Jump to content

Changes to AVEN Elections


Guest

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

Recently, the Admod Team has reviewed AVEN's election system and have decided to make a few changes.

First, the Q&A period for elections will be shortened by one day. The nomination period will now start on Thursdays, rather than Wednesdays, and run for 7 days, after which the Q&A period will start and last until Sunday after which the voting period start and last another 7 days. Second, the eligibility requirements for running in any AVEN election have been changed. Members are now only required to have been members on AVEN for 3 months rather than 6 months. The other requirements of 100 posts outside of Just for Fun, AVEN Arcade or Welcome Lounge and having no Official Warnings or election suspensions still apply.

On behalf of the Admod Team,

+Pookzar, Administrator

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike the shortening of the Q&A period, but I strongly disagree with lowering eligibility requirements to 3 months. Members must be familiar with the community to be a moderator or admin. 6 months is already relatively short for a forum, imagine 3 months. That's not even worn out the newbieness yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
allrightalready

i actually thought the original requirements were a little light

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that three months membership is too short. With a few exceptions most people haven't made sufficient posts in a wide enough variety of forums for the general membership to get a feel for their character from their responses to other's posts. Primarily the first period of membership is spent telling your own story and seeking the opinion and reassurance of others.

It's when people are able to start reciprocating and pass on the benefits of their experiences to newer members that everyone can make a balanced judgement of their character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago the requirement was 3 months and there was never any problem because of it. I can't remember a single case where someone was elected who did poorly because of how new of a member they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it was - but there was a reason why it was increased. It would be interesting to see the discussions regarding that decision. If the thread has not been declassified; could it be so that members could decide for themselves?

Has the lack of candidates anything to do with the relaxation of requirements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it was - but there was a reason why it was increased. It would be interesting to see the discussions regarding that decision. If the thread has not been declassified; could it be so that members could decide for themselves?

Has the lack of candidates anything to do with the relaxation of requirements?

I'll ask and yes, the discussion on election reforms had a lot to do with the low number of candidates lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask and yes, the discussion on election reforms had a lot to do with the low number of candidates lately.

Maybe the society is becoming anarchic (I don't know)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the collected data:

Overall Data:

v5ZgFZb.png?2

Average Q&A Activity (Days):

zY5cnCX.png?1

Q&A Activity (Months):

cHEzeSi.png?2

Member Participation:

jhvVLwr.png?2

Seriousness:

lQnTURJ.png?1

So although Q&A used to be technically 4 days, with the whole timezones and all, it had always started in the middle of the day for me and I went by date, not the full 24 hours.

This is an average by the way with the Q&A activity, so some elections might be skewing the data, but you can see the first pic in the spoiler to look more into it. There's really barely any activity on the last two days. Not many members participate in asking questions and there aren't that many questions asked to begin with. Also taken account on just how serious elections are taken. Also this doc can go even more in depth with just how seriously and "silly" the questions are on each passing day. Though, I'll admit I did not do this for every single elections because I actually used this to keep track of the numbers, but it's still helpful to look at anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this discussion is taking place. The problem is that whilst easing the eligibility criteria may get more candidates, will they be people sufficiently devoted to the long-term future of AVEN. Speaking from one of my IRL jobs, the "I'm in a position of power, but I don't know how to advance our cause" situation is all too commonplace

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

For anyone who disagrees with changing the Q&A, please have a close look at the data that Honey (SkyWorld) collected. We found that member questions drop to almost nothing at the end. This decision wasn't made for no reason - we looked at what actually happened in past elections before making a decision.

