A bridge between Mods and Non Mods: Ambassadors

What do you think of this idea?


  • Total voters
    19
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I figured those numbers would take the form of hash marks or collar stars like these hooples.

NorthKoreanMilitaryMedals_zps7714ecd2.jpg
 
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.


Nice to see you too. I'm involved in org's that are working to save elephants and I remember you said you like them.

There are no insults in my posts.
Just the truth.
And the two losers I mentioned take pride in their board 'personas'.
:p
 
If we're gonna discuss this any more we need to use the cone of silence.

5KY2b2.gif
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?
Whichever float's your boat. :dunno:
 
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.


Nice to see you too. I'm involved in org's that are working to save elephants and I remember you said you like them.

There are no insults in my posts.
Just the truth.
And the two losers I mentioned take pride in their board 'personas'.
:p

One of my favorite animals actually. That's awesome.
 
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 :p.
Yup, CK, AKA Ivan the Terrible.......... :eusa_whistle:

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. :mm:
Grudge??!! It's a sign of respect........ :eusa_whistle:
 
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 :p.
Yup, CK, AKA Ivan the Terrible.......... :eusa_whistle:

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. :mm:
Grudge??!! It's a sign of respect........ :eusa_whistle:


Grudge sex is the best!
 
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?

I am the Leader, I won't tolerate such insubordination, anymore of this and it's, well people are getting just thrown into the dungeons and will be flogged in the public square beginning at Noon.

As I have to have random naps, I'm appointing ChrisL as Chief Monitor, this is because the men are easily distracted by sports and boobies, so they can't be trusted with such an important job as Chief Monitor.
 
So, where the "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards" comes into play? :badgrin:

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...
When do you plan to crush it?
 
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.


Nice to see you too. I'm involved in org's that are working to save elephants and I remember you said you like them.

There are no insults in my posts.
Just the truth.
And the two losers I mentioned take pride in their board 'personas'.
:p

One of my favorite animals actually. That's awesome.

I love baby elephants and koala bears.
 
No.

We dont need a team of "elected" forum lawyers. This is not a democracy, it's a private message board.

If a poster wants to know why a moderator action was taken, they are welcome to ask any of us in a private message.
 
So, where the "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards" comes into play? :badgrin:

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...
When do you plan to crush it?

I have more tanks than Fury.

:tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank:

I have many whips also, my favourite are Moroccan leather, um, but that's for a different thread :smoke: :eusa_whistle:

:whip::whip::whip::whip::whip::whip:
 
How about a counter proposal
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?


Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?
 
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?

I am the Leader, I won't tolerate such insubordination, anymore of this and it's, well people are getting just thrown into the dungeons and will be flogged in the public square beginning at Noon.

As I have to have random naps, I'm appointing ChrisL as Chief Monitor, this is because the men are easily distracted by sports and boobies, so they can't be trusted with such an important job as Chief Monitor.

I'll get the whips ready.
hI8aLcQ.gif
 
No.

We dont need a team of "elected" forum lawyers. This is not a democracy, it's a private message board.

If a poster wants to know why a moderator action was taken, they are welcome to ask any of us in a private message.

"This is not a democracy"

I like this, I always felt you supported Dictatorship and not Democracy, Viva Dictatorship.

Democracy is so 19th Century, full-on Dictatorship!
 
How about a counter proposal
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?


Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?

That would be boring, I vote that everyone just keeps the forum as it is now.

Or are people wanting to confuse me on purpose now, I am confused as it is :crybaby:
 
No.

We dont need a team of "elected" forum lawyers. This is not a democracy, it's a private message board.

If a poster wants to know why a moderator action was taken, they are welcome to ask any of us in a private message.
Not meaning to flame here but we just agreed. Do you feel sick to your stomach as well?
 
How about a counter proposal
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?


Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?

So... a forum tabloid blog? Sounds like fun!
 
How about a counter proposal
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?


Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?

So... a forum tabloid blog? Sounds like fun!

Huh? I thought this thread was about baby elephants?

tumblr_o1qzbwVa141ufy80io1_1280.jpg
 
How about a counter proposal
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?


Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?
Oh that sounds like a great way to punish a mod, who you got in mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top