# Moderator Elections



## roguerouge (Apr 9, 2008)

With EN World 2 just around the corner and with a new edition coming out, I was thinking that the time might be ripe to discuss making one change: have one moderator be elected by those with Community Supporter accounts.

Advantages:
* Money. Another tangible advantage liking voting rights to being a community supporter may lead to more money flowing to the creators of this site, which would especially help at this time period in the gaming industry.
* Many Hands Make Light Work. Extra moderators means distributing the burdens more lightly among them all.
* A Republic, not a Mob. Since community supporters are rather like delegates (they're heavily invested in the system and the society), such a representative would be both responsible and open up the process of site governance.
* Promotes Discussion. A Community Supporter Representative would have more influence with moderators to express particular viewpoints.
* Influence, not Anarchy or Disruption. Obviously, when there's just one elected moderator, the other moderators and site owners have the power. The real-world analogy would be that this moderator acts more like a "citizen advisory board member" than like a governor.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 9, 2008)

Thank you for the suggestion, but that's not going to happen. We select moderators on a very specific set of criteria which includes their activity, their even-tempered nature, their common sense, their impartiality, and how well we'll get along with them. We're very comfortable with appointing the right person. That won't change.

We welcome other ideas for ways to make community supporter accounts even snazzier, though!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 9, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Money. Another tangible advantage liking voting rights to being a community supporter may lead to more money flowing to the creators of this site, which would especially help at this time period in the gaming industry.



I dunno why, but this sounds like a bad idea. I liked the idea that non-CS are still "part of the community" in many ways, just had no access to the more involved features, like search (well, and PM).

Which ties into this:


			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> Promotes Discussion. A Community Supporter Representative would have more influence with moderators to express particular viewpoints.



Erm... so basically, moderators should stop trying to keep everything civil and instead favour CS? Or do you mean something else - because what is the other influence of a moderator besides moderating the discussion?



			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> Many Hands Make Light Work. Extra moderators means distributing the burdens more lightly among them all.



Personally, I think the moderators keep selecting new moderators, when they need them - so I assume we already have a fitting number of moderators. And having too much of them is bad as well... so if you want to keep the current number, who do you want to get rid off?



			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> A Republic, not a Mob. Since community supporters are rather like delegates (they're heavily invested in the system and the society), such a representative would be both responsible and open up the process of site governance.



First, we already have the meta boards and e-mails for contacting moderators for such issues, second: The moderators are also heavily invested, often much more than normal members, also:


			
				roguegouge said:
			
		

> Influence, not Anarchy or Disruption. Obviously, when there's just one elected moderator, the other moderators and site owners have the power. The real-world analogy would be that this moderator acts more like a "citizen advisory board member" than like a governor.



You assume that non-CS would do more than ignore the "elected" status. And CS are - usually - already invested in the community, so they're less likely to disrupt.

Furthermore, on which grounds are you going to select candidates? Popularity vote? Current mod vote (which close to the current process)?

Not saying that your idea is completely bad, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Especially, because ENWorld moderators already do a hell of a job, and I fear "elected" mods may be worse - and how do you get rid of them, if they're doing things wrong, they're community elected, after all.

EDIT: The Piratecat got me and posted faster and more concise than me...


			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> We welcome other ideas for ways to make community supporter accounts even snazzier, though!



Put it the feature that they can browse faster, if the boards are clogged, i.e. give them priority processing and bandwidth!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 9, 2008)

I could see the campaign slogan now:

"A vote for me is a vote for banhammer immunity!"

Nah, I would rather its stays the way they've done it up until now.  They have done a great job of selecting Moderators (with the exception of Rel, of course, but as long as they learned from their mistake it's OK    ).


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 9, 2008)

I think the reason why I suggested this idea is that, in my 7 years of teaching media studies, no student of mine has ever belonged to an internet community where they had even minimal or indirect say in the governance of their community. They all spend an awful lot of time in virtual communities that might best be described as benign dictatorships or oligarchies. (No offense intended.) 

And that really, really worries me, given how much time we spend online. 

What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?

Yes, there would be problems to figure out and this thread was designed to raise them and discuss them. But I hardly feel that they they couldn't be solved.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 9, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> I think the reason why I suggested this idea is that, in my 7 years of teaching media studies, no student of mine has ever belonged to an internet community where they had even minimal or indirect say in the governance of their community.




That would be an interesting social experiment, but you're better off building something from the ground up to accomodate that.



> They all spend an awful lot of time in virtual communities that might best be described as benign dictatorships or oligarchies. (No offense intended.)




None taken.  It's a dictatorship; nobody denies that. 

And I'd further argue that such places need to be; "shared" projects never get anywhere.  A single vision directing things (with valued input, as is normal in life) is what makes things happen when it comes to websites.



> And that really, really worries me, given how much time we spend online.
> 
> What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?




