[xasop]

I won't have time to write up any specific wording until Saturday, but I have some ideas for Manifesto amendments to restructure the way things are run.

For some background, the catalyst for this change was pizaaplanet's resignation. While he and I may disagree on the nature of the problem, I think we both agree that there is a problem, and that's what I'm aiming to address here. None of us can change what's already happened, but we can try to extract lessons from past events.

This thread is just a brain dump of the things I've been thinking about. I'd like to get some idea of whether there is broad support for these changes before pushing them any further.

Here's what I'd like to change, in a nutshell:

Establish a Manifesto amendment process

The current Manifesto text says that:

Amendments to the manifesto may only be made with the express
authorisation of both Steven McDonald ("Parsifal") and "pizaaplanet".
Every new revision must be given a new version number, which
shall be an integer that is numerically greater than every
previously published manifesto version.

I would like to replace this with a popular vote. Ultimately, the Manifesto is there to govern how we represent you, and anyone should be able to propose and vote on amendments.

This would be the first change, to enable other changes below to be voted on by you.

Prohibit administrators from moderating

This was raised (by Thork, in fact) just a few days after this website was founded. At the time, I thought it was a good idea, and I refrained from moderating for a while on a voluntary basis without codifying it into the Manifesto.

However, I believe admins doing the bulk of the moderation is one of the primary contributing factors to recent events. When there is a dispute between two moderators, that dispute can be resolved by an admin, as an impartial observer. As we have observed, a dispute between two admins can spiral out of control, with nobody having the ability to step in and make a final decision.

Therefore, I propose that we draw a distinction between the types of activities delegated to admins and mods, with a provision that admins should refrain from moderating entirely under normal circumstances. The exact wording of this will be difficult to get right, but I believe it will be worthwhile.

Establish a democratic election process for moderators

I would like to trial a democratic appointment process for moderators. Specifically, I would like to open nominations and hold a popular vote to elect two new moderators, with some criteria set to measure success of the trial. If successful, it merits consideration to amend the Manifesto to provide for regular moderator elections.

The goal of this change is two-fold. First, it encourages moderators to be responsible to the people they moderate on behalf of, if they wish to be re-elected. Second, it gives you, the people, a greater say in how things are run.

[Pete Svarrior]

Due to the current wording of the manifesto (see quote above), any change to the manifesto requires my explicit authorisation.

So here it goes: I explicitly authorise any and all upcoming changes and do not request any further notification of the fact.

Other than that, I'm staying firmly out of this discussion. À tout à l'heure.

[Pongo]

A few of my thoughts:

I would write fail-safes into your electrical process. This site isn't currently overrun with the ultra-angry round-earthers that strive to undermine the society, but it may not always be that way.

How do you plan on keeping alts from voting? It's seems like an industrious CN spammer would have little problem getting multiple accounts past a post-count requirement.

I think the idea of electing mods sounds good on paper but will hurt the position overall. Imagine you're a mod looking for reelection and a user breaks a rule that warrants a bam.  Now, you know this user votes in elections and are worried that they hold a grudge. What do you do? Perhaps let the next mod take it?

Votes are almost always popularity contests. Will the most popular people make the best mods?

[Thork]

We all hate democracy. Give me a benevolent dictator any day. Constant referendum and voting will be very tiresome. We came to this site run by PP and Parsifal because we trust in their leadership of electronic hoojamaflips. None of us have a problem with how you run the site, the squabbling is internal.

To that end, appoint some mods, arbitrate when they get out of hand and kiss each other until you fall in love again.

I think Lord Dave would be a good mod. Yes, he is dim, but he his heart is in the right place. He will make dumb decisions, but as we all know that from the off, we can expect them to be overturned by a sensible admin staff.
My second suggestion would be Tom Bishop. Its just his time. He's been here forever, yes, he will also make mistakes, but no one is perfect. He deserves another chance. Its been almost 10 years since he was a mod.

[xasop]

Apologies for brevity below, I'm on my phone on the bus. I can expand further when I get home if need be.

Pongo, I share some of your concerns, which is the main reason I've suggested trialling this process first. I'm not yet certain how best to handle the alt issue, although my initial thoughts were along the lines of both post count and time active requirements.

Regarding the popularity contest argument, I think we are fortunate to have a relatively intelligent, rational user base. I certainly don't think I'm any better qualified to pick moderators than most others here. This is one of the things I would try to measure in a trial, though.

