Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Daytona has an idea about site governance...?

daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:39:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
EXTREME NOTE: This idea is NOT a power grab, just to get me power, though it may look like it, due to my current campaign. This is an idea that I've been thinking of, and have decided that it would help the site, no matter who wins the presidential election.

So, here is my idea.

The presidency, according to some has no weight. In my book, I feel that it does carry weight. I believe that the presidency is the voice of the people. The person that the community can get behind. The leader.

But I do think that the power is limited. They aren't necessarily a figurehead. They can make a real effort, and make change happen.

What I am proposing, is that we allow the president to be the voice of our community without constraints.

I am proposing that the president of the site be automatically appointed to be a moderator.

The offices have been separated for quite a while now, and it is accepted that they are different. To this, I say 'Why?' Being a moderator, the president could really be the voice of the community, and could meet more of their demands.

Here is how I think this should be organized.

We would have our two Juggle-appointed mods. Currently, that is Airmax and Ore_Ele. Then we have the third moderator, the president, chosen by the community.

I believe that this would allow the community to have more of a say in site issues, and would truly satisfy site members a great deal.

What say you, the community? Should we elect the president to also serve as the third moderator?
#FeeltheFreezerBern
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:53:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:49:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Even if we wanted this, Juggle isn't going to go for it.

I don't know. Would Juggle really ignore us if we really wanted more representation?
#FeeltheFreezerBern
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:53:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:53:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
No, I don't even agree with our sites one moderator 95% of the time

We have 2, you know.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:53:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:53:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:49:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Even if we wanted this, Juggle isn't going to go for it.

I don't know. Would Juggle really ignore us if we really wanted more representation?

Yes.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:54:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:53:25 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
No, I don't even agree with our sites one moderator 95% of the time

We have 2, you know.

Ore_Ele is more of a supporter
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:53:27 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:49:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Even if we wanted this, Juggle isn't going to go for it.

I don't know. Would Juggle really ignore us if we really wanted more representation?

Yes.

Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist. But it doesn't hurt to try..
#FeeltheFreezerBern
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:54:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:54:03 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:25 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
No, I don't even agree with our sites one moderator 95% of the time

We have 2, you know.

Ore_Ele is more of a supporter

That's true.

But couldn't you agree more with a community-chosen moderator?
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:54:07 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:27 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:49:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Even if we wanted this, Juggle isn't going to go for it.

I don't know. Would Juggle really ignore us if we really wanted more representation?

Yes.

Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist. But it doesn't hurt to try..

Feel free to try. I'll be sitting here with my "I told you so" button when you fail.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:55:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:54:52 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:54:03 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:25 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
No, I don't even agree with our sites one moderator 95% of the time

We have 2, you know.

Ore_Ele is more of a supporter

That's true.

But couldn't you agree more with a community-chosen moderator?

The mod is not community oriented. I'm more for democracy, and less authoritarianism
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:55:06 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:54:07 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:27 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:49:58 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Even if we wanted this, Juggle isn't going to go for it.

I don't know. Would Juggle really ignore us if we really wanted more representation?

Yes.

Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist. But it doesn't hurt to try..

Feel free to try. I'll be sitting here with my "I told you so" button when you fail.

What a pessimist.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 6:56:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:55:40 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:54:52 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:54:03 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:25 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
No, I don't even agree with our sites one moderator 95% of the time

We have 2, you know.

Ore_Ele is more of a supporter

That's true.

But couldn't you agree more with a community-chosen moderator?

The mod is not community oriented. I'm more for democracy, and less authoritarianism

But it would be more democratic, if we COULD have our president also serve as the mod.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:36:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This isn't going to happen.

Innomen said as much several times during his presidency, and I pointed it out often during mine. The idea that the roles were connected was incredibly pervasive for awhile (because 2 presidents did have the dual roles), regardless of how often Innomen, Juggle, or myself pointed out that they weren't.

More importantly, Juggle has said that the membership president and moderator position are necessarily separated.
Debate.org Moderator
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.

This wouldn't eliminate non-elected moderators, just add one.

Also, aren't moderators supposed to improve the community? The voice of the community should have a say in the matter, if this is truly the case.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:56:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:55:40 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:54:52 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:54:03 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:25 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:53:00 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
No, I don't even agree with our sites one moderator 95% of the time

We have 2, you know.

Ore_Ele is more of a supporter

That's true.

But couldn't you agree more with a community-chosen moderator?

