A bridge between Mods and Non Mods: Ambassadors

[Ringel05]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

Think of the owner as kinda like a modern day tsar Ivan..............

 

[Sherry]

While the idea has the potential to cause lots of drama and provide the masses with entertainment, I'm still going to vote no.

 

[DarkFury]

After a long discussion with flacaltenn, one of the mods here, I've decided to go public with an idea. He said (and I quote): "We're always around with the fire extinguishers and the Hazmat suits if it doesn't go well."

So there's that .

My idea is create a new forum for atleast a few non mods who are interested in why mods make decisions if they get to pick which people are included. flacaltenn said they'd be tarred and feathered if the mods got to pick them outright, so I'm thinking maybe non mods would vote for who they would want in this forum, and the mods would have the power to veto anyone if a majority of mods didn't want that person in the group.

Perhaps these individuals could be called "Ambassadors", clearly not mods (no power to alter/delete posts/threads), but being able to see a little more then normal non mods in that they can question any decision a mod makes in a special forum that only they and mods can participate in.

As to their selection, first we could start with a number: there are apparently 7 mods, so perhaps there could be 7 Ambassadors, atleast for starters. Here's how I think it could work- prospective Ambassadors could put their hat in the ring by saying they'd be interested in being one. Let's say we give a week to people stepping up as prospective Ambassadors.

An Ambassador would need a certain amount of people to vouch for them to even be seriously considered. I'm not sure what that number should be, would like to see how many votes initial candidates get to be able to come with up with a good number. Once the serious contenders are chosen, we could start making polls for individual candidates. Note that we don't need to even have 7 candidates right away. If there are only 1 or 2 serious contenders for starters, that would be fine, if other serious contenders come later, they could get polls done then.

Next, a thread is made, with the names of all of the candidates. Voters would engage in ranked voting, of the instant run off variety with as many ranks as there are candidates (because the 'serious contender' can be set at whatever level, it could be made to make sure that there are no more than, say, 14 contenders).

Finally, once the top serious contenders have been chosen, mods would have the ability to veto any given choice if a majority of mods felt that a candidate would not be suitable to be an Ambassador.

So, what do you people think?

You have a lot of time on your hands....... don'tcha..........

Laugh . I thought it might be a good idea. Ah well, guess I'll just have to be an unofficial Ambassador, asking mods why they make decisions and then reporting it to someone who was curious. That's how all of this got started by the way .

I have one question and two suggestions.

QUESTION
Why would anybody ask someone with BARELY over 1,000 posts to do that.

SUGGESTIONS
Let those folks do their own heavy lifting.
PLAYING mod here could get you in trouble. With members AND mods.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I'm not voting until I see what kind of neat jackets they get to wear.

No jacket, no deal!

Too scary, too Hannibal Lector

 

[phoenyx]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

Think of the owner as kinda like a modern day tsar Ivan..............

You mean Cereal Killer? From what I've heard, he's just not here all that often, too busy. I imagine that's why he put mods in place to begin with. The system isn't perfect here, but it's only one of 2 forums I frequent, and I've been to a lot of forums in the past, so they must be doing something right. That and I've done some things that were perhaps mistakes in some of the other forums .

 

[phoenyx]

While the idea has the potential to cause lots of drama and provide the masses with entertainment, I'm still going to vote no.

Fine, fine . Well, if nothing else, I certainly found this conversation amusing .

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

Think of the owner as kinda like a modern day tsar Ivan..............

You mean Cereal Killer? From what I've heard, he's just not here all that often, too busy. I imagine that's why he put mods in place to begin with. The system isn't perfect here, but it's only one of 2 forums I frequent, and I've been to a lot of forums in the past, so they must be doing something right. That and I've done some things that were perhaps mistakes in some of the other forums .

C-K is great, he supports The Donald and that makes him okay

 

[Ringel05]

I'm not voting until I see what kind of neat jackets they get to wear.

No jacket, no deal!

Too scary, too Hannibal Lector

 

[Ringel05]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

Think of the owner as kinda like a modern day tsar Ivan..............

You mean Cereal Killer? From what I've heard, he's just not here all that often, too busy. I imagine that's why he put mods in place to begin with. The system isn't perfect here, but it's only one of 2 forums I frequent, and I've been to a lot of forums in the past, so they must be doing something right. That and I've done some things that were perhaps mistakes in some of the other forums .

Yup, CK, AKA Ivan the Terrible..........

 

[DarkFury]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

What part of this is NOT an elected board do you not understand? CK runs and owns this board and has the final say.
If anything it is more like a benevolent kingdom. YOU want power? Fine YOU EARN it like ANY other member here.

 

[Ringel05]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

What part of this is NOT an elected board do you not understand? CK runs and owns this board and has the final say.
If anything it is more like a benevolent kingdom. YOU want power? Fine YOU EARN it like ANY other member here.

Yup, ya have to go through me to get to CK........

 

[phoenyx]

After a long discussion with flacaltenn, one of the mods here, I've decided to go public with an idea. He said (and I quote): "We're always around with the fire extinguishers and the Hazmat suits if it doesn't go well."

