Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Here we go again.......

You make some very good points, Cait.

However, I believe that if it gets to the point where the Watchdogs are no longer able to handle the situation (as you stated above) then you need someone in that position who has the conviction to bring the matter to the community's attention. No, they may not like it and there probably will be arguments. The way I see it is if, for example, there is a Moderator bashing any member of EI, then the community has a right to know and decide if the person is suited to keep the position.
 
one of hte problems as I see it is that the nominations are private, as is the selection.

Who knows that the people being selected are being nominated by multiple people? Maybe just by staff, maybe its by the majority of people who n ominate....who knows?

The selection and the nomination being opaque is part of the problem, one I feel that would be diminished by either having nomination or selection being public/transparant.
 
S. SaDiablo said:
You make some very good points, Cait.

However, I believe that if it gets to the point where the Watchdogs are no longer able to handle the situation (as you stated above) then you need someone in that position who has the conviction to bring the matter to the community's attention. No, they may not like it and there probably will be arguments. The way I see it is if, for example, there is a Moderator bashing any member of EI, then the community has a right to know and decide if the person is suited to keep the position.
Click to expand...

Which brings up another point. How could the community go about asking for a moderator or Admin to stand down? There absolutely nothing in the guidelines about it. And I'm not just talking about staff misconduct. There have been mods who just plain needed to take some time off. Some who needed to step down completely IMHO. They're dedicated, but not suited to the job. Some have just been doing it way too long and are now jaded, or so entrenched in their power that they can't reasonably function as they should.

One of the few things I liked about SSU was the idea of rotation on mod duties. It kept an elitist Staff vs. members thing from occurring. It's too bad most of the EI mods have been doing it so long and are actually quite stale at it. [not counting those mods and Admins that were smart enough to take time off all on their own. Most notably John Burke, Gode, and LoP.. even Cardie and Rov to a degree]

How does that discussion happen without ripping that community apart?
 
Chaddee said:
one of hte problems as I see it is that the nominations are private, as is the selection.

Who knows that the people being selected are being nominated by multiple people? Maybe just by staff, maybe its by the majority of people who n ominate....who knows?

The selection and the nomination being opaque is part of the problem, one I feel that would be diminished by either having nomination or selection being public/transparant.
Click to expand...

I've heard that it is better now, but when I asked for nominations, I got only three pm's and two of them nominated themselves. I put all of them before the Staff, and added my own choices. The one chosen came from a pm I had received.

But then I began a thread both in the SL and AQG about that situation. I believe it is better now, but the fact still remains, it is a secret process and no one knows for sure how a selection is determined.

I still think that people should nominate privately, the staff should vet the names to 'acceptable' candidates [there are security issues] and then the membership should vote. It's the membership that WD's represent, the membership should get to vote. That would be a start at making the process more transparent.
 
Caitriona said:
Which brings up another point. How could the community go about asking for a moderator or Admin to stand down? There absolutely nothing in the guidelines about it. And I'm not just talking about staff misconduct. There have been mods who just plain needed to take some time off. Some who needed to step down completely IMHO. They're dedicated, but not suited to the job. Some have just been doing it way too long and are now jaded, or so entrenched in their power that they can't reasonably function as they should.
Click to expand...

Good points. And you're right, it would be a difficult position for everyone involved. If it were a Mod who was at fault, I'd imagine they'd earn a "time out," so to speak. A chance to take a step back from their position, take a break (which they probably need if it is as "stressful" as they say) and just post as a regular member for awhile. In the case of an Admin...I don't know. That'd be difficult because it's not like you can ask Rov to hand over the board for a spell or have Orph to step down since they're pretty vital to how the community functions.

One of the few things I liked about SSU was the idea of rotation on mod duties. It kept an elitist Staff vs. members thing from occurring. It's too bad most of the EI mods have been doing it so long and are actually quite stale at it. [not counting those mods and Admins that were smart enough to take time off all on their own. Most notably John Burke, Gode, and LoP.. even Cardie and Rov to a degree]

How does that discussion happen without ripping that community apart?
Click to expand...

I agree. They really do seem like they need a break, a few in particular. After all, they repeatedly say how "stressful" it is, they're doing their best, they have real life to tend to, it's a difficult board to run etc. etc. If that's how they feel about it, why stay in the position? I don't believe someone who sees it more as a "chore" or "work" will be a good Moderator simply because...everyone gets to a point when they just don't give a damn anymore.
 
Caitriona said:
I still think that people should nominate privately, the staff should vet the names to 'acceptable' candidates [there are security issues] and then the membership should vote. It's the membership that WD's represent, the membership should get to vote. That would be a start at making the process more transparent.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.
 
Chaddee said:
one of hte problems as I see it is that the nominations are private, as is the selection.

Who knows that the people being selected are being nominated by multiple people? Maybe just by staff, maybe its by the majority of people who n ominate....who knows?

The selection and the nomination being opaque is part of the problem, one I feel that would be diminished by either having nomination or selection being public/transparant.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it is the same circle of people, though I have no way of proving it, so I could be wrong. But a very small percentage of EI really bothers to vote.

Given the fact that Josh has flown off the handle, and that some members like vegantroll and Kosh have gone out of their way in showing their dislike of me, I don't think I have much of a chance. I do know that if I don't ask anyone to vote for me, they won't. And those that I would ask, may or may not, with a couple of exceptions of who will.

Cait said:
EI is a volatile and sensitive community and it does explode easily.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell. It doesn't take much to piss them off. Really. And that is their biggest problem. That and not following their own advice. They become easy troll prey. They also fly off the handle so badly that threads become a lynch-fest. I've never seen any other board be like that that I know of.
 
But a very small percentage of EI really bothers to vote.
Click to expand...
and that's one of the problems, then again only a small percentage of EI looks in AQG and most WD nominations come from AQG regulars (as far as I recall). I guess it's like most 'elections' (in the UK anyway) only a minority use their right to vote ~sigh~
 
EnglishRose said:
and that's one of the problems, then again only a small percentage of EI looks in AQG and most WD nominations come from AQG regulars (as far as I recall). I guess it's like most 'elections' (in the UK anyway) only a minority use their right to vote ~sigh~
Click to expand...

Good point. I agree. :)
 
EnglishRose said:
and that's one of the problems, then again only a small percentage of EI looks in AQG and most WD nominations come from AQG regulars (as far as I recall). I guess it's like most 'elections' (in the UK anyway) only a minority use their right to vote ~sigh~
Click to expand...

Plus, take into account that EI has 2,046 registered members, but how many of them actively post? 1/3? 1/5?
 
I can say that the last time nominations were held - to replace Chakotay at the end of his term, we got a huge number of nominations, more than ever before and more than many times combined.

If you have nominations, please don't hesitate to make them.
 
That's all fine and dandy, Shal, but it doesn't mean much when the members do not have the final decision. That's my main concern. Someone--hell, multiple people--can nominate an EI'er all they want, at every election, and the Staff can keep rejecting the nomination for personal reasons regardless of whether or not they'd make a good WD. Now, you can say this doesn't happen and you don't play favorites all you'd like, but what it come down to is the membership is in the dark on pretty much the entire process.
 
A Karas, I'll tell you what. I'll throw your name into my list of four or five, just so you can say that you were nominated.

LOL, I just remembered how Chakotey took a pot shot at me in his "Watchdog report" and got a warning for it. ROTF. What a shithead.
 
Personally, I think what makes a good watchdog is a person who is wary of the staff. Someone like RuReddy, Chaddee, RobL, or Blondie would do well in that regard. Cait would be fantastic, but she has better things to do these days. I know I'd keep a close eye on em. That's the whole purpose of the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top