The mod is not community oriented. I'm more for democracy, and less authoritarianism

But it would be more democratic, if we COULD have our president also serve as the mod.

If you raise public support for this idea, you should message juggle [http://www.juggle.com...] and explain your position, your plan for presidency, and your plan for reform. If they agree to this however, it will be more of a test an probably only originally be set for the next presidents term. It could become permanent, but only if you could get the debate.org community to rally around this idea.
Actionsspeak
Posts: 185
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:38:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:55:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
I like the idea. Hopefully Juggle will go for it.

Juggle must go for the idea if the debate.org users do.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:39:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 6:39:32 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
EXTREME NOTE: This idea is NOT a power grab, just to get me power, though it may look like it, due to my current campaign. This is an idea that I've been thinking of, and have decided that it would help the site, no matter who wins the presidential election.

So, here is my idea.

The presidency, according to some has no weight. In my book, I feel that it does carry weight. I believe that the presidency is the voice of the people. The person that the community can get behind. The leader.

But I do think that the power is limited. They aren't necessarily a figurehead. They can make a real effort, and make change happen.

What I am proposing, is that we allow the president to be the voice of our community without constraints.

I am proposing that the president of the site be automatically appointed to be a moderator.

Here's why that's never going to happen:

If we make el presidente a mod, then we're giving the moderator an incentive not to be impartial and to instead cater to members in the interest of being reelected. That's not to say that all mods would be impartial, but the division is best. In that way, the president focuses solely on site development and the is insulated from the blowback of disputes gone sour.

Also, though it's never been explicitly stated, I don't think that there will ever be a mod who is under 26 or 27 years of age.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:37:49 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.

This wouldn't eliminate non-elected moderators, just add one.

But it would increase the risk of a moderator bending inappropriately to community will. Even with an unelected mod, the pendulum would swing more towards bias than impartiality.

Also, aren't moderators supposed to improve the community? The voice of the community should have a say in the matter, if this is truly the case.

No. They are supposed to impartially enforce the TOS. Is this important to having a healthy community? Yes it is. But is a mod's job to "improve the community." No it isn't. They aren't there to advocate for reforms, implement changes, etc. That is the purview of the president, IMHO.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:41:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:39:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:39:32 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
EXTREME NOTE: This idea is NOT a power grab, just to get me power, though it may look like it, due to my current campaign. This is an idea that I've been thinking of, and have decided that it would help the site, no matter who wins the presidential election.

So, here is my idea.

The presidency, according to some has no weight. In my book, I feel that it does carry weight. I believe that the presidency is the voice of the people. The person that the community can get behind. The leader.

But I do think that the power is limited. They aren't necessarily a figurehead. They can make a real effort, and make change happen.

What I am proposing, is that we allow the president to be the voice of our community without constraints.

I am proposing that the president of the site be automatically appointed to be a moderator.

Here's why that's never going to happen:

If we make el presidente a mod, then we're giving the moderator an incentive not to be impartial and to instead cater to members in the interest of being reelected. That's not to say that all mods would be impartial, but the division is best. In that way, the president focuses solely on site development and the is insulated from the blowback of disputes gone sour.

Juggle is the main player in site development. The president should have a say in this, since he is the voice of the community, and the moderators are supposed to improve the community. There would be a moderator balance, considering that there would be 2 non-elected mods. This gives more power to the people, but not all of it.

Also, though it's never been explicitly stated, I don't think that there will ever be a mod who is under 26 or 27 years of age.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:43:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:40:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:37:49 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.

This wouldn't eliminate non-elected moderators, just add one.

But it would increase the risk of a moderator bending inappropriately to community will. Even with an unelected mod, the pendulum would swing more towards bias than impartiality.

Then why don't you advocate for Juggle being the mod, then? There has to be some community bias. Even but a little.

Also, aren't moderators supposed to improve the community? The voice of the community should have a say in the matter, if this is truly the case.

No. They are supposed to impartially enforce the TOS. Is this important to having a healthy community? Yes it is. But is a mod's job to "improve the community." No it isn't. They aren't there to advocate for reforms, implement changes, etc. That is the purview of the president, IMHO.

The mod's purpose really is to improve the community, by resolving disputes. Do you think this improves the community? I think it does, and is why the president should be moderator #3.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:44:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:39:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:39:32 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
EXTREME NOTE: This idea is NOT a power grab, just to get me power, though it may look like it, due to my current campaign. This is an idea that I've been thinking of, and have decided that it would help the site, no matter who wins the presidential election.

