Majority Votes

[Prince Elite]

Recently DoctorAllosaurus was elected as a mod despite a 50/50 split in the poll. Steve has intimated that the rule of thumb is that for a person to be elected, the disapproval rating must be higher than the approval rating. Maybe I'm a little crazy but that just doesn't seem right. In my opinion, because mod positions are few and far between, I think a mod should only be selected with an official majority approval vote, and a 50/50 split decision is not something that should get someone an office. Now I wanted to know what the collective thinks. Whether you think only a majority approval vote should be the deciding factor, or the rule we have now. Now remember, this isn't a poll to get rid of DoctorAllosaurus, this isn't anything like that. So put away the hateorade and remember that this poll must be kept civil and any and all discussion must be used with logic and not hatred, otherwise the poll will most likely be locked and then goodbye Charlie. Note: Steve gave me permission to do this poll, and yes I'm aware that "The staff unanimously voted for Allosaurus"

[Arashikage]

I am a strong advocate of "By the people for the people," and I should agree that a majority of the people should decide in favor rather than half.  

[Steve]

Alright, good, you brought the topic.

 

Here's what I did, since I was the person in charge of the topic, and I will be blunt.

 

I got around 10 or so applications, I ditched 5-6 as soon as I saw the names, cause you know, one of the rules to apply is "you must not have a bad history with the staff" Leaving 4 people that could be elected. Now, all the staff brainstormed, and we focused on two things this time, since sroberson and foxmccloud, even though they were excellent members, decided to go "baibai" we were forced to scratch one of the members that made into the cut because said person had a risk of going "baibai". Log dates prove us right on that, that's how we further cut the list.

 

Now, out of the 3 remaining folks, one was an excellent candidate but had a high risk of leaking staff information and the other candidate was ok, yet inexperienced from our point of view. We still voted as a staff group and Vydrach won, as you may have noticed, it was mostly flawless victory because of the risk assessment we did.

 

Then as a staff group ,we pointed fingers at members that would be good candidates, that had no bad history in the forum, that would not have "I will randomly disappear" risks, and most importantly, no damn staff leaks risk.

 

Now the whole "alright I would like to disagree with the rule of how the community votes", with that, I'm sorry, this is not a matter of politics. It's a matter of "a rule was created, it says this, deal with it, feel free to voice your disagreement though" I asked you to give me a good reason for why we shouldn't have Allosaurus in the staff room, you didn't give me any.

 

Rules are stated for a reason, sadly, this one is a mathematical bitch, and like I told you, unlucky enough I forgot to close the poll yesterday, like I was going to do. So if you want to go technical, under time  limit, he got over 50% positive votes. My bad?

 

Vydrach is a fresher in the staff room, he can testify that we do brainstorm, without being biased. Now, if he ends up being a bad pick (Allosaurus), you have the right to nag at me all you want, for this was my call.

[Geo Stelar]

I think so too. Chosen by the majority doesn't mean that that someone was perfect for the position. I think it should be more like who is seen to have the capability to be in position, rather than someone being always seen around. However, in Doctor Allosaurus's case, I think that's what the members did, and since there was no majority in the votes, then the staff must have some good reason to make Doc a mod. Maybe they really do think Doc can be a good mod

[Sarita]

I think so too. Chosen by the majority doesn't mean that that someone was perfect for the position. I think it should be more like who is seen to have the capability to be in position, rather than someone being always seen around. However, in Doctor Allosaurus's case, I think that's what the members did, and since there was no majority in the votes, then the staff must have some good reason to make Doc a mod. Maybe they really do think Doc can be a good mod

 

The policy is officially, in the result of a tie, the Staff cast the tiebreaker vote. So that's why if the vote is 50-50, we give the member the position.

[Drasiana]

I voted no just because I'm not entirely sure I trust the majority of SFO's judgement. But there are a lot of other factors to consider here.

 

My problem with this system is that it just seems like a really bizarre downgrade. Like you guys are the CEOs asking the unpaid interns who their next boss should be based on almost nothing.

