A bridge between Mods and Non Mods: Ambassadors

[Kat]

 

[phoenyx]

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 like the general idea of this, and skimming through all the responses, I agree that my original idea had some flaws.

 

[Kat]

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 like the general idea of this, and skimming through all the responses, I agree that my original idea had some flaws.

I am not reallt saying it is a horrible idea, but I am not understanding how you want to go about accomplishing this.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

 

[boedicca]

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

Indeed. Because in Administrative State Land, the answer to problems caused by bureaucracy is always More Bureaucracy.

I prefer that members manage their own relationships and shun or ignore people they cannot stand. Modding should be light handed with banning reserved for malicious trolls.

But for the sake of Argument, let's say that we did employ this Ambassador Scheme. What happens when the two bodies are not able to reach an accord? Do we set up the USMB Supreme Court for appeals?

Oh Puh-leeze. More Frontier Justice and LESS ADMINSTRATIVE STATE, s'il vous plait.

 

[Kat]

But won't it be biased? Pumpkin Row

 

[boedicca]

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 like the general idea of this, and skimming through all the responses, I agree that my original idea had some flaws.

I am not reallt saying it is a horrible idea, but I am not understanding how you want to go about accomplishing this.

I say it's a horrible idea and I say the hell with it.

 

[phoenyx]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

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

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.

Yeah, that would be the ideal, but who decides who has these qualities? Anyway, after reading what everyone here has had to say, I've come to believe that flacal has the right idea, in terms of perhaps creating something like a weekly or biweekly newsletter for USMB.

 

[phoenyx]

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 like the general idea of this, and skimming through all the responses, I agree that my original idea had some flaws.

I am not reallt saying it is a horrible idea, but I am not understanding how you want to go about accomplishing this.

I think I should start by saying that I've changed my idea- I think flacal's counter proposal is simply better then what I originally had in mind. My understanding is that he's suggesting USMB get a newsletter, talking about important things that have happened in USMB every week or 2.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

But won't it be biased? Pumpkin Row

Really, it depends on who we pick. I'd think that someone selected by the members here would be one there's faith in to be unbiased. Maybe if there's a problem with the selected member to such an extent that the majority of members here dislike their reports, they could be replaced?

 

[phoenyx]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

And that would be why you haven't had problems with any mod.

 

[phoenyx]

But won't it be biased? Pumpkin Row

Really, it depends on who we pick. I'd think that someone selected by the members here would be one there's faith in to be unbiased. Maybe if there's a problem with the selected member to such an extent that the majority of members here dislike their reports, they could be replaced?

Definitely. Another thing, it doesn't just have to be a single individual. Now that we're honing in on the idea of a newsletter, I'd like to point out that it doesn't just have to be just non mods either. There are perhaps some things that could only be properly summarized by mods, who may have access to information non mods of any stripe may not be allowed to have in any great detail for various reasons.

 

[boedicca]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

I'm sure redean would happily be the go between for the two of you, and then you can leave the rest of us out of your Totalitarian Bureaucratic Wet-dream.

 

[Kat]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

So who picks them? And who picks the ones to be picked from?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

But won't it be biased? Pumpkin Row

Really, it depends on who we pick. I'd think that someone selected by the members here would be one there's faith in to be unbiased. Maybe if there's a problem with the selected member to such an extent that the majority of members here dislike their reports, they could be replaced?

Definitely. Another thing, it doesn't just have to be a single individual. Now that we're honing in on the idea of a newsletter, I'd like to point out that it doesn't just have to be just non mods either. There are perhaps some things that could only be properly summarized by mods, who may have access to information non mods of any stripe may not be allowed to have in any great detail for various reasons.

The newsletter could be a joint effort between a selected mod and a non-mod. That could prevent it from being biased.

 

[phoenyx]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

I'm sure redean would happily be the go between for the two of you, and then you can leave the rest of us out of your Totalitarian Bureaucratic Wet-dream.

I don't know who redean is, but that made me laugh ;-). We're just thinking of a newsletter here, not the beginning of the Fourth Reich .

 

[boedicca]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

I'm sure redean would happily be the go between for the two of you, and then you can leave the rest of us out of your Totalitarian Bureaucratic Wet-dream.

I don't know who redean is, but that made me laugh ;-). We're just thinking of a newsletter here, not the beginning of the Fourth Reich .

Self-serving bureaucracies always start with a limited good intention, bub.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

So who picks them? And who picks the ones to be picked from?

I'd think people would be nominated, and then there would be a vote.

 

[phoenyx]

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 like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

So who picks them? And who picks the ones to be picked from?

Technically, anyone can make an announcement here, although ofcourse mods would remove announcements they didn't think were appropriate for this place. Personally, I'd want to team up with flacaltenn if he's willing. flacaltenn's a mod, I'm a mere poster (who has only just gotten over 1000 posts). He can take the lead, I'll just ghostwrite it . Or we can colaborate or what not.