Moderator election system

[Travis B]

This message board gets the most complaints about moderation than literally any other message board I have ever seen. Now the point of this post is not to take a stand one way or the other on these complaints. Rather, the purpose of this post is to come up with a system to ensure greater user satisfaction and fewer complaints about moderation.

One of the primary reasons users are dissatisfied with moderation is that users feel like they have no say in who gets to be a moderator. I propose that we have elections for moderators so that users feel like they do have a say in it. The details of the elections would have to vary from forum to forum, since some get a lot more traffic than others, but I'll use General Off-Topic as an example.

The General Off-Topic forum could have 6 moderators total, and these moderators would serve staggered 6-month terms, so that there would be an election every month for a moderator seat. Any user with a certain amount of posts in the forum (to be determined) over the past 6 months would be eligible to vote in the election. The election could take place over a week-long period to ensure that everyone who wants to vote is able to vote. We could also have primaries to narrow the field down to 2 candidates for the general election. Of course, the super moderator system would still exist to ensure that no elected mod abuses their authority.

These elections would ensure that each forum gets the moderation it deserves, and while there would obviously still be some complaints, the level of satisfaction would be higher because each user was able to add in their two cents, even if the outcome was not what they wanted, and because there would be more accountability and transparency. This is also something that would bring about a greater sense of community on the forums.

[Hammerfest]

How could we trust said elections?

[Icoblablubb]

This message board gets the most complaints about moderation than literally any other message board I have ever seen. Now the point of this post is not to take a stand one way or the other on these complaints. Rather, the purpose of this post is to come up with a system to ensure greater user satisfaction and fewer complaints about moderation.

One of the primary reasons users are dissatisfied with moderation is that users feel like they have no say in who gets to be a moderator. I propose that we have elections for moderators so that users feel like they do have a say in it. The details of the elections would have to vary from forum to forum, since some get a lot more traffic than others, but I'll use General Off-Topic as an example.

The General Off-Topic forum could have 6 moderators total, and these moderators would serve staggered 6-month terms, so that there would be an election every month for a moderator seat. Any user with a certain amount of posts in the forum (to be determined) over the past 6 months would be eligible to vote in the election. The election could take place over a week-long period to ensure that everyone who wants to vote is able to vote. We could also have primaries to narrow the field down to 2 candidates for the general election. Of course, the super moderator system would still exist to ensure that no elected mod abuses their authority.

These elections would ensure that each forum gets the moderation it deserves, and while there would obviously still be some complaints, the level of satisfaction would be higher because each user was able to add in their two cents, even if the outcome was not what they wanted, and because there would be more accountability and transparency. This is also something that would bring about a greater sense of community on the forums.

ya sure won't happen .. and i doubt the mods or staff lets say does even care about the complaints .. gosh there are alot of mods doing whatever they want especially poltic driven mods who just ban people who just have a different viewpoint then they have but hey good luck other than this thread getting closed nothing else will happen

[Endus]

They don't get enough applicants for there to even be elections. GenOT is pretty much always short-staffed, because there aren't enough candidates volunteering who aren't obvious shitposters with terrible posting records and an unrepentant infraction history. This isn't a case where they've got too many qualified options and need a vote to winnow it down; they just need actual, responsible volunteers.

[------------------------]

hello Mr. Mmo-champion, i'd like to buy one moderation, please.
I have 2.5k gold in a 110 level character on Moonguard, that and some battle pets from old raids.

hope that's enough for buying a moderation.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I doubt even elections would do much. I'm still partially skeptical of the so called "Bad moderation." Its uslaly very vague when I hear about it.

[Endus]

I doubt even elections would do much. I'm still partially skeptical of the so called "Bad moderation." Its uslaly very vague when I hear about it.

Having been behind the scenes, and in front, in most cases it's just people who don't like being held to account for breaking site rules. "But I SHOULD be able to post literal Nazi propaganda, I believe it's TRUE" and that sort of horse shit. Or "Sure, I called that guy a 'fucking asstarded cuckfaced shitgibbon', but you must've banned me because I'm a Republican, not for the obvious flaming!" Or "why didn't this post get hit?" when the offending poster got a 10-point infraction on another post that was collective of all their bad posts; sometimes, mod decisions aren't the clearest from user's perspectives.

Mods do make mistakes, but that's why there's a ban appeals system, and the blues do hold bad moderators to account when their abuse is reported. It's not often a mod gets removed, but that's more a testament to the vetting they do before making someone a mod, than because mods are getting free passes.

I had way stricter requirements on my posting while I was a moderator here, for instance. Tons of things that were totally legit for a poster to express, but I was expected not to, as a representative of the site. I held myself to a more-professional standard, and I've relaxed that (a lot, really) since I stepped down. The restrictive nature was part of the reason, in fact (but not the only one). It's a good thing, and I'm not saying mods shouldn't be held to that standard; they should be. It just wasn't something I wanted to stress about any more.

[Tziva]

This isn't happening. Moderators are chosen through a careful review process based on important things like their familiarity and adherence to site rules, ability to be civil and reasonable in heated situations, and their communication skills. We're not going to trash that to elect people on popularity. People tend to like people who agree with them, regardless of whether that person actually contributes positively to the climate of the board. Y'all also can't see behind the scenes for the full scope of data that the globals and admins can (whether it is infraction history or simply activity level).

What we really need is more people to apply to moderate so we actually have a lot of quality applicants to choose from. We get very few moderator applications and even fewer worthy ones. If you know someone who you sincerely think would be a good moderator than encourage them to apply: https://www.mmo-champion.com/modapply.php