At the moment, I'm mainly seeking in-principle agreement or disagreement. Each proposal will be put forward for debate in its own thread where the finer details may be worked out, if people support the basic ideas.

Thork, your position is noted, and I'm curious to see how many others agree with you. For the record, though, Lord Dave was offered a moderator position a year and a half ago, and he declined. Unless his position has changed, that's not going to happen.

[Pongo]

How about this for an idea then. We elect an uber-mod who is in charge of appointing mods. So say Jroa (the obvious vote) is in charge of appointing mods, we run elections for him and if he loses (god forbid) then the new uber-mod assigns their own team. This way the uber-mod doesn't have to anger users by moderating posts themselves if they don't want to, their staff works it and they are in charge of appointments and dismissals.

[Blanko]

I'm not in favour of a democratic process either. Moderators aren't representatives. They shouldn't be appointed based on what people expect from them, because moderators ultimately are supposed to do the same thing: work according to rules that are already set in place. Thus it becomes a simple matter of who's capable of doing the job well. It's much like how the process of hiring new employees isn't done by other employees. Regular users can, of course, suggest potential candidates, but the actual decisionmaking should be made by the moderation team, because they actually know what discrepancies there are in current moderation and what should be accounted for.

Jroa (the obvious vote)

Hey m8 what the hell

[Pongo]

How about this for an idea then. We elect an uber-mod who is in charge of appointing mods. So say Jroa (the obvious vote) is in charge of appointing mods, we run elections for him and if he loses (god forbid) then the new uber-mod assigns their own team. This way the uber-mod doesn't have to anger users by moderating posts themselves if they don't want to, their staff works it and they are in charge of appointments and dismissals.

Let me expand on this idea with a list of advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:
-It gives users more say in how the site is ran.
-It removes admins from the mod process entirely.
-It allows for elections without watering down moderation.
-It lessens the number of elections.
-Keeps the mod team fresh when it's someone's sole/primary job to promote and demote mods.
-If uber-mod quits, elections will ensure another will take her or his place.

Disadvantages:
-lots of power for one person.
-Potential to buy votes by promising mod positions.
-Elections could get... Ugly.
-May need restrictions/guidelines on who can be made a mod. Though the election process may self-correct this issue.

[Pongo]

Jroa (the obvious vote)

Hey m8 what the hell

This is all part of a plan I've been working on for years. It all began with a few well placed comments to Thork that began turning the wheels of dissection at the old site. I complemented this fomenting with complimentary champaign and caviar for Daniel's yacht. I knew that this mixed with a simple logical conundrum would keep him busy for years. After brewing the rebellion for a while longer, it was only a matter of a few well placed SQL inject queries to drop some tables and permanently lose a couple weeks of data. Parsifal and PizaaPlanet (I'm still sorry for that frame job, but I needed you out of my way PP) actually thought that making a new site was their idea!  God bless them. The next step was perhaps the hardest. I needed to wait for the new society to gain strength. Once it reached a tipping point, I gently tugged at a few of Parsifal's strings until sand grinded between his and PizaaPlanet's relationship. Once PizaaPlanet stepped down from moderating, I was free to suggest this idea and subtlety sow some pre-campaigning for Jroa. Once this idea is accepted and Jroa has all but won the election, something... unfortunate will happen to him and he will be forced to step down. With the vacuum in place, I'll step in and win the hearts of the voting pool and crush my opponent like orange soda.  About this time, I'll release the final peices holding back the merger and the societies will become one. As this new position necessitates admin status so you can promote users to mods, I'll finally be able to move into my endgame and complete my years long plan. Adding a fucking Oxford comma to "Philosophy, Religion & Society" like there should be. It's not much longer now...

[Tom Bishop]

An idea: We open membership and all voting for forum and society things like this will happen in the Zetetic Council forum (or whatever we rename it to), with guidance by elected members, like what was agreed on via a forum-wide popular vote last month.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

For what it's worth, I think pizzaman and Pars' should get together have a drink, blow off some testosterone, admit their latent attraction is muddying the waters and get back to doing things as they are.
I for one expect a bit of odd behaviour and disagreement on a site, factions and votes will fracture things further, if one does something that pisses the other off, go to the rants and call him a knob.
All in all the site is fine, chill!