So, here is my idea.

The presidency, according to some has no weight. In my book, I feel that it does carry weight. I believe that the presidency is the voice of the people. The person that the community can get behind. The leader.

But I do think that the power is limited. They aren't necessarily a figurehead. They can make a real effort, and make change happen.

What I am proposing, is that we allow the president to be the voice of our community without constraints.

I am proposing that the president of the site be automatically appointed to be a moderator.

Here's why that's never going to happen:

If we make el presidente a mod, then we're giving the moderator an incentive not to be impartial and to instead cater to members in the interest of being reelected. That's not to say that all mods would be impartial, but the division is best. In that way, the president focuses solely on site development and the is insulated from the blowback of disputes gone sour.

Also, though it's never been explicitly stated, I don't think that there will ever be a mod who is under 26 or 27 years of age.

As you and BSH have pointed out, this is partly a reason for it. You are also correct that a mod needs to be a minimum age.
Debate.org Moderator
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:51:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:43:55 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:40:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:37:49 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.

This wouldn't eliminate non-elected moderators, just add one.

But it would increase the risk of a moderator bending inappropriately to community will. Even with an unelected mod, the pendulum would swing more towards bias than impartiality.

Then why don't you advocate for Juggle being the mod, then? There has to be some community bias. Even but a little.

Your right, which is why the mod is a member of the community. Having some community knowledge is important, but we need a mod who has the expertise, while, at the same time, is not beholden unto the community. That is why mods should be unelected.

Moreover, Juggle doesn't have the time to mod DDO. Consequently, we have people such as Airmax and Ore who are gracious and generous enough to fill the void.

Also, aren't moderators supposed to improve the community? The voice of the community should have a say in the matter, if this is truly the case.

No. They are supposed to impartially enforce the TOS. Is this important to having a healthy community? Yes it is. But is a mod's job to "improve the community." No it isn't. They aren't there to advocate for reforms, implement changes, etc. That is the purview of the president, IMHO.

The mod's purpose really is to improve the community, by resolving disputes. Do you think this improves the community? I think it does, and is why the president should be moderator #3.

I think having a healthy judicial system, for want of a more precise term, is important to the community, but that is not the same as "improving the community." The way you initially phrased the role of the mod made it sound as if the mod had some overbroad mandate to take unilateral action to "improve" the community, or was supposed to do the same things as the President, while still being the mod.

Sure, the mod has to resolve disputes, but he shouldn't be lobbying on behalf of the community to Juggle, for instance, because that is the purview of the President.

Moreover, how would you propose practically splitting up the duties between 3 mods?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 7:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:41:36 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:39:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:39:32 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
EXTREME NOTE: This idea is NOT a power grab, just to get me power, though it may look like it, due to my current campaign. This is an idea that I've been thinking of, and have decided that it would help the site, no matter who wins the presidential election.

So, here is my idea.

The presidency, according to some has no weight. In my book, I feel that it does carry weight. I believe that the presidency is the voice of the people. The person that the community can get behind. The leader.

But I do think that the power is limited. They aren't necessarily a figurehead. They can make a real effort, and make change happen.

What I am proposing, is that we allow the president to be the voice of our community without constraints.

I am proposing that the president of the site be automatically appointed to be a moderator.

Here's why that's never going to happen:

If we make el presidente a mod, then we're giving the moderator an incentive not to be impartial and to instead cater to members in the interest of being reelected. That's not to say that all mods would be impartial, but the division is best. In that way, the president focuses solely on site development and the is insulated from the blowback of disputes gone sour.

Juggle is the main player in site development.

Right, but our president's responsibility is to represent our interests to them. That Juggle is the outfit pulling the strings doesn't mean that the president's role isn't to focus principally on site development, or that the president should be a mod.

The president should have a say in this, since he is the voice of the community, and the moderators are supposed to improve the community.

Moderators and presidents both improve the community, but in profoundly different ways. Mods handle member issues/disputes/spambots/etc. Mods need to be mature and levelheaded -and capable of stepping back when they're overreaching. That means that mods need to not be teenagers or even people in their early 20s. Dispute resolution sounds like something a lot of people want to be involved in, but the reality is that it sucks. When things don't go the way they should, people get bitter, resentful and feel betrayed. Sometimes, even mods don't perceive situations for what they are immediately and they have to be big enough as people to both enforce community standards and do so in a way that separates their ego from their role. That's easier said than done.