 

In the topic you'd said that you do the polls so we can voice our issues, if we have them, but then you say right here that you guys do these background checks and intensely evaluate each of the applicants. You are the guys that get the applications. You are the guys who know what you are looking for. Like, how are we supposed to know which members are prone to "information leaks"? The reason people were so split on Doc is because we don't really know anything about him, but you guys apparently do to the extent that you unanimously decided that he is the best candidate. And hey, I trust that judgement, because it means you guys were on the same page and that's what the staff here needs...not to muddle it in a weird extraneous poll that you can override anyway.

 

I know you guys want to include this process because of previous incidents where snap-decision mods caused people to become unhappy, but here's the thing: by everything I know about that, it turned out the way it did because it was a snap decision. It didn't have any of the thought and effort you guys put into the applications and decisions amongst yourselves.

 

Honestly, if you guys unanimously decide on a new mod, I trust that judgement. With the current staff roster I severely doubt you guys would pull a fast one by electing KRYSTALS_BFXXX69 as a mod. You know what you're looking for, you know the history. The bulk of the forum probably does not, as there's a pretty good mix of users here who are too new to know anyone or not psychic enough to know who would work best. And if there's still the issue of worrying over issues you don't know about, post the names of the applicants before anything resembling a decision is made; then whoever has issues with that person can decide to PM someone about it.

[Vy'drach]

Vydrach is a fresher in the staff room, he can testify that we do brainstorm, without being biased. Now, if he ends up being a bad pick (Allosaurus), you have the right to nag at me all you want, for this was my call.

 

 

I certainly can. Now before anyone goes thinking this is a matter of staff ganging up and getting each other's backs and what not, let me assure you I am the type that will call bullshit when I see it. But there was no bullshit here. We had a list of candidates, and the staff looked at the list, and the staff, with their staff-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, who would be fair? It shouldn't be an absentee. It shouldn't be a troublemaker. It shouldn't be a leaker, or squeaker, or hare. And we puzzled and puzzled 'till our puzzlers were sore. Then we noticed the one we were most comfortable with was Doc Al, the old bore.

 

Then we come to the poll, which first off I'd like to point out that this topic is rather moot given that within the allotted time the majority vote was "Yes." But two other points to consider as well:

 

1) I wasn't around when the system was put in the way it was so I can't speak in an official sense in the point of it, but I always felt, even before I was a mod, that it was less about a "Do you want this person as a mod" type of thing and more of a "Do you have any reason why they shouldn't be a mod, speak now, or forever hold your peace" type deal (not to say that if someone is behaving as a mod shouldn't have you shouldn't contact the proper staff about their behaviour). The reason the poll is there is because staff don't know everything about folks on this site. Contrary to what I'm sure some of you believe, we don't have dossiers on each member, we do not monitor your every moment of every day. We might not know something about the person we're considering, and rather than just making them a mod when they've been acting like a colossal asshat to everyone off site or whatever, we give the community the chance to say "No, this person shouldn't be a mod because *insert reasons here*. We'd look at those reasons within reason and if the complaints hold water, we'd be like, "Oh shit, we had no idea. Yeah, this person shouldn't be a mod. No mod slot for you." By all means other staff, however, correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

2) It's not a popularity contest. Now I don't know about the other staff, but I personally believe that at least a few of those "No's" were for reasons beyond legitimate concerns. Whether it be because people were mad at not being selected for the next mod candidate and developed a "I didn't get it so no one shall" mentality, the person wasn't their friend, or they just didn't know them very well and decided "I don't really know 'em, so I'm gonna say no." These are not legitimate reasons. Not to say that if a majority vote was no by say 30-31 that the vote would still succeed, as it's neither a confirmed thing nor a staff mentality and just my own personal opinion on it, but when combined with the other points I brought up, I find it a tad difficult to be sympathetic overall with this. Not to say legitimate concerns are no concern of mine, but a keyword there, legitimate. I believe a large part of this is people misunderstanding the point of the system we have currently. Don't get me wrong, I may be in the wrong here and if so, my bad, but yeah, this brings me to this:

 

 

 

Words.

 

I'm really rather agreeing here but like I said before, the point of the system (to me), was to give the community an opportunity to oust some bad, disqualifying behaviour, a system that should be in place because as I said before, staff don't know everything. I am going to puzzle on this some more and try to brainstorm a more streamlined system all around with less margin for trouble.