[xasop]

How about this for an idea then. We elect an uber-mod who is in charge of appointing mods. So say Jroa (the obvious vote) is in charge of appointing mods, we run elections for him and if he loses (god forbid) then the new uber-mod assigns their own team. This way the uber-mod doesn't have to anger users by moderating posts themselves if they don't want to, their staff works it and they are in charge of appointments and dismissals.

I don't like the sound of that idea at first glance, simply because it adds unnecessary complexity, but at this point I'm open to keeping any ideas on the table.

I'm not in favour of a democratic process either. Moderators aren't representatives. They shouldn't be appointed based on what people expect from them, because moderators ultimately are supposed to do the same thing: work according to rules that are already set in place. Thus it becomes a simple matter of who's capable of doing the job well. It's much like how the process of hiring new employees isn't done by other employees. Regular users can, of course, suggest potential candidates, but the actual decisionmaking should be made by the moderation team, because they actually know what discrepancies there are in current moderation and what should be accounted for.

In practice, there is always some degree to which moderators influence the forum through their personal judgment. I also firmly believe that the rules (and the moderators who enforce them) do not exist for their own sake, but to serve the posters engaged in discussions by reducing counterproductive behaviour. This is one of the lessons I would like to take from this situation; I believe that we have been increasingly tending towards enforcing the rules' for the rules' own sake, which does not aid productive discussion.

This is the problem I am aiming to solve with the moderator election trial. If moderators are indeed there to serve posters, then posters may be best served by electing moderators they trust to uphold the standard of discussion they would like to see. I don't know if this will work in practice, hence the trial.

This might not seem like a good counter-argument, and that's because it isn't intended to counter your point. I'm merely trying to clarify my goal, so that the merit of the goal itself can be discussed and potential alternative solutions may be presented.

An idea: We open membership and all voting for forum and society things like this will happen in the Zetetic Council forum (or whatever we rename it to), with guidance by elected members, like what was agreed on via a forum-wide popular vote last month.

I'm not opposed to this idea in principle, but I would want to see a concrete plan for membership before giving it my support. It has always been a goal of this website to foster open discussion for anyone, regardless of financial situation, and I would not be keen on some posters having more say in how things are run simply because they could afford a paid membership package.

For what it's worth, I think pizzaman and Pars' should get together have a drink, blow off some testosterone, admit their latent attraction is muddying the waters and get back to doing things as they are.
I for one expect a bit of odd behaviour and disagreement on a site, factions and votes will fracture things further, if one does something that pisses the other off, go to the rants and call him a knob.
All in all the site is fine, chill!

pizaaplanet chose to step down of his own volition. That is his choice to make; I cannot change his mind for him, nor would I want to. Neither of us harbours any ill will towards the other, and I'm not suggesting for a second that pizaaplanet hasn't made some outstanding contributions to this website. As I understand it, he intends to continue to do so, modulo his former admin position on this forum.

What I am trying to do is ensure that future disputes do not escalate to this point, by providing clearer areas of responsibility for admins and mods, and opening the discussion regarding moderator appointment.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm not opposed to this idea in principle, but I would want to see a concrete plan for membership before giving it my support. It has always been a goal of this website to foster open discussion for anyone, regardless of financial situation, and I would not be keen on some posters having more say in how things are run simply because they could afford a paid membership package.

In the thread we decided that the membership should be free and open to anyone. The different levels of paid packages would be optional for those who wanted some swag and a certificate and membership cards to go along with it.

[Pongo]

How about this for an idea then. We elect an uber-mod who is in charge of appointing mods. So say Jroa (the obvious vote) is in charge of appointing mods, we run elections for him and if he loses (god forbid) then the new uber-mod assigns their own team. This way the uber-mod doesn't have to anger users by moderating posts themselves if they don't want to, their staff works it and they are in charge of appointments and dismissals.

I don't like the sound of that idea at first glance, simply because it adds unnecessary complexity, but at this point I'm open to keeping any ideas on the table.

Interesting.  I was of the opinion that it would reduce the complexity of a "vote for every mod" system.

[xasop]

Interesting.  I was of the opinion that it would reduce the complexity of a "vote for every mod" system.

I guess it depends on which way you look at it. Holding an election for every mod is simple using optional preferential voting, as each voter would simply need to rank the candidates in order of preference, and once elected all moderators are equals. With an elected uber-mod, you trade a small amount of complexity at election time for a more persistent complexity in the organisational structure of the forum staff.