Most of the people who talk about wanting to be mods, I think, are genuinely committed to the idea of making the site a better place. But, they're only committed to that idea as an abstract notion and not having had practical experience warding off old, hostile members who have been permanently banned that still continue to cause trouble, people who want to doxx other people and those who are serially incapable of playing nice with others in this sandbox we have. At best, it's a thankless job and at worse (like if you're a mod and you screw up) it gets really nasty, really fast. But, most people never see that side of it.

Even still, there's no reason to have more mods.

There would be a moderator balance, considering that there would be 2 non-elected mods. This gives more power to the people, but not all of it.

Mods need to be entirely removed from DDO politics for the reasons I just said.


Also, though it's never been explicitly stated, I don't think that there will ever be a mod who is under 26 or 27 years of age.
Tsar of DDO
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:00:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:51:18 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:43:55 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:40:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:37:49 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.

This wouldn't eliminate non-elected moderators, just add one.

But it would increase the risk of a moderator bending inappropriately to community will. Even with an unelected mod, the pendulum would swing more towards bias than impartiality.

Then why don't you advocate for Juggle being the mod, then? There has to be some community bias. Even but a little.

Your right, which is why the mod is a member of the community. Having some community knowledge is important, but we need a mod who has the expertise, while, at the same time, is not beholden unto the community. That is why mods should be unelected.

Moreover, Juggle doesn't have the time to mod DDO. Consequently, we have people such as Airmax and Ore who are gracious and generous enough to fill the void.

Would you rather have Juggle or the community select our mods? That is the question I am proposing to you.

Also, aren't moderators supposed to improve the community? The voice of the community should have a say in the matter, if this is truly the case.

No. They are supposed to impartially enforce the TOS. Is this important to having a healthy community? Yes it is. But is a mod's job to "improve the community." No it isn't. They aren't there to advocate for reforms, implement changes, etc. That is the purview of the president, IMHO.

The mod's purpose really is to improve the community, by resolving disputes. Do you think this improves the community? I think it does, and is why the president should be moderator #3.

I think having a healthy judicial system, for want of a more precise term, is important to the community, but that is not the same as "improving the community." The way you initially phrased the role of the mod made it sound as if the mod had some overbroad mandate to take unilateral action to "improve" the community, or was supposed to do the same things as the President, while still being the mod.

Sure, the mod has to resolve disputes, but he shouldn't be lobbying on behalf of the community to Juggle, for instance, because that is the purview of the President.

Moreover, how would you propose practically splitting up the duties between 3 mods?

The president, under this system, woulkd have the power they need to ultimately improve the community, which is why the community elects them, at least I presume. It only make since that the president is in the same group.

What I propose, with the separation of powers, is that these 3 mods get to do the normal mod duties, and if the other 2 mods don't approve of this action, they overturn it.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 8:00:50 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:51:18 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:43:55 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:40:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:37:49 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:33:29 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Moderators should not feel as if they have to respond to the whim of the community like an elected official.

For example, if the community dislikes Member X, but X has done nothing banworthy, the community could pressure an elected moderator to ban X simply by threatening to vote the moderator out of office if they failed to comply. That is why non-elected moderators are crucial--they enable the moderator to be a more impartial judge.

This wouldn't eliminate non-elected moderators, just add one.

But it would increase the risk of a moderator bending inappropriately to community will. Even with an unelected mod, the pendulum would swing more towards bias than impartiality.

Then why don't you advocate for Juggle being the mod, then? There has to be some community bias. Even but a little.

Your right, which is why the mod is a member of the community. Having some community knowledge is important, but we need a mod who has the expertise, while, at the same time, is not beholden unto the community. That is why mods should be unelected.

Moreover, Juggle doesn't have the time to mod DDO. Consequently, we have people such as Airmax and Ore who are gracious and generous enough to fill the void.

Would you rather have Juggle or the community select our mods? That is the question I am proposing to you.

I would rather have an impartial actor select our mods. The community is certainly not impartial.

Also, aren't moderators supposed to improve the community? The voice of the community should have a say in the matter, if this is truly the case.

No. They are supposed to impartially enforce the TOS. Is this important to having a healthy community? Yes it is. But is a mod's job to "improve the community." No it isn't. They aren't there to advocate for reforms, implement changes, etc. That is the purview of the president, IMHO.

