No Thanks "Democracy"?

It has good intentions, however on a site like this, it would end up becoming a popularity contest. People would use rep as incentives for voting, only the same group of people would vote for each other, noobs would vote for the wrong people, etc. The Former Staff group idea might work though. It's very much like KHI.

The problem with this is that you're assuming the staff have clear judgement. I'm not saying they are stupid, but they're just like us. With more authority. They can go bad though.

Ironically, I noticed that your closest friends on this site have chosen to support this idea. I'm not saying its a bad one, I like it, but if they were not you're close friends, I can be pretty sure they would not have voted for this, lol.

 

The concept doesn't seem too bad.

But, also, if we're going to approve a member to be staff anyways, why have the nominations in the first place? XD

 

I'm against this idea. I may be biased since I'm on staff, but it all seems a little unnecessary. Right now, premium members can apply for staff via an application in their section. The staff then receives it, we analyze how well the member in question will do in the position, if they can take the pressure, if they're active enough, if they're mature enough, etc. If the staff comes to a conclusion that the member is unfit for the job, the application is denied. If the staff thinks the member could do well, an interview is held with the member and, based upon the member's answers, the staff then decides if the member should have the position or not.

I just thought I should clear that up.

But moving on: regular members have no idea what being apart of the staff entails. It's not just "lol lock this." You have to make decisions and sometimes appear as the 'bad guy' in situations. You have to decide unbiasedly if the member is deserving of a ban/infraction. I'm not saying the job is hard per say, and I'm not claiming that I am perfect at the job, but my point is that a regular member can't tell if someone is good for the job because they have no point of view on it, unless they've moderated on a popular site before.

Moving on, there's also the issue of a popularity contest. There is a large gap between the members who have been here for a long time and the newer members, and it would end it chaos. Members might also be upset about how a staff member handled a situation, and I find it quite alright to vocalize your opinion about that, but impeaching the staff member is going too far. I know that you mentioned the staff can either pass or approve the motion, but then the staff still are doing the same thing: choosing the new staff members.

And in my opinion, there's no reason for a "Former Staff" group. They should have a bit of respect, yes, but they're just regular members and should be treated that way.

And we already have a sort of limited democracy here. The members can put their input on suggestions, which the staff always reads and pays attention to (at least I do).

That's just my input.
​

 

I kind of agree to this. We do need a better way to get only the INFORMED electorate to vote. Maybe a harder way to register? It took me literally 5 minutes, in class, to register - they handed me the paper, told me what to enter, etc etc. I even made a MISTAKE on the application, and they STILL let me vote! I didn't even need the voter registration card! I could see them make voting like getting a Driver's license, at least for the presidential elections - and you have to renew every 4 years.

Back on topic, though, yea, it would be either a popularity contest or a whole bunch of smear campaigns, and we see enough of both of those in real politics.

 

id love this...then partys would form..and it would be the US xD

but! it would more than likely end up as a popularity contest...

example..

Me vs Cin

Me: 1 votes( i voted for myself)
Cin:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

nuff said

 

I'm sorry to say that this idea really could never even be implemented. You can say that 'staff has to approve' of any members presented, but in the end, it would come down to an over glorified popularity contest, rather than getting people into a position that they'd actually know how to do.

As staff works, you may not always be happy with some of the choices made, but they are made based off of skill (if they have knowledge of message board operation or other things beneficial), mannerisms (for the most part xD), and the ability to make decisions for the good of the members and be as impartial as possible (meaning friends who do wrong are just as equally dealt with as others are and not more or less). Often times, part of what does make a potential person staff material would be how well they get along with others, but there's more to it than that. You don't have to be 'popular' and if members could vote on staff in such a way, though some may be quite sincere in saying they feel the person is honorable, trustworthy and thoughtful enough for it, let's face it. We know it just wouldn't work that way and in the end, popular people would be fighting because staff would say no and members would get in a huff because they are being ignored. It's not about choosing who's 'popular' or who's 'superior'. It's about selecting who the staff feels would be best for the job as they want it ran to keep the site maintained. The voices of what members want to see happen, well...you post your ideas here and we see if it's possible to make it happen, let us all, members and staff included, debate on the suggestions, and then if they can get done and are beneficial, they happen. This is about as democratic as nearly any message board or chat channel can really be. We're not a country.

