A bridge between Mods and Non Mods: Ambassadors

[flacaltenn]

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!

Who doesn't like tabloid reporting these days.. And it IS a kind of bridge that MIGHT require less disruption to create..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Because inquiring minds want to know? Our own gossip rag?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Because inquiring minds want to know? Our own gossip rag?

Not gossip. That's the purpose of the Flame Zone. Something more like CSPAN, but with some things more interesting than politics and farm bureau meetings.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Because inquiring minds want to know? Our own gossip rag?

I'm pre-empting this, if it's gossip, then I deny anything and issue no comment and I don't know anything about what they've been saying because I'm just an innocent girl with a virgin mind

 

[DarkFury]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Because inquiring minds want to know? Our own gossip rag?

A protected flame. A member could be accused of something criminal and nothing done BECAUSE its a gossip rag. PASS.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Because inquiring minds want to know? Our own gossip rag?

I'm pre-empting this, if it's gossip, then I deny anything and issue no comment and I don't know anything about what they've been saying because I'm just an innocent girl with a virgin mind

But you could be the gossip girl!

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Because inquiring minds want to know? Our own gossip rag?

Not gossip. That's the purpose of the Flame Zone. Something more like CSPAN, but with some things more interesting than politics and farm bureau meetings.

Kind of like Announcements?

 

[Pop23]

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

No jacket, no deal!

No stripes on the sleeve, no big brass buttons?

Get a life!!!!

 

[Gracie]

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!

Um...one is already in place. The FZ.

 

[Gracie]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Very bad idea. BAD. Totally awful. Sorry.

 

[Kat]

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?

Explain that again...

 

[Kat]

Mods do a great job on their own IMO. Maybe I am misunderstanding this??

 

[ChrisL]

Mods do a great job on their own IMO. Maybe I am misunderstanding this??

He wants somebody to be like a "go between" between members and moderators.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No names attached in the reporting.. Just the pulse of the board. With a fun discussion section after each report. Members only.

Very bad idea. BAD. Totally awful. Sorry.

I was just wondering what would be the difference between that and the announcements section. That is basically what this section is for, I think.

 

[ChrisL]

flacaltenn

Stop trying to confuse us!

 

[Kat]

Mods do a great job on their own IMO. Maybe I am misunderstanding this??

He wants somebody to be like a "go between" between members and moderators.

Why would we need a "go between"?? I sure don't. I have a feeling this would cause more fighting than ever. Too many involved.

I forget who the OP is here, but nothing personal against you.

 

[Gracie]

Turrible idear. Turrible.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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!

I would say that I have equal distaste for both "democracy" and "dictatorship", in terms of forms of government.

But in terms of this message board, I would say we're an oligrachy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Nope.