I think you're overstating the importance of it.  It's not a political entity or a nation-state.  EN World has no effect or influence on peoples' lives, well-being, liberty, wealth, or anything else.  It has none of the duties, responsibilities or powers of a government.  People are not "trapped" here in any way - they can leave at a moment's notice; they don't even have to do anything, they simply need not click on their EN World bookmark!  

The analogy isn't one of a society; it's one of visiting someone's private home and respecting their authority within that location.  I think the important thing to realise is this: it's not important.  It's just a D&D website.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Apr 9, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?




I can see where you're coming from - but the one nifty thing that mitigates that is that we are also learning that we can create these communities from scratch all by ourselves, just be applying some very basic skills - after all, creating a new forum is amazingly simple...

While on the one hand, when joining an existing community like ENWorld you may not have direct input, if you want to you can easily create your own place with your own rules.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 9, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Thank you for the suggestion, but that's not going to happen. We select moderators on a very specific set of criteria which includes their activity, their even-tempered nature, their common sense, their impartiality, and how well we'll get along with them. We're very comfortable with appointing the right person. That won't change.
> 
> We welcome other ideas for ways to make community supporter accounts even snazzier, though!





i so wanna handle the banhammer. i would use it like a lt governor handing out stays of execution while the governor is incapacitated.

oh wait. i just did. curses foiled again.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 9, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?




To normal human society, I think.  While overall American governance may be a form of democracy, it is commonly not at all democratic on the local scale.  In a great many places, we accept the fact that the rules are not in our direct control.  In this sense, EN World is hardly different than, say, your workplace, or school.  Or even the local movie theater.  

I think there's a major point here in that this is a society we _actively choose_ to join.  And they are also perfectly free to actively or passively choose to leave.  People come and go from online communities all the time because they don't like their tone and governance, and they find someplace new to hang out.

That sounds a lot like accustoming ourselves to freedom of choice, to me.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Apr 10, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Nah, I would rather its stays the way they've done it up until now.  They have done a great job of selecting Moderators (with the exception of Rel, of course, but as long as they learned from their mistake it's OK).



I don't know if you're joking about Rel, but I agree with that statement. I haven't liked his moderation at all.

Instead of just being negative, I'll leave this on a positive note.  Since returning here after hearing about 4e, I've seen generally good acts of moderation from the following: Plane Sailing, Umbran, Dinkeldog, and I think, Darkness. When threads heat up they first try try to cool things down and when they do have to take action they just state their ruling, the rules broken and direct questions and comments to e-mail.  Good job guys.

The moderators I haven't mentioned I just don't remember having seen them in action recently, so don't feel like I'm knocking you guys.

Sam


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 10, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> I don't know if you're joking about Rel,



 I was joking and forgot the smiley to convey that. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it now.



			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> I think the reason why I suggested this idea is that, in my 7 years of teaching media studies, no student of mine has ever belonged to an internet community where they had even minimal or indirect say in the governance of their community.



I had one time where I thought a moderator had reacted a little rashly in a thread that was starting to show signs of veering into trouble for a bit, but had put itself back on track by the time it was closed.  I e-mailed the moderator and explained how I saw it.  They agreed they overreacted to a reported post and reopended the thread when they had time to look at it a little more.  I personally think this shows that while it _is_ a dictatorship the community at large can have some amount of influence. 


> They all spend an awful lot of time in virtual communities that might best be described as benign dictatorships or oligarchies. (No offense intended.)
> 
> And that really, really worries me, given how much time we spend online.
> 
> What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?



 I don't see EN World as being much different than the companies I have been employed by.  Those companies have certain expectations as to how their employees will conduct themselves.  I can choose to follow the rules or ignore them, but there will be serious consequences if I choose the latter.  As an employee, I have no direct say in the policies put forth by senior management.  I can make suggestions, but management is under no obligation to proceed with them, even if the majority of the employees agree.  The risk they take is that the employees will leave if they feel they are not being treated with respect, which is the same risk EN World has.  

Personally if I were teaching media studies, I might use EN World as an example that even on the internet there can be expectations upon a community that, when enforced fairly, can lead to a community that for the most part is pleasant and constructive and polices itself.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 10, 2008)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  EN World works great as is let's leave it that way.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Apr 10, 2008)

Just because someone is paying for the site doesn't necessarily make them a good candidate for being a moderator.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 10, 2008)

Of course, if more and more real life institutions are run undemocratically, that's not exactly a good sign, either. One could also suggest that there are better or other ways to running THIS site than as a corporation, local government or a school would. Alternatively, you could site other models similar to this proposal of governing social institutions, particularly in education and communities of interest.



> And they are also perfectly free to actively or passively choose to leave. People come and go from online communities all the time because they don't like their tone and governance, and they find someplace new to hang out.






> While on the one hand, when joining an existing community like ENWorld you may not have direct input, if you want to you can easily create your own place with your own rules.




I'll also point out that if the vast majority of online communities are not responsive to the will of its "citizens," then there's not much real choice as all the options are the same. And, of course, there's an obvious response to the "love it or leave it" argument, which is that one can love EN World and want to improve it as well. (Again, the tone meant here is not combative. The RL quote reference is intended to communicate with clarity, not antagonism. Also, I am not perceiving the quoted posters as being combative either.)

