| |
|
Bedhead: it seems like what you're wanting to do is set up some sort of (semi-)formal evaluation/public accountability system for mods... is that right?
Yes. Absolutely right grant. Evaluation rather than accountability, something that's kinda organised without being strict and constraining.
...it's not going to work. Not through any fault of your own or your argument or your proposals but because the moderators generally just aren't interested in changing the way the board works. That's been made clear through the lack of interest in the issues proposed by a variety of people in this thread.
Thing is, I’m not proposing anything that can be countered with the old ‘the board software won’t be changing anytime soon’ argument, because with pms and the wiki, we’ve already got all the software we need to, er, tweak ourselves. A teensy bit more consultation could save a lot of problems in the long run, and make everyone’s job easier and the site happier and everything.
Okay. To lay it out, because I’m not really seeing that it’s too difficult to be bothered with: I’m suggesting that, when moderator lists need refreshing and re-jigging, there’s a time-scale: a week, a fortnight, a month, and a fairly organised set of stages. The way I’d have it is with the mechanics of the process being transparent, but keeping the votes and the personal issues confidential. Like this:
* Art_Garfunkle666 puts himself forward to be a mod in The Temple.
* His name is duly added to the list of all prospective Temple mods on the page in the wiki that I was talking about setting up.
* I am a User Of Barbelith and regular poster in the Temple. I see that list, and - considering the paragonny role moderators have been identified as playing - I am concerned about the prospect of Art_Garfunkle666 modding the Temple based what happened in [such-and-such a thread] some time, and how they dealt with [this] incident. I write it all down in a pm, with links and everything. It’s a Policy issue about suitability for a particular job, not just having a bitch about personalities, or an opportunity to pursue vendettas against your arch-enemy.
* That pm is cc’d to every current Temple mod and to Art Garfunkle666, so he’s aware of and involved in the process. Even if he *does* become a Temple mod, he’s aware of the issues that were raised leading up to that appointment. I'm not interested in a system which encourages sneaking atound behind anyone's back.
* Temple mods may know what I’m going on about, may already have their own views one way or another, may not have a clue and want to know more. They may know me to be a loon or a stalker or a Vengeful Little Shit, and treat my opinions accordingly. Any or all of them can pm to ask questions of me and/or Art_Garfunkle666, until they’ve got it straight in their head, enough to form a view.
* At the end of this ‘consultation’ period, all questions have been put, all enquiries answered, the vote occurs: Each current Temple mod looks at the list on the wiki, and arranges the names in the order they’d like people to be considered. Any views from forum members are kept in mind, but mods aren't obliged to vote according to any concerns they’ve received. They're just being made aware of any relevant feelings that anybody has. A poster saying they’re not happy isn’t in itself enough to torpedo someone’s chances, likewise any expressions of support are relevant, but not decisive or anything. It’s like MPs, who aren’t obliged to vote according to the wishes of their constituents - they’re just aware of the views in their postbag and then apply their own judgement. However, ultimately *this* vote is private, and isn’t any more up for public scrutiny than any other moderation vote on barbelith.
* PM this to nina and/or policy mod/nominated person for each forum, who collate these votes and comes up with a definitive, confidential final list for each forum.
* Nina and/or policy mod/nominated person for each forum/whoever changes that into the user number/forum number format, sends it to Tom. Tom retains the right to tinker/skip/promote names on the list as he sees fit, without review. If he has feelings of his own about the names on the list, what he thinks overrides everything without question.
* As many new mods as necessary are then drawn from the top of that list.
...that’s the way I’d suggest we could structure consultation without too much trouble. Not a pristine plan that I’m massively invested in, just the start of an idea, and posted in the desperate home it might be subjected to some kind of Policy kick-around. C’monnnnnn kids.
If you want a new thread, that’s cool. I kinda think it carries on from the discussion about what a moderator’s role really *is* on barbelith, myself. I know I’m sounding like a stuck record here, but if we’re only going to have fewer mods, who are ‘paragons’, rather than lots of mods who are janitors, there should be some input into that from forum users; it’s strange that having decided on the paragon thing, no thought then went to the implications of what that means if we really want the mods/user relationship to *actually* work in that way. When push comes to shove, like. And if I was seeming a little distressed when I was posting yesterday, it was because I didn’t think there had been any *chance* for these implications to be explored before the changes were made. Sorry if my tone got a little shrill. |
|
|
