Moderator Elections

[#1]

In America the President puts forward his nominees. The senate and congress then ratify the appointments.
Why couldn't we have as James suggests, but with a vote along the lines of  "The moderators are proposing that xxxx is made a moderator (for sections yyy, zzz of the forums). Do you agree with this appointment?" Yes/No - one poll per person proposed.

[#2]

Well I'll do 'rants and raves' then, as most of my posts seem to fit in that forum.
Must try to stop, I am going to be terrible when I get older
I think it helps having been around on the forums for some time, as you get a good feel for the atmosphere on here, and how it should be managed.  Looking back on previous posts years ago, it must have been difficult for some of the ex-moderators. There have been some turbulent times, not all PlusNet's fault .. look things like the introduction of usage allowances and traffic management.
Now, it's accepted around the broadband industry as a whole.
However this kind of thing to go down particularly well when introduced.
I've certainly noticed things are a lot calmer and settled than they were a few years ago, even though I tend to have a moan at times. I credit most of that to PlusNet improving over the years, but the broadband industry moves very quickly, and there are plenty of factors outside an individual ISP's control.

[#3]

James_G: Good points; well made.
Mike

[#4]

I would support the idea of a greater number of moderators, each allocated a 'chunk' of boards.
Of course having said that there is the 'report to moderator' button available to anyone. But in fairness I suspect many are reluctant to use it maybe feeling it could cause more problems. A bit like reporting a neighbour to the police

[#5]

Before I became a moderator, I used to make a list of things I'd spotted, including links to the offending items, and I used to PM these to one of the mods.
TBH, its much more intrusive to do it that way, since it puts the onus onto a specific mod. Using the link simply posts a thread into a private board so that any moderators who are interested can take a look and see what has been reported.
If a mod doesn't have the time or inclination to sort them, he doesn't, and somebody else will when they get chance.
Don't worry about using it - it makes life easier for mods, not harder. (It also creates a handy placeholder for discussion/canvassing of opinion on matters arising too)

[#6]

I wasn't thinking in terms of causing trouble for moderators (no offence intended) but problems for the reporter. But I appreciate that a degree of anonymity is maintained.

[#7]

To confirm - the only people who see the name of the reporter are the moderators and Plusnet staff.
It is never divulged to the person whose post is being reported.
Furthermore don't worry if a report is considered to be spurious (in error or not sufficiently serious to warrant action) it is noted as such in the reported post section but where needed a closer watch than normal is kept on that particular thread if it likely to cause further problems.

[#8]

Hmm.
I have the somewhat dubious distinction of being the first Plusnet moderator to resign, a little under two years after I assumed the role five and a half years ago. The reason I resigned was because I was getting very stressed out about my personal/academic life, which meant that I felt I no longer had the right frame of mind or enough time to realise the expectations of being a moderator; I didn't want to be depended on to do something that I was no longer certain I could do.
The thing is though, as someone who's been around from the inauguration of what I think of as the 'proper' Plusnet forums (there were some before that time but they weren't anywhere near as nice to use), I've always felt a certain attachment to them, as I was involved in getting the first set of moderators up-and-running from scratch - for example, I wrote the original set of moderating guidelines/rules that I believe are still in use today albeit naturally in an evolved form. So there are times when I really wish that I could step in and sort things out myself. For example, I remember one night someone who had a grudge to bear against Plusnet kept spamming the forum with 'PLUSNET SUCKS AND YOU'RE ALL STUPID FOR USING THEM'-style posts, and I really wanted to do something about them because I still, as silly as it may sound, felt they were kind of spoiling the environment I helped build, and I could see that there were no other moderators around to deal with them swiftly. But obviously I couldn't do anything, so in the end I think I just used the good old report-to-moderator link and waited for Dan to appear on IRC, which he did eventually.
Not as serious as the above example, but there're other cases where I do also still find myself feeling or acting a little moderator-ish. For one, I'm always noticing posts with full quotes, though I don't think I tend to report those as they seem too trivial to warrant explicitly getting a moderator's attention. I also tend to try and help out when there are queries about the forum rules or general forum etiquette; having conceived the original rules (and therefore having been around from the beginning) I still have a good idea of how they operate so I do tend to nudge people in the right direction on those matters even though I'm not actually a moderator - although I keep the line about me being a former mod in my signature so people know I have some knowledge of what I'm talking about.
So what does this all amount to? Well, I would like to be a moderator, to some extent. The way I actually think of it is that I don't really want to be a moderator per se - instead, I want to be a normal user with moderating powers. The thing is, my life is still pretty messed up (I have an unfortunate notion that this year is going to be my worst yet), so I cannot offer myself as a dependable moderator who can guarantee they'll be on the forums every day and will get involved in everything. But, at the same time, I do wish that when I see things that need attention - which is a fairly frequent occurrence, even if it is just a quote that needs removing - I could get on with it and do it myself. Obviously I would try and get involved in things (e.g. 'secret' moderator discussions about forthcoming projects such as forum reorganisations or whatever), because I am interested in the running of the forums, but as I say, I could not guarantee that I would.
However, I don't currently see there to be any point in me standing for the election, so whilst I am giving it some thought (hence this huge post - well done if you'd read all the way through), I don't think I will be standing. My reasoning for that is twofold. One is that, as I say, I do not feel I am up to the job of being a dependable 'full-on' moderator which is what this election is about. Yet, at the same time, I wouldn't really want to be limited to just one particular forum/sub-forum as in terms of reading the forums, I do roam all over the place, so there's a chance I could spot an issue that needs sorting anywhere really. The other reason is that because I don't post very often - perhaps just a couple/few times a week, generally in Chit-Chat - I'm not actually going to be well known and seen as moderator material by the vast majority of forum participants; older members might remember me for (hopefully) being a decent moderator, but there aren't actually that many of them around these days. So most people would probably see me as being quite an obscure choice.
Right, I'm done - thanks for reading. For what it's worth, I had originally intended on discussing some of these issues with the mods by PM, but seeing the discussion break out in this thread made it seem better to air my thoughts publicly as part of the discussion.