The other thing to mention here is that interviews for staff would be more scrutinized in a way and members could really be humiliated. Why didn't your choice get picked? Well, they did this..that.. ok. It would just be an embarrassment whereas otherwise, if a person is denied for staff, it would be understood why between the staff interviewers and that member only and no one even needs to know the person was interviewed. It makes things more public that just don't need to be. Another point is how would people even choose members and well, some members would harass others and do dirty tricks and all, or somewhere along the line people would be encouraged to drop out or they'd get insulted etc. I think it would make people really feel that there's an issue of favoritism even worse than people feel there is now. Also, let's not go too far with the imagination and think of if some members win and others can't stand the person at all. At least with how things are now, if you don't like a staff member, you can blame staff for the decision.

Staff are members in the end, but we have some extra responsibilities that we are willing to undertake to help keep things going smoothly. Some people seem to think that staff (because of former staff no doubt making that impression) are better, have had to be recognized as popular whether troublemakers or not, and well, like beating down people. It's a job, though one we don't get paid for, but in the fact hopefully we kept things neat and orderly, stopped some trolls, cleared videos and other such things to keep the site fun. Hell, it can be a real headache some days. xD

I'm skating around this, I realize since it's late and I'm lacking on sleep, but hopefully you see the point I am making. A democratic process just would not work in any fashion because someone's always going to feel pressured or burned. It's an extra hassle for staff and members that just isn't needed. If someone has the potential for staff, well, I outlined some of what it would take above there. It's kind of like you have to have the heart for it and if you do, when openings happen, there may come a time when you get your shot at it. So yeah, blah blah, I went on, but thought it was an important enough issue to explain out why it probably wouldn't work in any way. For those of you who like my essays, here's another one for ya.

 

The replies are too big to read them, so I say no.

 

Yes, repliku, you do seem to be the king of tl;dr, but I do enjoy your posts. I totally agree. This is probably one of the most democratic boards I've ever seen. There are very few incidents of mod power abuse, very little badmouthing of the staff (except for a recent isolated incident *coughBanHaseoV1,2,3cough*)... All in all, the current staff does just fine.

 

If you noticed I highlighted the part that got my attention then I put it in red.

So um... in response to the bolded red text: Dear God, Timothy, what are you thinking? That would be horrible.

Parties would just give people more of a reason to hate each other and get all competitive for no reason.

-aspld-

 

well not exactly the libs hate the republicans, but the republicans don't hate the libs.

 

Can you really make that kind of generalization?

 

People would just vote for NICE members. This idea is not good at all.

 

That was the first thing I thought of. If we have to approve then whats the point? Also many of the members don't know what a staff needs to run a forum and therefore would not make informed decisions. Besides can you imagine the flame wars that could come with trying to get peoples votes? :/ I say no

 

I voted no. I just don't think it's necessary and the elections would mostly be won by the most popular members rather than the most capable ones. I trust staff will make the right choices without our help.

 

not at all, too many people would have power and mess up the sight. some people cant handle it or would use it for personal reasons.

 

Pretty much everything explained <3


It is a cute idea and I think the majority of members toy with the idea ta one stage or another, but I am going to say no to this, there are too many flaws. The present system is fine as it is when it comes to choosing staff, and whilst some of you may not agree with our choices, we do take the forums best interest in account when making the choices we do.

It would result in people getting hurt, popularity contests, and it is hugely unfair to demote staff because they are voted out by the members, there is a small KH forum, a lot smaller than ours, they got rid of one of their supermoderators because like 5 members didn't like her, and she was a ****ing good supermod.

Anyways, long story short, not going to happen, sorry, I know you put a lot of work into it all.

~Locked~