Everyone,
Many of the mods conferred and wanted to run this by you guys. We have a democratic system here were the members can bring members who are "Trolling" up for banning by vote. The current rules allow any one single member with a mere 10 votes to make a formal request. This is then approved by the mods (to eliminate trolls from putting up polls) and brought to vote. Last night we had a very controversal person be brought up for vote. The poll was started, but I believe there needs to be a better process. So here is our proposal.
-A formal request for banning must be posted with the requested reason stated by a member with "x" number of votres. Currently "x" is 10, but may be increased in the future. The request must then be seconded by another member.
-no less than 3 moderators must confer before submitting a poll for banning. Bannings should be treated seriously. The reason 3 is chosen is to make sure that no one or two moderators are being partial. And that any discrepenacy between two moderators may be voted out by the third. (checks and balances)
-Although a poll will be put up if the above criteria is brought up. Having 3 moderators involved will make sure any issues or "unkowns" addressed to the membership before the poll is formally started. If there are any concerns that need to be addressed, the moderators will respond to the thread. If the request still remains, the poll will be put up.
Explain to me why the moderators need to confer to put up a poll? Say I want a poll and x, y, and z members all agree, well what if the moderators meet and decide, nah no poll for this one. To me, I feel that if I want a poll, then that should be it, let the members decide from there.
I dont think its a matter of Moderators having Veto power so much as just a system of checks and balances and letting everyone know what is going on.
For example, it would prevent me and Smoke from starting a poll to ban you. Granted, we might be able to get the poll going; but the idea is to make sure the Moderators know what is going on and getting everyone on the same page. It also gives the moderators a chance to make sure the rules are being enforced as everyone understands them.
The last thing we want is a flood of polls and counter polls of members trying to off one another.
Well being that moderators are the ones that start a poll, I'm pretty sure that they will know what's going on.
On the other hand, why do the moderators need to know what's going on? They will catch up.
[quote=vipernathan] Explain to me why the moderators need to confer to put up a poll? Say I want a poll and x, y, and z members all agree, well what if the moderators meet and decide, nah no poll for this one. To me, I feel that if I want a poll, then that should be it, let the members decide from there.
<hr /></blockquote>
I think most everyone who has been on any of the boards for any length of time knows all the moderators. They should know that all of us are fair. Most of us were banned before from voicing our opinions at the mORGue. The only reason this policy is here is to prevent rashes of banning polls and to keep this as a check so that we dotn use this as a methodology for "board warfare". Would you really want it the other way around. Lets say you proposed a banning thread yesterday. So now they propose to ban you? Thats why this process is in place. Its not perfect, but is there a real perfect process?
[quote]why do the moderators need to know what's going on<hr /></blockquote>
Because that what Moderators are for. And it helps make sure that one moderator is not doing something he shouldnt be.
You're welcome to provide your input to the rules - I'm sure your position would be considered along with all the others and a consensus would be determined by a vote an implemented.
[quote=vipernathan] So if 3 memebers want a poll everyday (to ban a member) for the next 3 weeks, are you going to deny us? <hr /></blockquote>
it seems that you dont trust the moderators. If you dont like the way the moderators are operating. You are welcome to ask for a poll on that as well. Personally all the guys are donating their time for no other reason than to provide a fun playground for everyone else. Most requests wont be denied. Its just a check to make sure. Just the same way you would trust them to remove child pornography without a poll and not delete posts without cuase. If htey abuse their power, you guys have the power to remove them.
Par - Like I said before, I feel the members should be allowed to start a pol by stating that they want a poll. i will compromise and say that if I can't do it myself by suggesting one, then let's make it so if 2 others agree, then it goes.
Packet - I was using that extreme example to show flaws in your guys theory, don't be so quick to sticke people down, what I am doing is trying to help, do you need things your way or something?
We made the rule that mods should confer with each others before any bannings where setup (or before any posts where edited or deleted) simply because we are all human and what one finds objectionable and offensive, not all do.
This should not be construed to be seen as questioning your right to ask for a vote, this was our way of keeping checks and balances of the mods. The mods have an awful lot of power and no one is really modding the mods. So the mods have to self moderate and that's why checks and balances and concensus seeking is so important. BUT, and this is important IMHO; they are not questioning your motives for seeking a poll, they are just making sure that they understand what is being asked of them and making sure that not one mods personal agenda driving the process.
[quote]Packet - I was using that extreme example to show flaws in your guys theory, don't be so quick to sticke people down, what I am doing is trying to help, do you need things your way or something? <hr /></blockquote>
I've made no such statement. I'm just saying the likelyhood that three members are going to demand that a new member be banned every day for three weeks straight is highly unlikely. We already had a couple people banned by the actions of a single moderator - we're just trying to avoid problems like that in the future.
If we have to write a fucking legal document to cover any and all possibilities, then next thing you know we'll be appointing a Rules Committee.
Right now we have a basic outline of rules. As we go we adress issues that need addressing - why put so much effort into things that arent even a problem.
Nobody has said the poll wouldnt go up - its just an issue of timing and coordination. If you dont like that, fine - all opinions are considered and then implemented by a majority consensus.
There are very few things here that are "my way or the highway" and those few things have almost nothing to do with how the board is run.
I've made no such statement. I'm just saying the likelyhood that three members are going to demand that a new member be banned every day for three weeks straight is highly unlikely. We already had a couple people banned by the actions of a single moderator - we're just trying to avoid problems like that in the future.
If we have to write a fucking legal document to cover any and all possibilities, then next thing you know we'll be appointing a Rules Committee.
Right now we have a basic outline of rules. As we go we adress issues that need addressing - why put so much effort into things that arent even a problem.
Nobody has said the poll wouldnt go up - its just an issue of timing and coordination. If you dont like that, fine - all opinions are considered and then implemented by a majority consensus.
There are very few things here that are "my way or the highway" and those few things have almost nothing to do with how the board is run. <hr /></blockquote>
I don't want to make this harder than it needs to be. I'm just seeing things here that make me leery of the way things are being run. Personally, if one moderater wants to start a poll because 3 members asked for it, then what is the harm there?
