A bridge between Mods and Non Mods: Ambassadors

[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.

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.

Or "fixed" and you do NOT want that on a board. Ain't no member with a thousand posts going to come in and tell me he is going to be my leader.

In case you missed it we HAVE people here with higher post counts and higher rankings then yourself. Some of them have been on the net for a decade or more.

Others have been on this site since CK bought it or even before. You simply cannot promise the members leadership when YOU have never been in the trenches.

Look at the level of comments the levels of ratings and the membership levels here. There are at the very least 1,000 members, maybe as high as 10,000 that carry more weight, more ability and understanding of the board than you do.

I vote NO and would fight your effort tooth and nail.

Fury

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

"Personally, I'm more of a law and order type of guy."

I am the leading Authoritarian here, discipline and law and order and cracking of the whip You will do as I say.

 

[Ringel05]

If we're gonna discuss this any more we need to use the cone of silence.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Why?

 

[DarkFury]

If we're gonna discuss this any more we need to use the cone of silence.

You have been on the net a while and here quite a while. I offer the following statement for you to enlighten us on.

The OP is suggesting the members are to stupid to explain a problem OR the mods are to stupid to understand a problem.

Does that about cover it?

 

[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?

Why?

61k in posts! First off congrats. Do you want him to be your leader?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Or "fixed" and you do NOT want that on a board. Ain't no member with a thousand posts going to come in and tell me he is going to be my leader.

In case you missed it we HAVE people here with higher post counts and higher rankings then yourself. Some of them have been on the net for a decade or more.

Others have been on this site since CK bought it or even before. You simply cannot promise the members leadership when YOU have never been in the trenches.

Look at the level of comments the levels of ratings and the membership levels here. There are at the very least 1,000 members, maybe as high as 10,000 that carry more weight, more ability and understanding of the board than you do.

I vote NO and would fight your effort tooth and nail.

Fury

Post count makes someone better than someone else? Really? Does Dale have more posts than you? Is he your leader?

 

[ChrisL]

Ah, another layer of know-nothing, self important bureaucrats usmb style...that will turn out well, I'm sure.

Well, I see that my idea is off to a lame duck start, lol . Come on, these wouldn't be bureaucrats, they would be grassroots politicians, elected and all. And I doubt anyone will be receiving any campaign funds, so we don't need to worry about rich interests who are pulling all the strings . Perhaps more importantly, elections could be held a lot more often- every month perhaps. You know, to make sure that the Ambassadors are responsive to the people and all. Ofcourse, it's possible that few if anyone would -want- to be an Ambassador. Perhaps I'd be the only one even interested. Who knows. I'd like to find out though . Oh another thing, if the mods liked a given Ambassador, they might eventually put him or her on the shortlist for a mod position. There are 7 mods here, so atleast I can say that some people like being mods .

Sounds stupid to me.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Why?

61k in posts! First off congrats. Do you want him to be your leader?

I follow NO leaders!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Preferred alcoholic beverage?

If we're gonna discuss this any more we need to use the cone of silence.

You have been on the net a while and here quite a while. I offer the following statement for you to enlighten us on.

The OP is suggesting the members are to stupid to explain a problem OR the mods are to stupid to understand a problem.

Does that about cover it?

Pay attention to what DorkoDumDum writes. Ignore that he can't write above 4th grade level cuz he's got an IQ of 214. That makes him a whole lot smarter than both Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Yep - you are in the presence of greatness.


Note to OP - gods don't explain themselves.
Assume The Position:

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You forgot --- Estimated number of Warnings received.
And ---- Number of people who have you on ignore.

 

[defcon4]

So, where the "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards" comes into play?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Or "fixed" and you do NOT want that on a board. Ain't no member with a thousand posts going to come in and tell me he is going to be my leader.

In case you missed it we HAVE people here with higher post counts and higher rankings then yourself. Some of them have been on the net for a decade or more.

Others have been on this site since CK bought it or even before. You simply cannot promise the members leadership when YOU have never been in the trenches.

Look at the level of comments the levels of ratings and the membership levels here. There are at the very least 1,000 members, maybe as high as 10,000 that carry more weight, more ability and understanding of the board than you do.

I vote NO and would fight your effort tooth and nail.

Fury

Post count makes someone better than someone else? Really? Does Dale have more posts than you? Is he your leader?

Hey, its DorkoDumDum. He's a failed stalker and phony genius so of course he's all kinds of impressed by scared little kids like good ole Dale Smith .

(Is he really gone?)

 

[ChrisL]

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 .

People can just ask for themselves. They just have to do it via PM and not on the open forum. Sooooo . . . this would be kind of useless.

 

[DarkFury]

So, where the "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards" comes into play?

One side of the board is going to tar the OP. The other side will feather him and BOTH will laugh.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Or "fixed" and you do NOT want that on a board. Ain't no member with a thousand posts going to come in and tell me he is going to be my leader.

In case you missed it we HAVE people here with higher post counts and higher rankings then yourself. Some of them have been on the net for a decade or more.

Others have been on this site since CK bought it or even before. You simply cannot promise the members leadership when YOU have never been in the trenches.

Look at the level of comments the levels of ratings and the membership levels here. There are at the very least 1,000 members, maybe as high as 10,000 that carry more weight, more ability and understanding of the board than you do.

I vote NO and would fight your effort tooth and nail.

Fury

Post count makes someone better than someone else? Really? Does Dale have more posts than you? Is he your leader?

Hey, its DorkoDumDum. He's a failed stalker and phony genius so of course he's all kinds of impressed by scared little kids like good ole Dale Smith .

(Is he really gone?)

Can you stick to the topic instead of insulting? This is not the flamer zone.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..........

It's a shame really that you hold that grudge. Because based on sheer popularity and wit --- YOU might have been my choice. Instead --- I hear there's a galley rower bound for Barbados and a set of oars with your name engraved on them.

 

[Alex.]

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.

Popularity...you are asking for a great deal of trouble.

Critical thinking, judgment, ability to be unbiased and objective....someone who would act and a true bridge rather than a layer of bureaucracy.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, where the "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards" comes into play?

It MIGHT get to discussing SPECIFIC moderations and become illegal. Right now --- it looks like the USMB Spring and democracy in action.. Without the tanks or the rock throwing...

 

[DarkFury]

So, where the "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards" comes into play?

It MIGHT get to discussing SPECIFIC moderations and become illegal. Right now --- it looks like the USMB Spring and democracy in action.. Without the tanks or the rock throwing...