As to the point about it being more difficult to "reboot" a community as having elections, well, EVERY society that has elections had to make that cross-over. And, in some ways, it would actually be easier to pull-off such "nation-rebuilding" here than in real life.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 10, 2008)

Yes, but the question remains: other than being an interesting social experiment (and I don't really want my site being used as a guinea pig for such!),_ why_?  Why would that make it "better" rather than "different"?


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 10, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I dunno why, but this sounds like a bad idea. I liked the idea that non-CS are still "part of the community" in many ways, just had no access to the more involved features, like search (well, and PM).[/QUOTE=Lord Tirian]
> 
> Okay, adding an additional layer of hierarchy might be a cost to this proposal, which may or may not counter-balance the benefits of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 10, 2008)

> I dunno why, but this sounds like a bad idea. I liked the idea that non-CS are still "part of the community" in many ways, just had no access to the more involved features, like search (well, and PM).




Okay, adding an additional layer of hierarchy might be a cost to this proposal, which may or may not counter-balance the benefits of it.



> Erm... so basically, moderators should stop trying to keep everything civil and instead favour CS? Or do you mean something else - because what is the other influence of a moderator besides moderating the discussion?




I'm not fully sure what the proposal means yet. The idea is in its very early stages of discussion. Moderating the discussion is a pretty huge power, of course. But the mods influence the owners and administrators of the site, and they do other things as well: they generate content (such as the April Fool's Day), they run the business, they determine who gets to advertise (c.f. the heated discussion of "God Hates Elves" parody ad banner). Perhaps they would work as a moderator and an advocate for their constituency's interests or perhaps they would work solely as an advocate.

I think the particular duties of this position would be best decided through discussion. 



> Personally, I think the moderators keep selecting new moderators, when they need them - so I assume we already have a fitting number of moderators. And having too much of them is bad as well... so if you want to keep the current number, who do you want to get rid off?




It was an argument for a benefit in the spirit of "Many hands make light work," not "Let's toss Moderator X off the island." The proposal is not to get rid of the moderator system entirely, but to experiment with a change to the system that might lead to important benefits, both tangible and intangible.

It's an experiment, not a radical change.



> First, we already have the meta boards and e-mails for contacting moderators for such issues,




Certainly! Of course, to make a Simpsons reference, Homer could contact his new alien overlords in many different ways, but that doesn't make for an effective form of self-determination. 



> Furthermore, on which grounds are you going to select candidates? Popularity vote? Current mod vote (which close to the current process)?




Good question. One would assume that anyone could run, but there could be a run-off system that gradually eliminates fringe candidates. Anyone got any ideas?



> I fear "elected" mods may be worse - and how do you get rid of them, if they're doing things wrong, they're community elected, after all.




Fear of change is an important emotion to acknowledge, and obeying that emotional response may be the wisest course. But it also might not be.

As for the later concern, a recall system or term limits or limited duration terms should be discussed.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 11, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yes, but the question remains: other than being an interesting social experiment (and I don't really want my site being used as a guinea pig for such!),_ why_?  Why would that make it "better" rather than "different"?




First off, let's be clear, I certainly know that nothing's happening without the buy-in of the administrators and owners of this business site.

There are four advantages that I can think of right now:

1. Voting may increase Community Supporter purchases, as this "new feature" may have a market demand to those community members who have not taken that step.

2. Since no one else in the niche market of gaming discussion communities has taken this step, it may provide a market advantage at an especially important time. It could attract new members, of which some would buy Community Supporter accounts. It could lead members to spend more time on the site, which would increase ad revenues. It's at least possible that people who felt stifled at another community might "buy-in" literally to this idea.

3. It promotes discussion and the ultimate good and primary service of this site is discussion. Reasoned and interesting discussion attracts viewers, gets them to stay longer, and gets them to click on more pages where ads are seen.

4. It provides a safety valve to release social pressure. Rather than act out against the moderators or simply leave, the upset poster now has another option: talk to his or her representative. That may make moderator's work less emotionally stressful, ultimately. People respond better to tough calls when they feel that a fair process resulted in the tough call and that their voice was heard. Those who feel unable to express their choices through the formal system of a vote may be more likely to resist or fail to support decisions made through it.

In short, an experiment in limited representation (in some form) may directly increase purchases, may increase ad revenues, may provide a competitive advantage in this niche market at this time, and may ultimately lead to more stability and less moderator stress.

That's the goal of all of us on this thread. The question is how to get there.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 11, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Of course, if more and more real life institutions are run undemocratically, that's not exactly a good sign, either.




Yes, but... (there's always a "but"...)

*IF* more and more real life institutions...  That's a big "if".  So far, we've only your opinion on that.  In fact, we've only your opinion that this place qualifies as an "institution" such that it actually matters what we do here, locally.  

But, I think that's perhaps a fiddly-bit argument, compared to what follows...



> One could also suggest that there are better or other ways to running THIS site than as a corporation, local government or a school would.