[juner]

I'm not in favor of a democratic process for moderator election. I feel that is a function of the administration team. Having said that, if the goal is for admins not to moderate, I'm not sure what my role would become. I know we initially started with the intention of admins not moderating, but we have several mods that are nearly inactive so I jump in on occasion. We haven't had many moderator conflicts that require resolution by an admin.

[Pete Svarrior]

pizaaplanet chose to step down of his own volition. That is his choice to make; I cannot change his mind for him, nor would I want to. Neither of us harbours any ill will towards the other, and I'm not suggesting for a second that pizaaplanet hasn't made some outstanding contributions to this website. As I understand it, he intends to continue to do so, modulo his former admin position on this forum.

That is largely accurate, and I can confirm that on a personal level we're just as fine as ever. As (somewhat wordily) mentioned in my resignation post, my motive is that I'm not willing to continue adminning under current conditions. If these conditions were to change, I'd happily consider coming back, assuming I'm wanted by the community.

I realise that this sounds like a bit of an ultimatum, but I don't mean it that way. I don't want to force the change, I just don't want to be part of the current system. There are plenty of possible solutions to this site's problems, and most of them (by definition, really) don't require my participation. Ultimately, I'll be happy either way, so long as we establish a sustainable way of running things.

Right, I've already said more than I intended to in this thread. Back to me being quiet!

[Thork]

I'm not in favor of a democratic process for moderator election. I feel that is a function of the administration team. Having said that, if the goal is for admins not to moderate, I'm not sure what my role would become.

Yeah, you should be de-admined. You don't do any admin. You just moderate. Good observation.


I think the admins should run the site. There aren't too many objections to this. As mentioned the squabbling is internal and up to the admins to sort out between themselves.

I don't really want to have a perpetual system of referendum. Its red tape, its boring, it loses all meaning and most things aren't that important.

A vote should be a powerful thing. A way to lobby and force change when we aren't happy or aren't being listened to. It should carry weight and act as a mechanism for change. It can't be like that when we are voting for the colour of the forum, who is a mod, do we want an IRC link, should Vongeo be banned, are FErs crazy and guess the weight of my turd. Everything becomes equally unimportant and voting becomes a whimsical chore. Most opinions and ideas can just be expressed in posts. We don't need to tally everything. It is easy to get a flavour of opinion without repetitive voting. Just get on with stuff until people stand up and say stop. Then we go to a vote.

[xasop]

I'm not in favor of a democratic process for moderator election. I feel that is a function of the administration team. Having said that, if the goal is for admins not to moderate, I'm not sure what my role would become. I know we initially started with the intention of admins not moderating, but we have several mods that are nearly inactive so I jump in on occasion. We haven't had many moderator conflicts that require resolution by an admin.

If we did prohibit admins from moderating, you would have to choose between remaining an admin or adopting a moderator position instead. I don't think either one is less important than the other; they're just different types of role.

Given the limited number of things there are to do that actually require admin privileges, I don't think we necessarily require more than one admin. Sure, it would be nice to have a second (or third) person who can step in if I'm unavailable, but at the same time, adminly things aren't usually very urgent. That said, I also don't think you're a bad admin (far from it), so I'd leave the choice entirely up to you.

I don't really want to have a perpetual system of referendum. Its red tape, its boring, it loses all meaning and most things aren't that important.

A vote should be a powerful thing. A way to lobby and force change when we aren't happy or aren't being listened to. It should carry weight and act as a mechanism for change. It can't be like that when we are voting for the colour of the forum, who is a mod, do we want an IRC link, should Vongeo be banned, are FErs crazy and guess the weight of my turd. Everything becomes equally unimportant and voting becomes a whimsical chore. Most opinions and ideas can just be expressed in posts. We don't need to tally everything. It is easy to get a flavour of opinion without repetitive voting. Just get on with stuff until people stand up and say stop. Then we go to a vote.

Okay, how about we amend the Manifesto to say that I have authority over amendments, provided I give notice of changes in S&C some time (72 hours sounds good) in advance, and that the community has the right to veto any changes by way of a popular vote?

That way, I would be able to make decisions on my own, but they would be fully transparent and accountable, and the community can stop me if they object to anything.

Alternatively, we could establish a voting system for the Manifesto but not for moderator appointment. I don't anticipate changes to the Manifesto will be particularly frequent.

[Blanko]

I think you're overthinking this and trying to force changes where none are necessary. Do you think our current methods of action are flawed?

As it has been said, this is stemming from internal issues between you and pizaa. Don't blow it out of proportion.