The mod's purpose really is to improve the community, by resolving disputes. Do you think this improves the community? I think it does, and is why the president should be moderator #3.

I think having a healthy judicial system, for want of a more precise term, is important to the community, but that is not the same as "improving the community." The way you initially phrased the role of the mod made it sound as if the mod had some overbroad mandate to take unilateral action to "improve" the community, or was supposed to do the same things as the President, while still being the mod.

Sure, the mod has to resolve disputes, but he shouldn't be lobbying on behalf of the community to Juggle, for instance, because that is the purview of the President.

Moreover, how would you propose practically splitting up the duties between 3 mods?

The president, under this system, woulkd have the power they need to ultimately improve the community, which is why the community elects them, at least I presume. It only make since that the president is in the same group.

There is a very good reason why we elect a President, and don't elect our Supreme Court Justices. One is the people's advocate, and therefore should be chosen by the people. The other is the impartial arbiter, meaning that they should NOT be beholden unto the people.

The same can be said of the President on DDO and the mods. The President works with Juggle as a sort of lobbyist for the community. His role is better suited for popular election because he represents the whims of the people. The mod should never be respondent to the whims of the community, because their job is to be impartial. The second any mod is elected is the second that that impartiality flies out of the window and mob rule begins to creep into the system.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:07:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 7:53:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:41:36 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 5/4/2014 7:39:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/4/2014 6:39:32 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
EXTREME NOTE: This idea is NOT a power grab, just to get me power, though it may look like it, due to my current campaign. This is an idea that I've been thinking of, and have decided that it would help the site, no matter who wins the presidential election.

So, here is my idea.

The presidency, according to some has no weight. In my book, I feel that it does carry weight. I believe that the presidency is the voice of the people. The person that the community can get behind. The leader.

But I do think that the power is limited. They aren't necessarily a figurehead. They can make a real effort, and make change happen.

What I am proposing, is that we allow the president to be the voice of our community without constraints.

I am proposing that the president of the site be automatically appointed to be a moderator.

Here's why that's never going to happen:

If we make el presidente a mod, then we're giving the moderator an incentive not to be impartial and to instead cater to members in the interest of being reelected. That's not to say that all mods would be impartial, but the division is best. In that way, the president focuses solely on site development and the is insulated from the blowback of disputes gone sour.

Juggle is the main player in site development.

Right, but our president's responsibility is to represent our interests to them. That Juggle is the outfit pulling the strings doesn't mean that the president's role isn't to focus principally on site development, or that the president should be a mod.

I agree, the president should have a big say in it. But I don't think of that to be their sole purpose.

The president should have a say in this, since he is the voice of the community, and the moderators are supposed to improve the community.

Moderators and presidents both improve the community, but in profoundly different ways. Mods handle member issues/disputes/spambots/etc. Mods need to be mature and levelheaded -and capable of stepping back when they're overreaching. That means that mods need to not be teenagers or even people in their early 20s. Dispute resolution sounds like something a lot of people want to be involved in, but the reality is that it sucks. When things don't go the way they should, people get bitter, resentful and feel betrayed. Sometimes, even mods don't perceive situations for what they are immediately and they have to be big enough as people to both enforce community standards and do so in a way that separates their ego from their role. That's easier said than done.

Most of the people who talk about wanting to be mods, I think, are genuinely committed to the idea of making the site a better place. But, they're only committed to that idea as an abstract notion and not having had practical experience warding off old, hostile members who have been permanently banned that still continue to cause trouble, people who want to doxx other people and those who are serially incapable of playing nice with others in this sandbox we have. At best, it's a thankless job and at worse (like if you're a mod and you screw up) it gets really nasty, really fast. But, most people never see that side of it.

Even still, there's no reason to have more mods.

I think if one wins an election, then they have shown the community that they can handle the responsibility, and that they have the site's best interests in mind. I would think that they have proved of being able to achieve a position like moderator

There would be a moderator balance, considering that there would be 2 non-elected mods. This gives more power to the people, but not all of it.

Mods need to be entirely removed from DDO politics for the reasons I just said.

Well, they have sort of entered DDO politics already.


Also, though it's never been explicitly stated, I don't think that there will ever be a mod who is under 26 or 27 years of age.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 8:07:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
lol, this is precipitously close to the the Constitutional Convention, DDO Edition.

I'll be Hamilton.
Tsar of DDO