Quite true, maybe there is a better way.  In fact, I would venture to say that there probably is a better way, given that the number of ways to run the place is large to the point of being nigh infinite, it would be hubris to expect we'd just happened to have (perhaps somewhat intelligently) stumbled upon the optimal one.

But one needs more than a suggestion to get action.  For, you see, with change there is risk.  We'd need more than a "suggestion" that the payoff to the users (and thus to Morrus) is large enough to take on risks.  In fact, to do otherwise would be ignoring our obligation to our users.

Consider it this way - it is quite possible to make Perfect the enemy of Good.  This place is not explicitly democratic.  But the mods, admins, and Morrus _do listen_.  The place _is good_, gosh darn it.  Maybe not perfect, true.  But flailing around trying different systems can do a great deal of harm, in terms of stability and respect.  So, I, personally, would need more than suggestion that this would be better to risk harming our users.

If the place sucked the scum off the floors of bathrooms in Grand Central Station, I might well jump at a reasonable suggestion - not much to lose, and a lot to gain.  But it would not be serving our users to fuddle with something good on that same basis.



> I'll also point out that if the vast majority of online communities are not responsive to the will of its "citizens," then there's not much real choice as all the options are the same.




Except, of course, that one fails here - while we are not explicitly democratic in our written rules, the fact of the matter is that we _are_ responsive to the will of our citizens.  Moreso than most, I expect.  Most of the moderation here is done _at the suggestion of the citizenry_.  Reported posts are the mods' bread and butter here, you know - the Reported Posts and Meta forums are the first places I go every single time I come to the site.  We have created (and removed) whole forums at the request of the citizenry.  EN2 is coming up including things the citizens have asked for.  

It is kind of difficult to sell us on the "you ought to be democratic, so that the citizens voice can be heard" when, honestly, we are hearing and enacting their will every day.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 11, 2008)

You could just declare yourself a Moderator, rouge.  It has it drawbacks though.  Namely, getting booted off the site, if it isn't April 1st.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 11, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> * Money. Another tangible advantage liking voting rights to being a community supporter may lead to more money flowing to the creators of this site, which would especially help at this time period in the gaming industry.



Voting rights would certainly be a nice benefit for paying members, but you are talking about a single election for a single person to be a moderator. A one time event is a curiosity at best, and I don't really see how it would make anyone want to become a CS. Regular moderator elections on the other hand would promote anarchy as in "a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power" (with the emphasis heavily on the word inefficiency).



> * Many Hands Make Light Work. Extra moderators means distributing the burdens more lightly among them all.



True, but not exclusive to your proposal.



> * A Republic, not a Mob. Since community supporters are rather like delegates (they're heavily invested in the system and the society), such a representative would be both responsible and open up the process of site governance.



Where do you see a mob in here? Why do you assume that non-CS's can't be responsible? And how exactly are CS's rather like delegates? I am not a CS and yet I still represent this community in and outside this community. I've encouraged people interested in our interests to come over and check the place out to see if they'd like to join. Representation and participation are not unique qualities of the paying members. And if you want to suggest "opening up the process of governing" you need to start talking about actual decision making, not a single election to elect someone to make decisions for you. It's just another moderator, it doesn't alter anything.



> * Promotes Discussion. A Community Supporter Representative would have more influence with moderators to express particular viewpoints.





> Of course, if more and more real life institutions are run undemocratically, that's not exactly a good sign, either. One could also suggest that there are better or other ways to running THIS site than as a corporation, local government or a school would. Alternatively, you could site other models similar to this proposal of governing social institutions, particularly in education and communities of interest.



You propose that paying members should influence the moderation more, and then suggest that there are better ways than that? Which is it?



> * Influence, not Anarchy or Disruption. Obviously, when there's just one elected moderator, the other moderators and site owners have the power. The real-world analogy would be that this moderator acts more like a "citizen advisory board member" than like a governor.



We have influence here. More so than in most other sites I've been a member of. We have awesome moderators and I wouldn't want to disrupt that.

Citizen advisory board member? So the elected mod wouldn't be a real mod? How does a vote in an election for a moderator with less than the normal amount of influence make anyone want to join the site to become a paying member? That's a rather far-fetched theory you have there.

Besides, are you sure you don't want anarchy? It would be great to have a community where everyone has "absolute liberty without the implication of disorder". A good idea in principle, but rather impossible in practise. You know, just like most any political ideas.



> I'll also point out that if the vast majority of online communities are not responsive to the will of its "citizens," then there's not much real choice as all the options are the same. And, of course, there's an obvious response to the "love it or leave it" argument, which is that one can love EN World and want to improve it as well.



Let's not muddle up things here. The vast majority of online communites are owned by businesses and businesses run their business as they see fit. Calling the members of those communities "citizens" doesn't give them any rights to dictate themselves how things are done. All the options are usually the same because "things seem to work" and the businesses usually can't be bothered to spend resources to inventing something new.

As for EN World, it is improving, and mostly because of feedback from its members.

