No Thanks "Democracy"?

I have been thinking about this for some time now. Now before I post the "suggestion", I must inform you that I do not completely know how the staff are able to choose new staff members, besides what others have told me about "applying". Therefore, I have thought this up: A "KHV Democracy"?

It may work like this, in steps:

1. The members of KHV in general can decide on nominations for staff in a separate thread every ___ number of years (The recommended maximum, in my opinion, would be one-and-a-half to two years).

2. The nominations would be handled by one or more than one current staff member so the nominations could be approved by the staff themselves.

3. Eventually, another separate thread can be made with the nominees in polls and such, in which the members of KHV can vote to the staff. If possible, they may also vote off other current staff members for new ones (this is optional), or vote a current staff member to an "upgraded" position.

Examples:

Person A votes DPWolf for Super Moderator.
Person B votes Xaldin for a new Sectional Moderator in place of Shadowjak.

OPTIONAL (WOULD REQUIRE A NEW "GROUP" OF MEMBERS: "FORMER STAFF):

4. The then previous voted-off staff shall become Former Staff. They are simply normal members/Premiums, however they may be granted moderator powers once again if necessary, for a short while. The Former Staff may also choose not to be Former Staff and simply be normal members/Premiums once again.

Those are the basic points of my Suggestion. Honestly, I am quite sorry if this was simply a waste of time. Also, I am quite sorry if it is confusing to you. I shall attempt to explain it more easily if you wish.

Enjoy.

 

I really don't see a purpose to making the staff - that know their sections and duties very well - step down in favor of more inexperienced members who might make more mistakes. There may be advantages (more members getting the chance to be mods), but they don't seem to outweigh the disadvantages of losing staff members.

 

Hence the staff approving the choices.

 

Well I think it could work, but it wouldn't be entirely fair to revoke a Staff's 'powers', if you will, because they lost the election. Other then that... maybe.

 

We can leave out a few minor details, if necessary.

 

I would have to say no. I don't trust KHV's members to make good choices (though, the fact that the staff must approve of the choices makes this a much, much smaller concern).

The system seems a bit convoluted and more trouble then it'd be worth implementing it.

I don't think there needs to be a change in the way KHV is run.

 

I say this would be good but voters should have restrictions like post count or reputation seeing how a lot of the sites members are not good with stuff like this. In other words I’m all for it seeing how members occasionally have problems with the staff and vice versa (and I ain't just talking about this site either, XD)

I think there should be restrictions like I said, a few of these would be:
-When complaints are given about staff member the ones with the most are put at the places of being replaced by a nominee.
-Post count or rep voting restriction, as new members would be un-knowledgeable in this situation.
-And something to do with biased members/staff preventing votes from being valid.

 

It sounds like a good idea, but I really think most of the members would just choose people they're good friends with, rather than the members that actually might have skill.

 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to just put a limit on the join date then?

Post count and rep don't really mean that much. A lot of people post in the spam zone, where post count doesn't go up, and you shouldn't base off whether someone's vote is valid or not by the amount of little green bars they have, for reasons I hope are obvious.

 

That's what I would be worried about.

 

I remember you suggesting this idea on MSN and I thought of it. Some flaws in it (2 main ones).

A.) One could get n00bs to vote for the user. It wouldn't take too much effort.

B.) The most popular person always wins. Kinda a fat in these minor competitions.

I think you had a goo idea, but it gives candidates the option to cheat. Even if we limited it to Premium members, it wouldn't make a difference. The same things would happen.

Sorry, but I say no.

 

Once again, the staff would have to approve the choices. They could do this in a number of ways, which would be up to them.

The staff removal suggestion was also optional, as you may see bracketed.

 

I don't think that would help anyway. It would be too much hassle for staff and it would be impossible to tell if the votes were just.

 

Post count usually shows how long most members within the community are active as does rep. So it would be more accurate to use posts seeing how some members from 2006 have barely post.

 

But there are those such as myself who have been here a few months and have posted like hell. How would we make that fair?

 

You mean with all the nominations? Perhaps they could put a limit or cap on nominations to lessen the hassle.

 

Well if you haven't noticed when your post count suddenly leapt up by a million in a week the staff kinda noticed and you obviously know more than any other member who joined the same time you did. My point being that as your post went up so did your recognisation in a two way form.

True but the popularity would be for someone most people would consider a godo staff member and besides if that fails if this system is used then theres always complaints to the higher ups.

 

i would say no because it would be nothing more than just a popularity contest.