Thread: Selection of Moderators/Advisory Board Members

Tned has done a great job setting up this forum pretty much on the fly. An amazing task that not many could have handled at all. Then a group was formed to moderate and a group to act as a board for administration.

This thread is in no way meant to criticize or ask for replacement of any of these individuals who are doing a great job volunteering their time for the betterment of this forum and to do what they hope is best for the members who post here.

The current set up is that both the moderators and the board members are selected completely by the board members. I feel that this was a great solution for the setup and growth of this community but in the future should either be modified or at least the discussion needs to be had.

The goal of this community was to be more democratic than just about any other forum I know of. Great concept. My hat's constantly off to Tned for it. The current format of the board isn't a democratic one though... although I was always horrible in Social Studies, I believe what is in place here is more of an oligarchy. Feel free to correct me on that.

The way I see it, some sort of democracy needs to be added into this process. I'm not sure what the answer is. I know that some love polls and some hate them and it will likely never be a part of an official process on this forum. In any case there has to be some method to allow the members here to have a say in who is running the boards and who is moderating it. Again, I'm not asking for the departure of any of the current members who are in these rolls, but how to replace them when the time comes.

I think that in the least, when the board does choose someone... they should be approved by the board as a whole. Again, I'm not offering specific paramaters... just thoughts in general. Perhaps when the question is a simple yes or no... such as 'Do you approve the appointment of ______' a poll COULD be effective?

I'm not saying that's the answer, but I think the public oversight is important for both moderator positions and board positions.

For the board, obviously the members are supposed to represent the membership as best as possible, I think. As the membership of the board grows and changes, the board should too.

For Moderators, it would be nice to just make sure that there's not a lot of members that already have issues with an appointed moderator. That would lead to trouble down the road and could even make it difficult for the member to be an effective or worthwhile moderator. It's hard to help other people with issues when you're dealing with your own. lol.

Finally, a separate question - Should there be some sort of term lengths involved?

This community is a dynamic place, and those who represent/govern it should be too. Maybe some sort of check is needed? I've thought a lot about that one, and am not sure myself.

I don't think the same applies to moderators though... you find those who are capable and willing to deal with other people's problems and you hang on to them. If they eventually become worn out or no longer fit the community's needs idealy, that a different issue.

I apologize if this is a little disjointed or not well thought out. I promise I've given it previous thought, but kinda had to rush putting it together.

Anyway... thoughts?

Great post LT

Finally, a separate question - Should there be some sort of term lengths involved?

This community is a dynamic place, and those who represent/govern it should be too. Maybe some sort of check is needed? I've thought a lot about that one, and am not sure myself.

I don't think the same applies to moderators though... you find those who are capable and willing to deal with other people's problems and you hang on to them. If they eventually become worn out or no longer fit the community's needs idealy, that a different issue.

Rotating Mods is a possibly a great idea. The one thing I noticed on the other board (Freak) was that the mods stopped having a good time. Maybe you can increase the number of mods, but they have days off?

This place was set up so well, and is young enough that it almost runs itself, but we pulled the best and brightest off of 2 (BM, BF)boards.

Originally Posted by claymore

Great post LT



Rotating Mods is a possibly a great idea. The one thing I noticed on the other board (Freak) was that the mods stopped having a good time. Maybe you can increase the number of mods, but they have days off?

This place was set up so well, and is young enough that it almost runs itself, but we pulled the best and brightest off of 2 (BM, BF)boards.

I like that idea also. To me being a mod would get tiring and old after doing it for a long time. It also seems like Mods can't really let loose like the rest of us can and that to me would be the part that would get old....as well as all the cry babies on the site also.

I also think there should be a number of mods per number of members.

Right now we have 300+ members...and 4 mods. Seems like a reasonable number. But what is reasonable # of mods = to members?

1 per 100?
1 per 200?
1 per 300? etc, etc.

Just thoughts

1 to 100 sounds about good... enough members to provoke discussion, but enough mods to enforce it without getting all "big brother" on you.

Of course, this comes from a member, and not a mod. I wouldn't know .

A lot to think about here. I'll be back later after I've mulled this over.

I think Frau should be a mod.

Originally Posted by claymore

I think Frau should be a mod.

I second that.

Your sig is hypnotizing me.

Originally Posted by claymore

Great post LT



Rotating Mods is a possibly a great idea. The one thing I noticed on the other board (Freak) was that the mods stopped having a good time. Maybe you can increase the number of mods, but they have days off?

