed in the general forum listing off those candidates, their regions, and their stances on various issues. Candidates with a history of flamethrowing or heavy bias against either end of the political or religious spectrum will be rejected. There will be one week alotted for voters to inspect each candidate's post record. In the topic, voters may quote questionable posts made by candidates.

Afterward, there shall be an election of majority vote. After the winner is chosen and approved by the current moderators, they will be an official mod for two months, after which they will be re-elected or replaced in the next election.

This concludes my proposal for a democratically elected moderator. Thank you for your time.

@#%*@ server...

Wait. I got a question. How do they become moderators now? I never understood that. I would vote if I knew.

--The Cheese Farmer--

OOC Mod Impression: You challenge our power??? HOW DARE YOU!!! THIS TOPIC SHALL BE LOCKED AND YOU DEATed!!!

IC: I'd be for this

The Mods here do a great job of keeping order and eliminating those that are objectonable. Until it becomes a problem, I have no issue with elections.

Can someone answer my question?

--The Cheese Farmer--

You assume this is a democracy! It is a neo-totalitarian central committee! :wink:

Voting for a mod is a disaster in the making as it quickly turns into a popularity contest. Mods are not always supposed to be popular. Mods are not always supposed to be of the same mindset(meaning personal values). The best mod is usally one with children as they know how to deal with children and or immaturity! :P

I will assume the same process for modship is here:

When it is felt another mod is needed they discuss it amongst themselves. They suggest names and argue the merits or faults for modship.

Usually the person has to have been around for a long time. Post count is not valid as anyboy can run the numbers up fast *Coughs Raysian* *Coughs TRA* :P

The person should have shown themselves to be level headed. Maybe have helped solve a few fights. Offered suggestions.

Any equation can be in play.

Again having done the Mod job. I can tell you that it is not as exciting as you may all think. At times it can be tiring when you have to deal with certain types of people all the time. It can be very draining. And usually is pretty thankless. For all the people that visit a site, only a very few will take the the time to say thanks!

So to the present crew that keeps the place running and clean most of the time!

Thank you for you efforts!

Oh I also forgot the most important part for becoming a mod!

You have to offer BRIBES!!!!!!

:P

The Black Forrest said essentially what I was going to say.

I feel this way about it--anyone who would run for the job of Mod, if there were an election, would likely be close to the worst possible person for the job.

Ummm, I do not think this will go over well with the mods.

i think (hope) the mods will see the funny side of it.
On the record, I think the mods do a good job and see no need for an elected mod.

Please dont DEAT me :D

Can you guys please all vote for me. I am very nice now, and I promise to delete all your openents for posting abusive messages, spamming and flaming. Scout's honour :twisted:

Max's site. Max decides who moderates it.

Before I begin, I just want to make it clear there's no hostility or anything to the effect of "OMG U DARE CHALLENGE TEH MODZ0RS?!" in this post. I just want to address this proposal and explain why such a system is just not feasible.

I believe that we should have the right to elect moderators for the Forum. Here's my proposal:

As I'm sure lots of folks would happily point out, this is a private website, and the users therefore have no 'rights' to speak of.

On a bimonthly basis, there shall be an election for a new moderator. There shall be one moderator of the people, along with the current moderators who shall keep their positions.

A new mod every two months? I suspect we'd quickly end up with too many mods and have toes being stepped on left and right.

At the beginning of the election, each region shall choose a candidate nation that is nonbiased and has at least two hundred posts in the forum to prove it, allowing a conclusive analysis of their political and religious stances and preventing an extremist from having their hand on the "DEAT" key (That means nations like me and MKULTRA are automatically out). This will prevent censorship of the new mod's ideological opponents.

EACH region? There are close to 20,000 regions on Nationstates, with actual totals fluctuating on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but that would very swiftly become more cumbersome than the California recall election was! (And I'm a Californian, trust me, it was a royal pain in the keister! :wink: )

Also, two hundred posts on the forum is a pretty useless way to determine someone's stance. With the sheer volume of material on the forums, 200 posts is a comparitively tiny amount, and not enough by which to gauge someone's political/ideological stances. (Plus with an open election, you would invariably get extremists trying to pose as non-extremists just to get into power.)