I think you need to focus your enthusiasm on sites that don't allow members to give feedback on their sites. Oh, that's right, you can't because they don't allow it.   



> As to the point about it being more difficult to "reboot" a community as having elections, well, EVERY society that has elections had to make that cross-over. And, in some ways, it would actually be easier to pull-off such "nation-rebuilding" here than in real life.



We have one of the nicest friendliest communities on the internet here and you suggest rebooting it on the off-chance that it "might" become better? No, thank you.



> Fear of change is an important emotion to acknowledge, and obeying that emotional response may be the wisest course. But it also might not be.



A car is good thing to own. But it also might not be.   



> It provides a safety valve to release social pressure. Rather than act out against the moderators or simply leave, the upset poster now has another option: talk to his or her representative.
> 
> That may make moderator's work less emotionally stressful, ultimately.
> 
> People respond better to tough calls when they feel that a fair process resulted in the tough call and that their voice was heard. Those who feel unable to express their choices through the formal system of a vote may be more likely to resist or fail to support decisions made through it.



Social pressure? On EN World? The whole place is already one huge stress remover. It's a site dedicated to a hobby we all love. And if you have a problem with someones moderation talking to the moderator himself is far better than going through an extra layer. It's called personal contact. There are sites out there that don't even let you talk about moderation at all, to anyone.

Someone who is so insecure that he can't take criticism constructively is someone who shouldn't be a moderator in the first place.

I happen to consider the moderators here very fair. I don't see how adding another layer of moderation would make it any more so. Added bureoucracy doesn't equal added fairness. I've worked for a government agency and can claim that it's actually the other way around.

Sorry if I came across a bit snarky.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

All the moderators here beat me with sticks.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 11, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> You could just declare yourself a Moderator, rouge.  It has it drawbacks though.  Namely, getting booted off the site, if it isn't April 1st.




Unfunny. And inaccurate. It's tough enough making this kind of suggestion and coming up with responses to everyone on the thread without this kind of thing too.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 11, 2008)

"And if you want to suggest "opening up the process of governing" you need to start talking about actual decision making, not a single election to elect someone to make decisions for you. It's just another moderator, it doesn't alter anything."

Hey, I'm more than willing to discuss the much more radical step of going to a direct democracy system in online communities. If you want to advocate for THAT radical an approach, go ahead. I made the suggestion I made as minimal a change as possible (ONE moderator amongst MANY to be elected) because I anticipated some of the responses in this thread. I took the rhetorical strategy of "baby steps".

Edit: I'm not surprised that you don't find this an open form of government that I'm proposing. I'm essentially proposing a form of democracy most seen in the 1800s in which the propertied classes are the only ones allowed to vote. Except here, the propertied classes get only one representative, rather than an entire "House of Commons." 

And many in this thread see this ancient form of governance as impossible and radical when it's in an online setting.

And that's why I started with the proposal that I did. So, by all means, advocate for a more open style of governance. I'd most likely provide support.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 11, 2008)

For the sake of arguement, let's say EN World takes up your suggestion:

How would prospective candidates be put onto a ballot? Nominate themselves, or does somebody else have to do it?  

Will it be a series of rounds until one person gets more than 50% of the vote or a single vote and the candidate with the most votes wins?

Polls on this site occasionally are skewed by an influx of non-regulars because of a posting on another site (I seem to recall some wild fluctuations when there was voting over the best campaign settings and Monte Cook posted it on his own forums).  How would that be controlled to prevent the vote from being "fixed" by people from outside?

How would you prevent outright fraud by people creating multiple registered user accounts just for the purpose of voting multiple times?  

You could limit voting to CS supporters, but then it isn't a democratic election, it is an election by those who have the cash to purchase a CS accout.  It would also disenfranchise long time non-CS users who are strong members of this community - just not financially.

How long would a "term" last?

What mechanism would exist for ensuring the winner would enforce moderation rules following the same guidelines the rest of the mods use?  What mechanism would be in place to remove them if they are abusing their power?  

More importantly, if they use the same guidelines as everyone else, how does their election change the community in any way other than there being one additional moderator on the beat?  I am far from convinced that an elected moderator would somehow have anymore influence with the admins and Morrus than any member who presents a well thought out suggestion.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 11, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that one fails here - while we are not explicitly democratic in our written rules, the fact of the matter is that we _are_ responsive to the will of our citizens.  Moreso than most, I expect.  Most of the moderation here is done _at the suggestion of the citizenry_.  Reported posts are the mods' bread and butter here, you know - the Reported Posts and Meta forums are the first places I go every single time I come to the site.  We have created (and removed) whole forums at the request of the citizenry.  EN2 is coming up including things the citizens have asked for.
> 
> It is kind of difficult to sell us on the "you ought to be democratic, so that the citizens voice can be heard" when, honestly, we are hearing and enacting their will every day.