[Drasiana]

2) It's not a popularity contest. Now I don't know about the other staff, but I personally believe that at least a few of those "No's" were for reasons beyond legitimate concerns. Whether it be because people were mad at not being selected for the next mod candidate and developed a "I didn't get it so no one shall" mentality, the person wasn't their friend, or they just didn't know them very well and decided "I don't really know 'em, so I'm gonna say no." These are not legitimate reasons. Not to say that if a majority vote was no by say 30-31 that the vote would still succeed, as it's neither a confirmed thing nor a staff mentality and just my own personal opinion on it, but when combined with the other points I brought up, I find it a tad difficult to be sympathetic overall with this. Not to say legitimate concerns are no concern of mine, but a keyword there, legitimate. I believe a large part of this is people misunderstanding the point of the system we have currently. Don't get me wrong, I may be in the wrong here and if so, my bad, but yeah, this brings me to this:

 

Isn't this exactly the reason why this format does not work and is not going to ever work?

 

I'm really rather agreeing here but like I said before, the point of the system (to me), was to give the community an opportunity to oust some bad, disqualifying behaviour, a system that should be in place because as I said before, staff don't know everything. I am going to puzzle on this some more and try to brainstorm a more streamlined system all around with less margin for trouble.

 

Here's what you do.

 

1. Call for mod applications

2. People apply

3. Close applications

4. Make an alphabetical/chronological list of all the applicants in the topic.

5. If people have any BIG issues with any of the applicants--as in "this person has a history of harassing people" issues, not "they don't like my ship" issues--they can PM you guys about it

6. You guys pick a mod that people aren't complaining about

7. The end

 

No weird gigantic amorphous forum middle-man that doesn't really know what it's talking about.

[Icy]

I think some people are trying hard to make something out of nothing.

I understand all the concerns and the views on both sides here, but I still think it's really nothing.

Again, 50/50 = staff decides. I've never seen any public staff decision go sour, and I don't expect to anytime soon.

 

Calm yourselves.

[Redeemer]

Dras made a good point in another topic about how people are always going to vote for their friends. And given that a bunch of people who are all friends together applied, of course they would all vote for each other, and those who aren't up for vote will simply vote no for someone they don't know. Because this is really how people, especially online, work. Some members are used to getting in on the good stuff and would love it if their friend was in the staff.

 

We didn't pick Al JUST on his application. None of the staff know him on a deeply personal level, but I've always been aware of him for years, since I registered. He likes to talk about games, and always posts in the Arcade, that's cool. He also likes to take part in Mario Kart night, that's cool too - he's online at least once a day and takes part in community events. Now some seem to think that his attendance is why we picked him - it's not. It's his response to things, how he interacts with the community, and how he's steered clear of drama. He's never fought with another member, and he's never been reported or complained about. I've seen him advocate peace in some topics that were pretty heated, and he's also approached me regarding forum events he was concerned about. Whether he approached any other staff I'm unsure.

 

Addressing Kage's "For the people by the people", if we only went with that then we would have a lot of problems in the staff board. Because some of the most popular members also have a bad history with rule breaking and are generally not suited for a position of responsibility. I really appreciate what you're advocating for, Kage, because I know you're a good guy and I know you've a kind heart, but I just wanted to add my perspective to yours, if that's okay.

Now I understand that the issue here is "should more than 50% determine a mod" and personally I think that's all right, and if there's a big problem then we all sit down and talk about it and decide how to reach a happy middle. If we were to claim that 50% wasn't enough, then we're essentially dismissing half of the members that voted yes. But on the other hand, if we're claiming that is enough then we're overlooking the 50% that voted no. It's a tough decision, but a big, big influential factor here is that many of members that applied were known troublemakers that the staff look out for, and I think there's no denying that this has had an effect on this poll. But I can confirm that the staff are revising their mod election process, I just replied to it myself.

 

I agree with Dras that polls are problematic and SFO's judgement isn't perhaps the most clear, given our obvious social structure. It's mostly worked for us before, we pick a good member and the member wins in the poll voted by the community. I think that the staff, especially the current roster, are capable of picking out a new staff member and I see this as a safeguard against "omg there's my buddy I'll vote for him". But I don't know, I think it's worth reflecting on another method, as suggested, at least talking about it and picking out and advantages and disadvantages of how it will affect the community and keep SFO a busy, positive place.