Once each region has chosen a candidate (the region must contain more than two nations to ensure a fair process), a topic shall be listed in the general forum listing off those candidates, their regions, and their stances on various issues. Candidates with a history of flamethrowing or heavy bias against either end of the political or religious spectrum will be rejected. There will be one week alotted for voters to inspect each candidate's post record. In the topic, voters may quote questionable posts made by candidates.

Again, the impracticality of this alone makes it unviable. There are at least 5,000 regions in the game that meet your criteria (more than two nations), so that alone is at least 5,000 candidates. (And again citing the California recall, that was unwieldly with somewhere between 100 and 200 candidates!)

Also, with how unresponsive the forums often get, one week would not be anywhere near enough time to inspect the post history and assorted criteria of that many people.

Afterward, there shall be an election of majority vote. After the winner is chosen and approved by the current moderators, they will be an official mod for two months, after which they will be re-elected or replaced in the next election.

This concludes my proposal for a democratically elected moderator. Thank you for your time.

Where would this poll take place? There would quite easily be several hundred people in the running in this proposed system, and polls in the forums can't have that many options, and are very easy to manipulate with puppet nations. Virtually any sort of online poll can be fudged in some manner or another.

Another problem with such a high turnover rate would be breaking the winner in. Once a mod gets the job, it takes the rest of the mods a good amount of time and effort to bring them up to speed on standard operating procedures. To have to do this every two months would lower the squad's overall effectiveness. (If it says anything, we're still breaking Myrth in to some extent, and he's been a mod for... how long now? Close to two months, I think.)

@#%*@ server...

I hear ya! :wink:

~Rep

(If it says anything, we're still breaking Myrth in to some extent, and he's been a mod for... how long now? Close to two months, I think.)

Scolo says I'm almost ready to stop using my training lock-button :D

Just as an example, to give some support to Reploid's response: I've been in NationStates for only a couple of weeks now. My post count is currently over one hundred, and if the server worked faster, it would probably be higher (insert comments about my lack of a life [HERE]). This would mean that at my current rate, I would qualify under your rules within the next week or so. And I'm nowhere near ready to be a mod for this forum (I moderate another, smaller gaming forum, and it's hard enough).

Additionally, from personal experience, I can't see a democratically elected moderator. It would be far too easy for a large group of people with a specific agenda to come together and "appoint" a new moderator. This wouldn't be so bad if NationStates were made up entirely of calm, reasonable people...but we all know better than that. Imagine a group of liberals, fascists, socialists, conservatives, or any other particular group gaining enough power to elect a chosen one. A rather biased chosen one. If there is to be bias, it only seems right that the bias be on the part of the founder rather than the people who visit the site. We have the ability to go to other sites, or found sites that more closely align themselves to our particular viewpoints. Mr. Barry's only recourse would be to shut this place down if a single faction of users were to gain significant power.

Finally, the server is slow enough. Imagine what would happen if every region started opening threads and posting why their candidate should elected to the position.

Please understand that I like your concept in theory. I'm a fan of democracy. However, in a case like this, implementing your suggestion would cause practical difficulties that would (IMO) detract from enjoyable gameplay, and even further politicize this site.

[Not a Moderator]

I believe that we should have the right to elect moderators for the Forum.

I'm not quite sure why you think you have that right... could you explain?

This topic is still alive ?

Hmmm, how about the age old :

" If it is not broken, resist your urge to whack it with a mallet and see what happens. "

This also goes for moving a washing machine. Its been an interesting two days. Where did we leave the mop ?

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

Kokomom: Percussive maintenance fixes everything.

Everyone else:

There will be no democratically-elected moderators. Unlike governments, which assume authority over individuals by accident of birth and thus are obliged to grant certain rights to their citizens by that same accident, the connection between this site and the "rights" of its "population" is somewhat more tenuous. We did not force anyone to come to this site; no money is required to join; and every user is made to read and acknowledge understanding of a set of Terms of Service which defines their "rights" and responsibilities to the greater whole. The only asset that anyone other than Max Barry spends on this site is time, time given freely that could be spent in any other free activity and thus not incurring any sort of requirement on our part to "pay back" anyone for it except to follow the guidelines of our own Terms of Service.

