Moderators Elections - Voting thread [SPLIT FROM POLL RESULTS]
Jim,
Where has it been said that the four should be appointed without the approval of the members of these forums?
What I suggested was that appoint all four should be an option in the poll. If there were more votes for this option than for any of the candidates then all four would be appointed, if any candidate polled more than the all four option only the top two candidates would be appointed.
What I find very depressing is that talk of increasing the number of moderators has been going around for a year if not longer, it was discussed at the moderators meeting last spring:
So these elections are going to get us back up to 6 which means that shortly we are going to have another round of elections. In the meantime the more limited number of moderators are going to be expected to carry the burden with the associated risk that another may resign. Just how long is it going to be before people actually recognise that something different needs to be done instead of this continual cycle of elections which never manages to catch up with the rate at which moderators resign?
Where has it been said that the four should be appointed without the approval of the members of these forums?
What I suggested was that appoint all four should be an option in the poll. If there were more votes for this option than for any of the candidates then all four would be appointed, if any candidate polled more than the all four option only the top two candidates would be appointed.
What I find very depressing is that talk of increasing the number of moderators has been going around for a year if not longer, it was discussed at the moderators meeting last spring:
Quote from: chillypenguin I think that sometimes admitting that there is a problem is the biggest issue.
If we can restore the moderating team back to its original strength of 8,we will once again be in rude health. And I agree with John, in that the more moderators that we have the easier it will be to recruit.
If the answer to this is to introduce a two tier moderating structure then I support this. Its not a new idea, in fact the idea of `board` moderators was discussed at the moderators meeting last spring.
So these elections are going to get us back up to 6 which means that shortly we are going to have another round of elections. In the meantime the more limited number of moderators are going to be expected to carry the burden with the associated risk that another may resign. Just how long is it going to be before people actually recognise that something different needs to be done instead of this continual cycle of elections which never manages to catch up with the rate at which moderators resign?
Quote from: mal0z I think Strat should stand as a Mod
He is one of the people who I suspect may have stepped forward if it had been to be one of a larger team. At least I hope he would because I think he'd be a very good moderator.
Another thought: If two of these four are elected it means two are going to be rejected - are we expecting them to put their names forward again when the next round of elections come? Or will we have lost two potentially good moderators?
Jan,
Are you sure about that date? I can see an obvious problem here:
The invitation to stand was posted on 22nd, two days after you say you put your name forward. If your date is correct, why whoever you PM'd didn't say you had to resubmit it as they couldn't accept applications from before the applications officially opened...
Edit: samuria has edited his post changing the date from 20th to 22nd since I made this post.
Are you sure about that date? I can see an obvious problem here:
Quote from: Barry Following the Penguin's departure from the moderator ranks, it is now time to run a new set of moderator elections.<snip>
The invitation to stand was posted on 22nd, two days after you say you put your name forward. If your date is correct, why whoever you PM'd didn't say you had to resubmit it as they couldn't accept applications from before the applications officially opened...
Edit: samuria has edited his post changing the date from 20th to 22nd since I made this post.
Barry has read this topic since samuria queried why his name was not included (see attached) so hopefully we will see some action soon on this oversight.
That may or may not be the case (I understood his post as a quote of a PM he'd received following his application), but either he should have been informed in accordance with
or his name should appear in the poll.
Quote from: geewizz I think that's the sort of confusing posting that should put you out of the running for any moderating role, samurai.
That may or may not be the case (I understood his post as a quote of a PM he'd received following his application), but either he should have been informed in accordance with
Quote from: Barry The moderators will then assess that the candidates fit into the following criteria -
1. Must have been a customer of one of the PlusNet brands (PlusNet, FORCE9, Free-Online, Metronet or MAAF) for at least 6 months and currently be using a paid account from one of these brands.
2. Must be a regular poster on the forums. (There is no minimum post requirement, as we expect regular contributors to be most likely to be candidates.)
3.Can not have been banned or warned for forum conduct in the last three months.
4. And review the candidates previous posts to assess their suitability as moderators.
If the candidate does not fit within this criteria the moderators will inform them by PM.
or his name should appear in the poll.