As for lowering the time requirements, I've never seen an elected admod take their responsibility lightly. I don't think someone would volunteer for this if they did not seriously want to help AVEN. Remember that we must still go through Q&A and voting. If there is a member that you think should not be running for whatever reason, you can vote accordingly. (And you could always inform an admod if you think you need to.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this discussion is taking place. The problem is that whilst easing the eligibility criteria may get more candidates, will they be people sufficiently devoted to the long-term future of AVEN. Speaking from one of my IRL jobs, the "I'm in a position of power, but I don't know how to advance our cause" situation is all too commonplace

A agree with this. It's quality over quantity. 3 months is a pretty short time to give someone such a position of power, especially since there is a possibility for adminship

However, there isn't room for any discussion. There is an election going on, and just hours after this announcement as posted. Many haven't even read this thread yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin L, the criteria for this election are settled, fair enough. I look to my own situation, where I made a mess of things. IRL I've been a shop steward, Union secretary, company owner yet I still found myself out of my depth, even with 12 months membership and 3000+ posts at that time. It really is a mentally taxing role, and potential candidates must, in my opinion, have a proven track record in order to gain the confidence of fellow members

An admod role will involve taking collective decisions in every single forum, so potential candidates must be able to demonstrate an interest or awareness of every forum, to the satisfaction of the electorate, namely all members of AVEN. Being fair to everyone, this takes time, which is why I am in favour of six months membership

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there isn't room for any discussion. There is an election going on, and just hours after this announcement as posted. Many haven't even read this thread yet.

There still is room for discussion, at least in my mind. These changes have been made, but I am still all for discussing them and other possible changes to the election system.

As for quality over quantity, here is a list of Admods who were elected prior to 6 months on AVEN: Amcan, ithaca, faelights, mylittlehazmat, and qqaazzaa.

People might not recognize all the names on that list, but I can vouch that they were/are all fantastic mods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The requirements were raised for a reason, it was discussed and even voted on by the membership; it was in the days when AVEN's membership was less than it is now yet there were more people willing to come forward putting their names in the 'ring'. Rather than simply lowering the requirements in order to get more volunteers why not ask the members why they are reluctant to come forward?

However, that is for another thread...I think I may go to Site comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because things were done with a reason before, doesn't mean they can't change or weren't done with a reason (even if a different reason) now. Why must things continually stay the same if they're not working? So they can continue to not work and people have something more to complain about? If you don't like the change, that's okay, but tell us why without telling us "well it was made X way for reasons in the past" because that really doesn't mean anything when AVEN and its membership has changed over that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because things were done with a reason before, doesn't mean they can't change or weren't done with a reason (even if a different reason) now. Why must things continually stay the same if they're not working? So they can continue to not work and people have something more to complain about? If you don't like the change, that's okay, but tell us why without telling us "well it was made X way for reasons in the past" because that really doesn't mean anything when AVEN and its membership has changed over that time.

My original post still stands.

I dislike the shortening of the Q&A period, but I strongly disagree with lowering eligibility requirements to 3 months. Members must be familiar with the community to be a moderator or admin. 6 months is already relatively short for a forum, imagine 3 months. That's not even worn out the newbieness yet.

Most importantly, I believe that members running for modship should be well-acquainted with the AVEN culture. 3 months may be enough to know one's identity, but knowing all the quirks of a community takes longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The requirements were raised for a reason, it was discussed and even voted on by the membership; it was in the days when AVEN's membership was less than it is now yet there were more people willing to come forward putting their names in the 'ring'. Rather than simply lowering the requirements in order to get more volunteers why not ask the members why they are reluctant to come forward?

However, that is for another thread...I think I may go to Site comments.

Could this be clarified. Are we saying that the decision to make six months the minimum membership requirement was determined by the whole membership? Yet the decision to rescind has been taken by the Admod team prior to even consulting the membership for their opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because things were done with a reason before, doesn't mean they can't change or weren't done with a reason (even if a different reason) now. Why must things continually stay the same if they're not working? So they can continue to not work and people have something more to complain about? If you don't like the change, that's okay, but tell us why without telling us "well it was made X way for reasons in the past" because that really doesn't mean anything when AVEN and its membership has changed over that time.

You could at least then consulted the membership as a whole first (to see if we still want it like it was decided by the members or not). And exactly what "isn't working"? Not getting enough candidates or something else?

And yes AVEN and its membership have changed. But who are to decide how it have changed, you or AVEN as a whole?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to take the blame for there being no member input on this. I was supposed to create a thread discussing these changes (among other things), but I had to step away from the discussion and the thread never got made. That's how we got where we are now.