With all due respect, it's not about you. It's not about how you or the other moderators do your jobs. It's not about whether this is a benign (a.k.a. responsive and competent) or malign (selfish and/or unjust) oligarchy. For all this proposal cares, you could have the omniscience of the divine right of kings. This proposal didn't spring from discontent.

Your opinion or my opinion or Hong's opinion as to whether the virtual trains run on time is not the point. What matters is whether the addition of a very limited form of virtual enfranchisement would make this virtual community better. 

I've argued that it might do so by fostering more involvement, bringing in more money, gaining a competitive market advantage, sparking more discussion, and decreasing work loads and stress.

Whether more enfranchisement than this proposal offers would make the site even better is definitely something I'd be willing to discuss.

Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 11, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?



He may not be, but it is a possibility that should not be overlooked.  Let's say the elected mod goes a bit power mad, and begins arbitrary moderation with which the other moderators disagree.  They case chase him around the boards, patching up the problems he creates, which publicizes a schism in with the mods and diminishes their respectability.  Or, they can remove him, which can cause an uproar among the general voting populace, and guaranteed to cause one in a vocal minority.

Having a democratic representative among the mods isn't something I particularly care about.  Having a good one would be a token nod and not worth much (it'll still be Morrus' site after all, and what he says goes), and having a bad one is, well, bad.  But this thread does remind me that I need to pick up my CS, at least for the enjoyment CM brings if nothing else.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 11, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?




The essence of "franchise" is having the system  reliably listen to your ideas, opinions, wants, and needs, and respond accordingly.  The point of having a vote is to make sure your own needs are represented.

I'm arguing that this community is already enfranchised to a large degree - and not just the Community Supporters, either.  I mean everybody.  The people who come here do have a say.  They talk, the system listens and responds - and it always has.  

What we are discussing, then, is the form of enfranchisement, and whether having some codified system with some particular subset of the community electing some official with as-yet ill-defined powers is in any way better than the current system.

Note that, without a complete overhaul of the business (with legally binding contracts and such), then there's actually no difference between your method and the current one - without contracts it is all still "at the whim of the owner", and there really is no more security or responsiveness than he allows.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Apr 11, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All the moderators here beat me with sticks.




Bad hong!  Back in your cage.  :beatwithstick:


----------



## Qualidar (Apr 11, 2008)

I think this is a bad idea. Democracy does not equal "best way to run things". Baseball teams aren't run by democracy. Abdominal surgury isn't run by democracy. New editions of popular game systems aren't designed by democracy. 

It's a form of government, not a solution for every issue in life.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 11, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm more than willing to discuss the much more radical step of going to a direct democracy system in online communities. If you want to advocate for THAT radical an approach, go ahead.



I won't because I don't think that what you proposed would change anything significantly, and making a more extensive overhaul along the same lines would actually make things worse.

That's what I meant by anarchy through inefficiency. Moderators should be carefully chosen from people who can actually handle the job. Otherwise they might become a burden to the other moderators which makes things inefficient because you'd need more mods to keep mods in line or they'd get less done overall. That's crazy. Thus elections are the wrong way to do it. Unless it'd be a contest prize. But that's a completely different thing from what we are talking about.


----------



## Skade (Apr 11, 2008)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> I think this is a bad idea. Democracy does not equal "best way to run things". Baseball teams aren't run by democracy. Abdominal surgury isn't run by democracy. New editions of popular game systems aren't designed by democracy.
> 
> It's a form of government, not a solution for every issue in life.




This is absolutely true.  I see no reason to change the way things are handled by Morrus and his chosen moderators, and aside from the added bonus to supporters, I do not see how this proposal could improve matters, only add another layer of complexity


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 11, 2008)

Thanks for such an interesting, friendly, and not-edition-related discussion.  I read this thread with interest.    

While I believe that  I understand your reasoning, rougerogue, I find the reasoning of the current admins (and supporters of those opinions) to be more persuasive.  I understand your concerns about participating in undemocratic virtual societies, but I don't think elections would do anything to increase democracy, unless those elected had some legislative ability (i.e., could change The Rules).  Mods, to my understanding, are more like a combination of judges and police officers than congressmen, and I seriously doubt that any good would come from selecting cops or judges on the basis of popular election.

The qualities of a good mod (IMHO) are jurisprudence, a willingness to exhibit restraint when action is not warranted, a willingness to take action when restraint is not warranted, and enough wisdom to (more or less) distinguish between times when action or restraint is the better course.  Overall, I would say that EN World has exemplary -- and very responsive -- mods.  This is because the mods are carefully selected and, presumably, answerable for their use of power (i.e., their responsibilities and their rights are balanced).  

I don't believe an elected official would necessarily behave in the same way.  Indeed, having lived in both the US and Canada, having paid at least some attention to how national and local elected officials have used their power, having been an elected union rep, and have dealt with elected union officials, I have serious reservations about this idea.

It is an interesting thought experiment.  But if I had a vote, I would vote "No, thank you."


RC


----------



## Joshua Randall (Apr 11, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> People are not "trapped" here in any way - they can leave at a moment's notice; they don't even have to do anything, they simply need not click on their EN World bookmark!