This place was set up so well, and is young enough that it almost runs itself, but we pulled the best and brightest off of 2 (BM, BF)boards.

Interesting. Not really what I meant, but a good idea none the less.

Rotating mods in and out would definately be a good idea... IF you have enough members that make good mods.

Thanks to everyone who's added input. Hoping for a good discussion.

I would probably get too stressed being a mod... or even on the board thingy... I'd stop having fun.

Originally Posted by claymore

I think Frau should be a mod.

You forgot to add

Originally Posted by frauschieze

You forgot to add

Originally Posted by claymore

I thought you said you quit drinking Clay? :snicker:.... nvm.

Originally Posted by Broncospsycho77

I would probably get too stressed being a mod... or even on the board thingy... I'd stop having fun.

That's why I stopped being a mod here...



I think rotating mods is a bad idea. Not everyone is fit to be a moderator, and as the site grows moderating will be come more of a chore than it is now. I was a moderator on a site with over 26,000 people for about a year and the way the moderation staff was set up there made it so much easier and enjoyable to moderate, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

good post trych, you raise some interesting questions that i have thought about myself. . . it does seem that the membership at large should have some way of having input into the selection process-- for me, the question is how? i'm open to suggestions. . .

Finally, a separate question - Should there be some sort of term lengths involved?

personally, i believe that there should be-- for the advisory board, at the very least. . . mods, i am not so sure-- in theory i like the idea, but on the other hand i'm sure that you of all people know that it's a job that not just anybody can do well, or would even want to do given the voluntary and potentially time-consuming nature of the position. . . my gut instinct says that if you find good mods, it's probably a good idea to stick with them. . .

just so you know, i did start a thread on this very question the day after i was added to the advisory board. . . to be honest though, the discussion didn't go very far, as there were a lot more pressing issues that needed to be dealt with first-- and anyone who is following some of the current town hall discussions can see that that is still the case. . . our general feeling was that we wanted to hammer down some of the basic rules and procedures first, and that changing advisory board membership before that process was completed would be kinda self-defeating, as new people would have to be brought up to speed before they could contribute, and many of our discussion threads are many pages long. . .

it's my opinion that we don't want to put TOO many things on our plate all at once, because you tend to get bogged down and then nothing gets accomplished. . . i would really like to get some issues like the mile high salute/high five system, the rules regarding profanity, banning, etc taken care of before we move on to some of this other stuff. . . however, i certainly do intend to pursue this topic once the things governing the day-to-day functioning of the board are ironed out, and if it seems to be something that is favored by a large percentage of members, i'm sure you'll find the rest advisory board receptive. . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

good post trych, you raise some interesting questions that i have thought about myself. . . it does seem that the membership at large should have some way of having input into the selection process-- for me, the question is how? i'm open to suggestions. . .





personally, i believe that there should be-- for the advisory board, at the very least. . . mods, i am not so sure-- in theory i like the idea, but on the other hand i'm sure that you of all people know that it's a job that not just anybody can do well, or would even want to do given the voluntary and potentially time-consuming nature of the position. . . my gut instinct says that if you find good mods, it's probably a good idea to stick with them. . .

just so you know, i did start a thread on this very question the day after i was added to the advisory board. . . to be honest though, the discussion didn't go very far, as there were a lot more pressing issues that needed to be dealt with first-- and anyone who is following some of the current town hall discussions can see that that is still the case. . . our general feeling was that we wanted to hammer down some of the basic rules and procedures first, and that changing advisory board membership before that process was completed would be kinda self-defeating, as new people would have to be brought up to speed before they could contribute, and many of our discussion threads are many pages long. . .

it's my opinion that we don't want to put TOO many things on our plate all at once, because you tend to get bogged down and then nothing gets accomplished. . . i would really like to get some issues like the mile high salute/high five system, the rules regarding profanity, banning, etc taken care of before we move on to some of this other stuff. . . however, i certainly do intend to pursue this topic once the things governing the day-to-day functioning of the board are ironed out, and if it seems to be something that is favored by a large percentage of members, i'm sure you'll find the rest advisory board receptive. . .

Great post, Dogfish... thank you.

It's good that you guys had already thought about term lengths, IMO... it wasn't really my first concern when making this thread, but it was relevant, so I figured rather than make a bunch of threads, I'd just put all of my stupid rants into as few as possible.

If you (board) guys feel that this is a discussion that's best suited for later, that's fine too. I'm not trying to overwhelm you... just figured that while you were having an 'open session'... lol.