So there's that .

My idea is create a new forum for atleast a few non mods who are interested in why mods make decisions if they get to pick which people are included. flacaltenn said they'd be tarred and feathered if the mods got to pick them outright, so I'm thinking maybe non mods would vote for who they would want in this forum, and the mods would have the power to veto anyone if a majority of mods didn't want that person in the group.

Perhaps these individuals could be called "Ambassadors", clearly not mods (no power to alter/delete posts/threads), but being able to see a little more then normal non mods in that they can question any decision a mod makes in a special forum that only they and mods can participate in.

As to their selection, first we could start with a number: there are apparently 7 mods, so perhaps there could be 7 Ambassadors, atleast for starters. Here's how I think it could work- prospective Ambassadors could put their hat in the ring by saying they'd be interested in being one. Let's say we give a week to people stepping up as prospective Ambassadors.

An Ambassador would need a certain amount of people to vouch for them to even be seriously considered. I'm not sure what that number should be, would like to see how many votes initial candidates get to be able to come with up with a good number. Once the serious contenders are chosen, we could start making polls for individual candidates. Note that we don't need to even have 7 candidates right away. If there are only 1 or 2 serious contenders for starters, that would be fine, if other serious contenders come later, they could get polls done then.

Next, a thread is made, with the names of all of the candidates. Voters would engage in ranked voting, of the instant run off variety with as many ranks as there are candidates (because the 'serious contender' can be set at whatever level, it could be made to make sure that there are no more than, say, 14 contenders).

Finally, once the top serious contenders have been chosen, mods would have the ability to veto any given choice if a majority of mods felt that a candidate would not be suitable to be an Ambassador.

So, what do you people think?

You have a lot of time on your hands....... don'tcha..........

Laugh . I thought it might be a good idea. Ah well, guess I'll just have to be an unofficial Ambassador, asking mods why they make decisions and then reporting it to someone who was curious. That's how all of this got started by the way .

I have one question and two suggestions.

QUESTION
Why would anybody ask someone with BARELY over 1,000 posts to do that.

No one asked me to ask. I just took the initiative. A certain poster here actually opened a thread questioning a certain mod action. That's against the rules, and the thread was closed. So I decided to talk to a mod about this rule against asking about mod decisions in a forum and in the process, I learned the reason for the reason for the initial mod action that had been asked about in the closed thread. I then told the person who'd initially asked the question and she seemed happy to know the answer. That got me to thinking that perhaps there was a yearning for people to more fully understand why mods did various actions, and thus came this idea that you see here.

SUGGESTIONS
Let those folks do their own heavy lifting.
PLAYING mod here could get you in trouble. With members AND mods.

Asking a mod why a given mod did a certain action isn't the same thing as being a mod. And I talked a fair amount with a mod before bringing up my idea publicly to see if this could even be something that could be discussed. He said he'd let it proceed and if it got out of hand the mods could always shut it down. It doesn't look like it's gotten out of hand, more like it's just not an idea that people are interested in, and I'm ok with that.

 

[Sherry]

This thread needs a flow chart.

 

[phoenyx]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

What part of this is NOT an elected board do you not understand? CK runs and owns this board and has the final say.
If anything it is more like a benevolent kingdom. YOU want power? Fine YOU EARN it like ANY other member here.

I know it's not an elected board. And even my idea wouldn't make it that way. CK would still be king, the mods would still be his lieutenants. There'd just be an extra layer lower down for a few elected officials. Getting elected could be said to be something that is earned.

 

[Ringel05]

Here's my favorite one;

Not All Rules and Regulations are written.

I used to make em up as I went along, keep em guessing was my motto.....

 

[phoenyx]

This thread needs a flow chart.

I actually do flow charts with threads that I find to be seriously interesting. This thread hasn't gotten to that point for me though .

 

[phoenyx]

Here's my favorite one;

Not All Rules and Regulations are written.

I used to make em up as I went along, keep em guessing was my motto.....

There are various ways of doing things- law and order vs. the law of the jungle to name 2. Personally, I'm more of a law and order type of guy.

 

[DarkFury]

This thread needs a flow chart.

More like a flush handle.

 

[Ringel05]

Here's my favorite one;

Not All Rules and Regulations are written.

I used to make em up as I went along, keep em guessing was my motto.....

There are various ways of doing things- law and order vs. the law of the jungle to name 2. Personally, I'm more of a law and order type of guy.

My hero!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

I was thinking simple popularity would do. It's how we elect presidents. Ranked voting is a step up from what happens in most democratically elected countries in my view. The difference here is that mods would have veto power over anyone they felt they wouldn't be able to work with. The current system works, even if imperfectly, which is why I think it makes sense for that system to have veto power.

What part of this is NOT an elected board do you not understand? CK runs and owns this board and has the final say.
If anything it is more like a benevolent kingdom. YOU want power? Fine YOU EARN it like ANY other member here.

Earn Power? Just how many ways are there to do that? You are obviously using the Eddie Haskel Suck-Up Method, but are there any ways a non-suck-up might gain some of that power?