That's IT. I've HAD it with this place.

I'm moving my bookmark.

*gnash*


----------



## Morrus (Apr 11, 2008)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I'm moving my bookmark.




Would that not involve clicking on it?


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 11, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> And that really, really worries me, given how much time we spend online. What are we accustoming ourselves to in these societies we are not born into, but actively choose to join?




I don't see why it should be very worrying. It simply prepares them for how almost every other institution _other _ than their state and national governance is run. Unless you have a very unusual one or you are near the top, almost no-one gets a real say-so in how their job is run. That's a society you choose to join and for a lot of people it's not one they can leave anywhere nearly as easily as a message board.


----------



## scholar (Apr 11, 2008)

wait, I have an idea...


what if community supporters get to vote on the moderators that are already in place, nad the one with the highest number of votes gets super mod powers for a day or something?

sort of a most appreciated mod kind of vote


I know who'd get my vote


----------



## fett527 (Apr 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ...The qualities of a good mod (IMHO) are jurisprudence, a willingness to exhibit restraint when action is not warranted, a willingness to take action when restraint is not warranted, and enough wisdom to (more or less) distinguish between times when action or restraint is the better course.  Overall, I would say that EN World has exemplary -- and very responsive -- mods.  This is because the mods are carefully selected and, presumably, answerable for their use of power (i.e., their responsibilities and their rights are balanced).
> ...




I want more entertainment from my moderators.  Dance bitches!  :gnash:


----------



## Blackrat (Apr 11, 2008)

Not to nitpick since I actually think the moderators are doing fantastic job here but there is one problem I've noticed. Visibility. It's good on the RPG Forums, yeah, but when you move down to gaming action and Off-topic forum you lose it. It would be good for mods to "show their faces" around there just to know you're there too. Bront is pretty much only one I've seen in long time around there and even he had to drop the PbP's for RL-time. It would be good to have some moderators to take part in PbP'ing here.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 11, 2008)

This thread explains a lot. Namely why I'll never be a moderator.

This is a good thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 11, 2008)

fett527 said:
			
		

> I want more entertainment from my moderators.  Dance bitches!  :gnash:





LOL.  +rep.


----------



## fett527 (Apr 11, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> This thread explains a lot. Namely why I'll never be a moderator.
> 
> This is a good thing.




There is no explanation needed for why you won't be a moderator.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 11, 2008)

What if we had Moderator Survivor?

The ENTIRE community gets to watch the mods make idiots of themselves on a distant island and watch them vote each other off one by one. The winner uh...someone else figure out a prize, I just want to see Moderator Survivor now!


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 12, 2008)

fett527 said:
			
		

> There is no explanation needed for why you won't be a moderator.



Fett, do I need to say why this is a problem?

Meanwhile, I'm a huge fan of moderator survivor. Send me a desert island! One with nice beachs, please. I'm picky.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 12, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Send me a desert island! One with nice beachs, please. I'm picky.



Like here? Please take some photos of the mutant giant lizards (who breath radioactive fire)! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Henry (Apr 13, 2008)

One thought that occurs to me is that we already have a similar experiement here, in the form of the ENnies judge selection. All five judges are elected by the entire forum community, both CS and non-CS; the five winners are the ones who nominate what products can be voted on, and in turn the products are selected by the community. 

We hear no end of argument over what was selected and what wasn't selected; we hear how judges made good calls, bad calls, and insane calls; we have both anonymous community members and even high-profile ones critique the judge selection, the product selection, or both.

In the end, those trains still run on time, too, but they run a good bit less smoothly than the moderation of the site as a whole, and I'd argue they (and the support staff) have just as much, if not MORE, work than the mods do in making this site run.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 14, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> In the end, those trains still run on time, too, but they run a good bit less smoothly than the moderation of the site as a whole, and I'd argue they (and the support staff) have just as much, if not MORE, work than the mods do in making this site run.



driving that train
high on cocaine
casey jones
you'd better watch your speed


diaglo "trouble a head, trouble behind" Ooi


----------



## Mark (Apr 14, 2008)

diaglo said:
			
		

> diaglo




Sit down, old man.


----------



## Solange (Apr 15, 2008)

Moderators are not ment to be popularity contests, which is what this would turn into.  And even a single bad moderator can tarnish a site.

Moderators are chosen for a reason by ownership and the admins and fellow mods.  I've generaly felt we've got a good core of mods here who do a fantastic job.

Now, if you think you know someone who would make a good moderator, sending a recomendation to the administrators is not a bad idea.  They may not act on it, but user recomendations can help them select a new mod, or otherwise narrow down the list of candidates.


----------



## grimwell (Apr 15, 2008)

I've been part of a few democratic online communities over the years. They all were (or are) crap at the end of the day. Tyranny of the majority drowned out any value that could be found there. An easy way to validate this is to just visit a community that lacks moderation. The majority moderates by fiat attacking and driving off dissenters. 

It ends up being less than the sum of all ideas in a democratic fashion, and more garbage on the internet. No thanks.


