Shouldn't there be a system that allows a vote of no confidence in a moderator here at the org?


The reason why I'm saying this is that from time to time certain mods will
make arbitrary decisions that are unanimously opposed to not only what
the general orger population feels, but what other moderators feel.
Yet there doesn't seem to be a way to mitigate that issue.

If you take on a 'bad seed' for example, with the system we have now,
a moderator can continue to make decisions that perplex his or her peers (even
frustrate them I'm told) yet not even the other mods can join together
and do anything about it.


Can't we devise a system of no-confidence voting which leads to a review
based on evidence or documentation by other mods and by ben?


I understand that being in the hot seat means that you have to make decisions
that are not popular. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about continuos, systemic, bad or heavy-handed decisions which
not only go against what the general population would think, but what a mod's
peers feel. This does happen from time to time--shouldn't we have a way
of dealing with that?

Reported.

This isn’t a democratic community.

I would disagree with your premise.

Quite simply your description of the current system is incorrect. Anyone can contact any moderator and moderators are certainly capable of addressing issues within our own ranks. No one on the site is above the rules.

But perhaps that is part of the problem. The system you propose would easily lead to clique rule. Whenever a "popular" orger would run afoul of the rules and have action taken against them, a simple facebook rant could unleash a deluge of "no confidence" votes against that moderator.

Mods are not selected democratically, nor are they subject to vindictive actions by those that have required moderation. That's kinda the trade off.

In a small community such as this it is easy to contact the site mods and owner, that makes it different from many internet forums and yea, these ideas can seem simple to implement and may even seem to make sense on the surface. The problem is that this is the internet and democracy rarely leads to fairness when votes can be so easily manipulated.

So if people are reaching out to mods and not getting any response that would be an issue and I would want to hear about that, but I disagree with what you have proposed.

People are free to contact the mod that took action or any other mod or the site owner and should get a response. If a mod disagrees with something another did then I would expect that to be addressed as well. So far I haven't seen any of that happening.

To further serve as an example I would point to your response to another orger in this very forum. They had an issue with a mod action. Your response?



That gets to the heart of the problem. Anytime moderation is requested or required, one party will be happy, the other will feel wronged. There will always be somebody that wants to call for the head of a mod. This just isn't the place for that. That's why facebook was invented.

I should add, if an orger's inquiry into mod action consists of "Fuck You" they probably won't get a very helpful response.

A thoughtful argument, however deserves a thoughtful response.

Mars23 said:

Hear, hear!

okay, let's solve this mess for once and for all.

i hereby nominate mcmeekle as GOD OF THE ORG.

let's let someone responsible call the shots, okay?

CarrieMpls said:

Hang on a second, what if such a response is coming from a moderator in response to an enquiry? It's happened to me.

JDInteractive said:

Then goodness sakes, pass that along to another mod or the site owner!

That shouldn't happen. That's awful, I'm sorry.

JDInteractive said:

Interesting ...

CarrieMpls said:

I agree with Carrie ~ please pass the transaction on to Ben or another Moderator

This thread.

Vendetta1 said:

i love you Ivy...you always put a smile on my dial

prb said:

Awww. Thank you so much.

CarrieMpls said:

Who on earth said that it was?


I'm suppressing the urge to post an passive-agressive lol emoticon myself
[Edited 2/11/10 6:02am]

Mars23 said:

I can see the no-confidence votes being an issue. It's an unintended consequence I didn't even think about. For example, I'm so incredibly popular that the scenario involving vindictive no-confidence votes would go on much like this god awful 'Michael Jackson is dead threads' (We already fucking know he's dead and he liked drugs ).


Perhaps a system in which an orger can report an action for review of a 'second' mod?

As far as my comment to the orger on the other thread, it was posted with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.....as is my popularity statement.


.
[Edited 2/11/10 6:19am]

Vendetta1 said:

Mach said:

This works.
I just benefited from it a few days ago.
The 'second' moderator understood the gravity of the situation and responded in kind.

The issue is that the original moderator can go on down the same track endlessly while other mods play cleanup. I know you mods get frustrated sometimes with a peer, but it seems to leave the solution in ben's hands, and he seems... busy.


This isn't about not liking a moderator... most are my friends. Albeit I think the point mars23 brought up muddles my original idea quite a bit, and I need to actually take a step back and think. I think my original premise is highly flawed in that respect.



.
[Edited 2/11/10 6:20am]

mods,

Thanks mars23 for the insight.
For the rest of you, erm... thanks for coming?

TheVoid said:

OK.