|
Post by Blues on Jan 10, 2004 0:04:39 GMT -5
no comment.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 10, 2004 0:24:54 GMT -5
That's stupid. There aren't enough canidates.
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 10, 2004 0:36:03 GMT -5
It might not be such a bad idea, but two terms would be better. That way there could be an experienced person a long with the rookies.
And this way after a person's two terms are up they can skip a term and run again. I don't think we'll run out of candidates this way.
|
|
|
Post by Blues on Jan 10, 2004 0:55:23 GMT -5
yes, 2 terms sounds good, Amen.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Jan 10, 2004 0:57:25 GMT -5
wow, its been so long anywho, byebye
|
|
|
Post by Blues on Jan 10, 2004 1:02:40 GMT -5
yay! I finally have supporters! For once I'm not completely ALONE!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 10, 2004 1:45:24 GMT -5
It might not be such a bad idea, but two terms would be better. That way there could be an experienced person a long with the rookies. And this way after a person's two terms are up they can skip a term and run again. I don't think we'll run out of candidates this way. Pavel - most of the time there are NOT that many canidates. 6 maximum. By not being able to run again, that just DEFAULTS the remainder (3) of the canidates to be mods, no matter HOW good or bad they might be. That is NOT democracy. That's just lack of choice.
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 10, 2004 1:48:00 GMT -5
6 maximum, yeah. We have 3 moderators. If we don't have enough candidates than fine there can be an exception, but I don't think that this is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 10, 2004 2:02:03 GMT -5
Look, let's look at it this way. (for all intents and purposes, let 2 terms = 1 term for now)
First election: *Member A (good mod) *Member B (unknown) *Member C (unknown) *Member D (bad mod) *Member E (good mod) *Member F (joke mod)
Term 1: A, B, and C win.
A is great at doing his or her job, B turns out to be good also, and so is C.
Term 2: A, B, and C, the good mods, cannot run any longer.
By default, D, E, and F are elected.
D and F make horrible mods and destroy the forum, and one cannot do anything about that, because they were elected fairly.
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 10, 2004 2:07:15 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, and it could result like this. But you'll have to agree that this is a rare case. And like I said before if we don't have enough choices, meaning 3 like you just described we can make an exception and allow one of the mods to have a third term.
So far no mod, except for you, has had more than one consequtive term. You bring up a good point but it's just extremely unlikely that such a scenario would occur.
Also, we could always make a mod recall, where if mods are doing a poor job they will be replaced with somebody else. This would take away from the fear that a mod could be so horrible that they will destroy the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 10, 2004 2:17:16 GMT -5
I don't agree, but I'm not the boss. Let's see what others think first.
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 10, 2004 2:18:56 GMT -5
Another thing is, if you're scenario is true than the same three mods would always be in office until one decided not to run. If the same mods always get elected there will never be variation in the mods that exist, and if that's true than what's the point of mod elections?
But yeah, let's see what other have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 10, 2004 2:27:33 GMT -5
That's not true. Whether they come back or not depends entirely on the votes.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Angel on Jan 10, 2004 2:36:30 GMT -5
I think it's really not the matter of getting different people for mods, it's the matter of how serious they are toward the forum at all, first of all that shows in the way they go about just being here, what they post, and so on. It's the matter of earning trust. Everyone starts out as a member, a candidate, the good ones eventually show what they can do, what their opinions on things are, then come the mod elections, and the people elect whom they want. I don't think there should be any restrictions at all...sorry if I failed to make my point I do that ^^
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jan 10, 2004 2:48:42 GMT -5
Hmm, good point. I can see how restrictions can be a bad thing for the voting, if people like a moderator they should be able to re-elect him/her.
There have been problems with there not being enough choices in the past, but I don't know. This idea might be worth a shot.
|
|