 

If anyone wants to talk to me, or any other staff member in particular, please, please feel free to write us a PM with your thoughts. I'm open to discussing stuff via PM should anyone want to make a point to me or ask me anything, so if you don't feel like replying here, drop me a PM.

[DoctorAllosaurus]

The reason people were so split on Doc is because we don't really know anything about him, but you guys apparently do to the extent that you unanimously decided that he is the best candidate. 

What exactly needs to be known about me if I may ask. 

[Geo Stelar]

What exactly needs to be known about me if I may ask. 

 

 

I think they're talking about things that affect this:

Then as a staff group ,we pointed fingers at members that would be good candidates, that had no bad history in the forum, that would not have "I will randomly disappear" risks, and most importantly, no damn staff leaks risk.

 

.... like behavior/attitude, maybe? or if you can handle the responsibilities of a mod (which I think you can)

 

 

 

So that's why if the vote is 50-50, we give the member the position.

 

(I see. I never knew 'till now good to know)

[Drasiana]

What exactly needs to be known about me if I may ask. 

 

Literally all the things Steve just listed as qualifiers to become a mod, as Geo Stelar reiterated. Again, I'm not sure why we're expected to vote based on a set of invisible criteria that many members are in the dark about regarding specific members. The only reason people seemed to even vote "no" for you was that they didn't really know you. I didn't vote either way because I had no reason to vote either way because I literally know nothing about you other than the fact that you had a Yoshi avatar a week ago. Obviously the rest of the staff had their reasons for choosing you, and that's great, but like I said earlier I have no idea how we the commoners are supposed to assess whether or not you will randomly disappear or leak staff information or whatever.

[Redeemer]

I guess some of the things like disappearing and leaking just happen, there's no way to tell who's going to do what. But I mean, I guess the polls aren't that detailed. I don't know, I'm kind of mulling stuff over today, even when I was in town lol. We're talking about it in depth, so that's a start.

[Hidi]

Thinking about Steve mentioning tossing out applications of members getting into trouble; in some ways, I feel that reflects negatively because the idea of being warned and possibly punished is to become aware and learn from your mistakes. If the second someone gets into trouble they are no longer eligible for a position of responsibility, then what is the point of penalization? We can't dwell on the past, and if people learn from their wrongs, they won't do it again, and I believe that should be taken accordingly. Warnings from two years ago for a member who has not re-offended are likely not longer relevant both to the member and the community.

If as a community we were able to recognize people able and willing to learn from their mistakes, our options wouldn't be so limited here, and people would have a broader choice in who they want staffing them. 

 

In short, keep options as diverse as possible, and in the case there is no majority, leave them until the community reception is heard of other qualifiers.

[Redeemer]

Just to mention that as well, there have been members that have messed around before but now have settled in better, and we've actually taken note during reviewing applications. But it takes a little time, just to see if everything's okay, and then we start to consider them if there's been no drama in x amount of time. Everyone gets a chance, but past stuff needs to cool off before they can get it.

[Thu'um]

I think when electing mods our staff does an alright job, but i was slightly concerned. Allosaurus could be the best damn mod in the world, but he had 50% of the vote against him, and thats becuase he was basically an unkown to the communinty. And to be honoest it won't effect how efficient a mod he is. Trouble? Punish a user according to the rules and guide lines. It doesn't require a genius or a skill set. What i'm ever so cocerned about is reaction to the election of a mod with a 50% vote. And thats because staff isn't the problem in this case, it the community. And being well respected by the community i think is critical when a mod has to crack down on some people. But he only had 50% of the communty backing him. And to have 50% of the community's support isn't a good start. What i'm suggesting if an actual higher approval rate. As in maybe 70% to become a mod, i think that'd make the staff much more, er, "respected" by the community, And maybe even get rid of a lot of that problem we have of members discontent with who is staff. And if it doesn't happen then just get rid of voting. The only way we could ever get below 50% is if i ran   

 

I don't mean to offend Allosaurus with this, but i happly and undoubtably voted yes for srob, fox, and redeemer because i knew them. I trusted them, and i felt as if i was voting for a peer or a friend i could depend on. Allosaurus is a name i see on ocassion. And a user i could hardly tell you a thing about. I couldn't vote because i didn't have an idea of his back round. Dras stated that she trusts the staff to not pick a any fool who just applies, but at the same time your asking the community to vote on a memeber i don't feel was well enough known about. But!....the staff is asking me to trust their judgement, and i will because of my respect and trust with the current staff.