----------



## fett527 (Apr 15, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Fett, do I need to say why this is a problem?...




Only because I think you've got a sexy voice.


----------



## fett527 (Apr 15, 2008)

Mark said:
			
		

> Sit down, old man.





He can't.  Hemorrhoids.  Old.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> All the moderators here beat me with sticks.



So fight back with your hongstick.


----------



## Mark (Apr 17, 2008)

fett527 said:
			
		

> He can't.  Hemorrhoids.  Old.





My bad.  Forgot about that and how troubling they can be when so close to the brain.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 17, 2008)

:doh:

no piling on.

rectum hell
darn near killed him


----------



## Mark (Apr 17, 2008)

diaglo said:
			
		

> :doh:
> 
> no piling on.
> 
> ...





_You forgot to say "mang"_


----------



## BSF (Apr 17, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> With all due respect, it's not about you. It's not about how you or the other moderators do your jobs. It's not about whether this is a benign (a.k.a. responsive and competent) or malign (selfish and/or unjust) oligarchy. For all this proposal cares, you could have the omniscience of the divine right of kings. This proposal didn't spring from discontent.
> 
> Your opinion or my opinion or Hong's opinion as to whether the virtual trains run on time is not the point. What matters is whether the addition of a very limited form of virtual enfranchisement would make this virtual community better.
> 
> ...




OK, what makes you think there is a significant element of the user community looking to be enfranchised?  In the interest of discussion and debate, let me ask some questions.

How would this proposal improve the user experience?  

No, more to the point, how would it improve *my* experience?  I mean, if we are talking about enfranchising me, how will it improve things for me?  

As it is, I already feel comfortable posting in the Meta forum.  I feel comfortable emailing several of the moderators and the owner if I have any concerns, questions or comments that don't belong in a public post.  I feel as invested in the site as I want to be at any given time.  

How would a CS advocate improve these things for me?

Why should I buy into this proposal?  I don't see how it benefits me.  

On the other hand, I see risks.  

What if I don't like the elected advocate?  What if I can't communicate clearly with the advocate?  What if, in the long run, the advocate became the only avenue of discourse with the moderators and admins simply because that is what the advocate position was created for?  How would that serve me better?

For that matter, what about thinking about the current moderators and administrators?  What if the elected advocate is not somebody they can work with very strongly?  What if the advocate turned out to be somebody that acted in a manner that created more work load through uneven decisions, a confrontational attitude, and a general sense of entitlement because he or she was elected?

What market advantage will an elected advocate provide?  What is EN World marketing against?  Is this a potential pre-emptive measure against Gleemax/WotC?  Is there market competition with RPG.net for subscribers?  To have a market advantage, you need to be competing for market share don't you?  I am not currently aware of such competition, but maybe I need more information?

If there was a significant chance that this could increase community supporter accounts, that might be interesting.  But my decisions on whether to become a community supporter have much more to do with personal finances than wanting to feel some sort of enfranchisement.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 17, 2008)

This won't be implemented here. We disagree with your assessment of risks versus rewards; the downside potential is far greater than any upside gain, and we have a philosophical objection to other folks using this site as a proving ground for their thought experiments. If you start an online community that does use this philosophy, though, I'll be very interested to follow how it works.

Sorry to be blunt, RR. I know this is something that's important to you.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

I use this site as a proving ground for my no-thought experiments.


----------



## jaerdaph (Apr 18, 2008)

I vote for Hong...

What?


----------



## Rel (Apr 18, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> I don't know if you're joking about Rel, but I agree with that statement. I haven't liked his moderation at all.





BANNED:  1 Month










I kid!  I kid because I love!


----------



## Darkness (Apr 18, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I vote for Hong...
> 
> What?



 Me too. Why settle for the _lesser_ evil, after all?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2008)

This is an interesting proposal that unfortunately just won't work.

I mean, let's say this got put in place and ten people ended up seriously running for moderator.  Of those ten, I'd have probably seen postings by maybe 7 (the other three tending to hang in fora I don't visit), had discussions with maybe 3 or 4, arguments with another 1 or 2...and actually *met* 0.

Voting would be an exercise in random-guess for me.

Now if we were all gaming and discussing in a physical location and had the chance to meet each other (I'm old-fashioned, in that "meeting" someone implies being in their physical presence) and get to know the candidates personally, I'd be all for this in a heartbeat!

Lanefan


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 18, 2008)

grimwell said:
			
		

> I've been part of a few democratic online communities over the years.




Links? Since I teach a media arts class, that would be useful information to have.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 18, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> This won't be implemented here. We disagree with your assessment of risks versus rewards; the downside potential is far greater than any upside gain, and we have a philosophical objection to other folks using this site as a proving ground for their thought experiments. If you start an online community that does use this philosophy, though, I'll be very interested to follow how it works.
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, RR. I know this is something that's important to you.




No, don't worry about me. I got that sense from the first moderator post. That doesn't mean that discussing it and finding good ways to improve the idea can't be productive.


----------