As such, it stands to reason that no such democratic elections will be held as that "right" is not earned by any sort of reasonable expenditure or claim of ownership. Players have no controlling interest in this site monitarily and thus have no "right" to define how it is run beyond the standard political interchange of ideas. It's like an establishment's customers demanding to choose who runs the establishment when they do not own it, and oftentimes even then those customers expend money for services. Likewise, even sites with paying subscribers quite often do not have democratically elected moderators. Whoever owns the server and the property rights makes the rules, just like the proprietor of any establishment makes the rules even though the customers pay for goods and services.

This is the key aspect I believe many people are missing. It is very rare that people can get something for nothing. Players are allowed to use this site for free--paying nothing but time and an agreement to follow the rules--and as such do not deserve more without additional expediture. For pay-to-play programs, players are allowed to use such things for a nominal fee; that fee entitles them to use the program or the server that they could not before without paying. It does not necessarily entitle them to determine how the program or server is run because that is not the service they are paying for. I can walk down to the corner store and buy a Choco Taco for $1.50--the expenditure of wealth entitling me to the ownership and rightful consumption of the Choco Taco--but still have absolutely no right after that transaction to say "You know, I don't like the look of the guy behind the counter. He's fired." The situation here is analogous even if the medium is more ethereal.

I think it is safe to point out that nearly everyone agrees that Max Barry owns this website. As he owns it in total, his rules are laws. He can change the Terms of Service at will and select moderators at his whim as he chooses; this is in fact how it has been done in the past. A great deal of recommendation by other players (and, later, current moderators) does enter into it, but in the end it is Mr. Barry's decision as owner--not the players' as users--who is and who is not a moderator.

This proposal is a dead issue. Feel free to debate it as much as you wish, but it is almost certainly not going to be successful.

as much as i would hope that would work... it wouldnt. you would just have a politically motivated mod killing all his enemies or just a fcuker that fucks everybody up. i dont think we need that. what we do need is the mods to be less controlling, and for the people to be less crybabyish about offences.

Bad idea. This would definitely become a popularity contest more than about voting for the right player to become a mod. I personally would rather have my faith in the mods to select other mods as needed.

A lot of times, the nations who have problems with the mods were in the wrong to begin with. I think it would simply be wise to leave things as is. It appears to me that it takes a special kind of person to be a mod, and I doubt that voting someone in as a mod because a lot of people like him or her will suffice. It's like electing judges: it makes no sense that a person who must exact justice be democratically elected. His or her decisions will always be predicated on whether the voters will continue to support that individual.

Its already democracity.
One man, one vote.
[Violets] the...err...(wo)man, she gets the vote.
And those other less infamous admins to ;)

Kokomom: Percussive maintenance fixes everything.

1) " Kom - o - kom " rather then " Koko - mom " actually.

I most certainly do not think I am a miss-spelt chocolate - related maternal figure, last I checked ... :wink:

2) That is most certainly not what the plumber just told me,

:wink: + :roll:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

EACH region? There are close to 20,000 regions on Nationstates, with actual totals fluctuating on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but that would very swiftly become more cumbersome than the California recall election was! (And I'm a Californian, trust me, it was a royal pain in the keister! :wink: )
~Rep

Isn't any statewide vote out there on the 'left coast' somewhat of a pain? unless it's a 'cut an' dried' type of thing

EACH region? There are close to 20,000 regions on Nationstates, with actual totals fluctuating on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but that would very swiftly become more cumbersome than the California recall election was! (And I'm a Californian, trust me, it was a royal pain in the keister! :wink: )
~Rep

Isn't any statewide vote out there on the 'left coast' somewhat of a pain? unless it's a 'cut an' dried' type of thing

Heh, nah, usually it's pretty straightforward. But you try to pick somebody when the candidate list is eight pages long! :lol:

dont know what the point of suggesting it now is but since there would be too many candidates if every region sent someone it could be a case of every region with at least a population of <insert number here> nations could nominate a candidate.

Here's the problem. What if people elect a person like sythia or JARROS?

Thats my 2 cents