[Robert Monroe]

You guys are acting like the poll is the ultimate deciding factor in electing a member to the staff: its not as far as I know. It's more of a measuring stick to see how well the public would recieve this person if they were elected as staff mod: I highly doubt it has any impact on the outcome and is moreso the staff making sure they're doing what they think the community will like.

 

That's not to say your voice isn't important, but SFO ain't a democracy. Your voice is more of a suggestion than a means of direct change. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

[Fana McCloud]

Maaaaaybe having the poll choices reflect the actual nature of what's being asked would help somewhat in steering things away from a popularity contest. Options like "I have no complaints and approve of this candidate", "I do not know enough about this candidate", and "I have serious objections to this candidate (PM mods with specifics)".

[Vulvokunvrii]

Yeah I beleive that it should be a majority vote instead of arbitrailiy saying "Congrats, you're now a moderator, go do moderator things now." YOu should be voted for by majority so its somewhat fair. But its up to you guys and gals up stairs so do what you will.

[Drasiana]

Maaaaaybe having the poll choices reflect the actual nature of what's being asked would help somewhat in steering things away from a popularity contest. Options like "I have no complaints and approve of this candidate", "I do not know enough about this candidate", and "I have serious objections to this candidate (PM mods with specifics)".

 

I think this is the best of the solutions tbh

[Vy'drach]

I'd be fine with a system such as this as well.

[DZComposer]

The problem is that people were viewing the poll as an election rather than what it was: an appointment confirmation.

I didn't implement an election process because I felt such a process would be a mere popularity contest that could lead to us getting people who do not fit the criteria for being good moderators. If we did that, we would have to probably have some kind of screening process or veto power over it. Guess what that leads to: Drama.

That said, I believe the community should have a say in who enforces the rules. I felt the best way to reconcile this is the appoint-and-confirm method.

Might I add that most communities rely solely on admin appointment for staff.

The question is where is the threshold? I felt that 50% is fair. If the community really disagrees, then the person will fail to get 50%. It also allows the staff's collective opinion to break the tie. After-all, it is the staff that will have to work with this person. Of course if the confirmation vote is < 50% the confirmation fails and a new appointee must be chosen.

For transparency's sake, here is the list of rules the staff are supposed to follow when selecting staff. I admit they haven't always been followed, though I will say in those instances it was over my objection. Also, might I add, that those times we did deviate from the procedure tended to not work out as well. If memory serves, all the staff that were selected differently are no longer staff members.

SFO Staff Selection Procedures:

1.The Lead Moderator will determine that there is a need for additional moderators, while the Lead Admin will determine there is a need for additional admins.

2.The Lead Forum Admin or Lead Moderator will announce to the community which positions are available, and will post the appropriate set of qualifications.

3.Members will submit applications via PM to the Lead Moderator. (Admins are chosen from existing moderators)

4.Applications from members who do not qualify or who continuously beg for staff positions will be discarded.

5.The remaining applications will be posted to the staff board.

6.The staff members will voice recommendations as to which applicants are suited and which are not.

7.The Lead Moderator will select an appointee from the applicants.

8.The Lead Moderator will create a poll in the Announcements board for confirmation of the applicant.

9.The poll will remain open for one week (seven days).

10.The appointee will be confirmed as a staff member if 50% or more of the votes cast are for confirmation.

11.The new staff member will be given a copy of the staff guidelines.

12.Upon acceptance of the guidelines, the new staff member will be given access to all needed features and boards.

This has been the procedure for selecting staff members since I became the lead admin, though there have been some modifications to it. When followed, this has been a reliable system. I personally don't see any need to change it.