That's why I'm saying that if you want to keep discussing eligibility requirements or any other election changes you should do so in site. I fully agree that members should have been asked first, but the only thing that can really be done now is to discuss it after the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I'm saying that if you want to keep discussing eligibility requirements or any other election changes you should do so in site. I fully agree that members should have been asked first, but the only thing that can really be done now is to discuss it after the fact.

Could you split out the posts here with a link in this thread? That would be faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say when I first read the eligibility requirement was lowered to 3 months I felt that was a little short for an AVEN mod however upon further reflection I don't see this as a massive issue thanks to AVEN's election system. Having stood unsuccessfully in a few elections myself I know how well the members separate out the candidates with the ability to go ahead and do the job and those who maybe still have a little learning to do. Surely if someone with only 3 months on the site stood for election then it would come up in the Q&A whether they were the right person for the job, if not then you'd expect them not to win the election, if they stand up to scrutiny and do well then congrats to them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to take the blame for there being no member input on this. I was supposed to create a thread discussing these changes (among other things), but I had to step away from the discussion and the thread never got made. That's how we got where we are now.

That's why I'm saying that if you want to keep discussing eligibility requirements or any other election changes you should do so in site. I fully agree that members should have been asked first, but the only thing that can really be done now is to discuss it after the fact.

So since you forgot to make a thread, you just imply the policy anyway? Why not then postpone the implementation and instead make the thread? I commend you for admitting that you forgot it, but are the rest of the team lacking iniative? Couldn't they have made th thread or asked you? And as I said, why are you implementing the policy anyway, when you all along wanted to nclude the membership? Something doesn't quite seem right here. I say, if you really wanted to ask the membership first, you should retract the decision and ask us. Also as I said, why did you go on to make these changes when you forgot something as central in asking the membership first, or why couldn't another done it, why couldn't you have told someone you were too busy and asked them to do it instead? It's something that just do not make sense.

Sorry, it is a little hard to believe that the members should have been asked first, when all you do is "oh it was posted anyway, so now you can only say if you like it or not". And if it was an honest mistake, then it is, no offense, poorly executed.. As you went on to do it anyway, with no one in the team doing anything, and now after it have happened all you do is look at it and say "what's done is done" when it is perfectly doable to just do something about it (like one sentence).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard. you're mistaking my opinion for the team's. I, personally think that member's should have been asked first. Other Admods may or not agree with me for varying reasons. I won't speak for them. Once I stepped away, the decision was made to poll and implement this policy and I don't have the authority to retract it. No single person does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know, let's work with the team to implement a change they decided by not involving them in the discussion!

You could always take the change back and ask our opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

For the 3 months requirement change, it only allows the member to run in the election the member still needs to show they are right for the job and elected into it, but this also opens up the door for people who have been here for 5 months or 4 months as well not just that 3 month old member. I know a few members who I saw would make a great mod back when they were only 3 months on the site and while this member who shows that they can do the job and would be great to do the job in such a short time on the site might not be the average 3 month member they do happen and I feel deserve a chance to run and that is all this is a chance.

As for the Q&A, I don't think 1 day less will change much except put less stress on candidates while still giving members plenty of days to ask their question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also candidates don't have to feel pressured to answer all questions within those 3 days. They still have all of the voting period, so that's 10 days to answer questions, which is more than enough time. Most people ask questions in the first 3 days of Q&A, and if they really want to ask more questions, they can always PM a candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Member Once Known As tqz

I expect a moderator is going to get questions or experience circumstances that would help having a response. That's why I look forward to candidates responses to all the questions, even those questions someone might consider silly, perhaps even questions directed toward others if so inspired. The answers don't have to be silly. It's the participation in conversation that gets my interest, essentially a demonstration of camaraderie or establishing a shared understanding (which is not the same thing as everyone agreeing). I have no reason to vote for anyone who is simply showing up for attendance.

I don't expect candidates won't ever adapt or change during their tenure. To me, answering shows they are willing to try and are not allowing fear of failure to hold themselves back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...