[#9]

Glad to see your thought Thomas, and glad to see that they would fit with the proposal that I worked on before stepping down myself.
Accepted that *you* wouldn't necessarily need a 'trial' in the same context as others might, but either way, having served 3months as a trial, a moderator would have had the opportunity to offer their services across the whole forum.
Remember, the suggestion about smaller sections was not intended as a limit to the areas a moderator might be able to moderate, rather it was a means to remove any feeling of pressurisation to do as much as some of the other mods, or any feeling of there being a minimum time expected.
If a moderator was happy to say he/she would cast an eye over other boards on occasion, there would be no benefit to anybody in restricting that.

[#10]

Quote from: jelv

A radical suggestion - make this election for EIGHT new moderators.

Having thought about this overnight and in view of the post by Thomas (Be3G) two up I've changed my mind on this. I was particularly struck by his comment:

Quote from: Be3G

So what does this all amount to? Well, I would like to be a moderator, to some extent. The way I actually think of it is that I don't really want to be a moderator per se - instead, I want to be a normal user with moderating powers.

I suggest that we should have 6-8 full senior moderators and at least a dozen junior moderators who perform duties as Thomas has described. Whether they are assigned areas of the forums or not I don't think matters, the important thing is that there are one or two around at most times of the day or night to keep the moderating ticking over in a timely manner.
I suspect that if such a scheme was adopted Thomas might put his name forward and I bet others would as well.
I'm sure it would also encourage more people to consider being senior moderators if they knew the workload wouldn't he that high.
In the long term it would also have a better route to becoming a full moderator by having a requirement that candidates must have server at least three months as a junior moderator first. If none of the juniors want to take up the post then open it up to everyone - but the person elected would have to serve three months as a junior (not dissimilar to what happens now).

[#11]

I've "put my money where my mouth is" by sending this PM to the moderators:

Quote from: jelv

I would like to put myself forward as a candidate to be a junior moderator in line with my post here. I think I would make a good moderator because firstly I am a very long standing member of the forums with a good awareness of all the rules and secondly I have a very good eye for detail. I want to make it clear that this conditional upon there being at least 12 moderators in total and that if I am elected and there are less than this I would refuse to accept the appointment.

Perhaps others who would consider taking up a junior role could do the same. If it was clear that there are sufficient numbers of volunteers to take up junior moderator roles it may help the moderators make a decision on the way forward.

[#12]

The idea of junior moderators is great.  However, I certainly don't relish the thought of bringing on 8 new moderators in one go.
If we don't get a reasonable response from the current round of elections, we may have to rethink exactly how we go about recruiting
B.

[#13]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sold on the 'junior moderators' idea, although I accept it's an attempt to solve a less-than-perfect situation at the moment. My main concern about it really is in differentiating between 'junior' and 'senior' moderators - because what, exactly, would be the difference? What would a junior moderator have to do to 'upgrade' themselves to senior status? Personally (sorry to keep talking about myself), I wouldn't want to be labelled a 'junior' moderator because I'd have the same moderating knowledge and would undertake the same duties as the other, 'senior' moderators - I just probably wouldn't spend so much time doing so. I fear therefore that having a 'junior' status would belie, well, my ability to moderate; answers I gave would have less authority than answers given from senior moderators and so forth.

[#14]

Junior moderators/assistant moderator (or whatever you call them) would due all the mundane tasks, all capitals, moving posts to correct forums, merging splitting topics as required, cross posting, removing agents names from posts with ticket contents. They'd also edit posts where a user had deliberately avoided the swear filter, but then having made the required edits refer it to the senior moderators to decide if further action is needed.
Senior moderators obviously do all of the above and would also be responsible for all issues requiring sanctions, warnings etc and handling complaints against moderator actions.
In fact Thomas, if there were a number of junior moderators who would considerably lighten the load, and knowing how much you care about these forums, I'd suspect you'd be tempted to become a full moderator again.
The more I think about this, the better I like it. Would we really need to have elections for the juniors? I'd of thought they could just be appointed. I'd suggest that in the hidden forums you'd need a separate forum for the senior moderators where they could privately discuss moderator actions.

[#15]

@Be3G As you are former moderator I can understand that point of view.
However there may be many active members of this forum who would like to be involved in moderating the forum but have had no experience whatsoever.
For that reason I think jelv's idea is a good one, members could volunteer as junior [or whatever] moderators and learn the skills needed and gain some experience and confidence required to be a full [or whatever] moderator. It could be like an apprenticeship.
One volunteer from a membership of over 10,000 indicates to me that something needs to be done differently.
Edit; Sorry jelv you just beat me to it!