• Announcements

Tanwen

Why are some actions taken but not others?

Recommended Posts

Tanwen

Keeping in mind how quickly some members' polls are actioned (ring fencing of fora happened even before the poll had been up a week) why haven't fixed terms for admods been implemented as voted for here ? Seems as though it's been completely forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kisa the Kit Kat

The way I see it is that we have to do what is best for the site before what the members want. Fixed terms means that some admods with experience are at risk for leaving. People like Ams, Kelly and SGM bring great things to the team and I really don't want to lose them because of a term limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Wouldn't be a problem if it had turned out to be vote of confidence when the term limit ends... in which case you'd only "lose" experienced admods not because their term ends, but because the user base distrusts them. Huge difference.

And seeing how very close the poll results in that regard were... I, personally, think we all should be able to live fine with the admod team making a managerial decision of going for "VoC, not reelection" on the argument that this would be better for AVEN. However, ignoring the absolute majority (!) of voters that support term limits, in general, would be a lot more fishy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WünderBâhr

One issue with term limits is implementation. To suddenly start a new process, without considering how long a team member has been in position would be inviting chaos and disorganization. It's not as easy as saying "from here on out, we're instating term limits" because of experience, training, projects and various tasks in play.

However, I think term limits are a good idea to help accountability and transparency. Well, partially, anyway. If someone is doing a fairly good job, chances are they will be re-elected into position and life will more forward as it has done.

Another issue is that members don't know the ins and outs of every position. It is far easier to see what a Mod is or isn't doing within their forum(s), than it would be to measure an Admin's role, or perhaps even the workload balanced between Declass Team members. There's a lot that goes on in the background that members just don't see, which keeps the site running smoothly on a day to day basis.

I think having a review is a good idea, but how to implement it? Who gets to decide what is placed under review, and who reviews the work? How can members elect based on things they don't see or fully understand the scope of? These are just some questions to keep in mind.

So, what reasons are there (aside from risking losing experience) that make term limits a bad idea? What are some suggestions to help with these issues? How would re-election procedures be implemented? What measures should be taken to allow members to make an informed decision?

I can't think of any more questions, but hopefully just in asking the ones I have, it helps to demonstrate how complex this situation is that it may require pause and thorough brainstorming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on

when I imagine a moderator term, I imagine a formal election to allow windows of opportunity for driven members to join the mod team.

if this were the case and a "good mod" wasn't re-elected, there's nothing preventing them from running in the next "term end election" even if that were for a different role.

additionally, if a mod were dropped, it would create opportunities for less-driven members of the team to take a step down if they so choose, opening a position for the more-driven mod to stay a part of the team.

additionally, if there were term limits, it is still a huge factor that experience means a lot in this regards. it's possible there could be members of the team that aren't mods, that are chosen by the team when desired. this would prevent experienced members of the team from being "kicked out", if that were a problem. ultimately, there should be some policy that accommodates for this potential window of loss, where a mod is not a mod until elected to mod a different forum.

however the implications of a term-limit verse not-limit are, that with a term-limit you introduce change in influence. if this is the reason for having a term limit, than it's imperative we respect when the members vote for the ending of a mod's influence. the decision would be, whether to flat-limit a mod's terms, where once a mod has been influencing the forums for so long they can no longer; or whether to allow potentially unlimited terms but that the mod must be elected to be in the team.

in my opinion it makes little sense to limit the number of terms, as any member can be a member for as long as they desire. an ex-mod could continue to influence the boards politically even if they weren't allowed to run for mod, simply by being vocal. it would created unwanted drama to force such a scenario, and as such I would suggest having terms of a set time, but no limit to how often or how many times a mod is elected into term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cavyX

Personally even when I was a moderator I was massively in favour or term limits for moderators, much like we have the terms for PT. It's not saying that moderators shouldn't be allowed to rerun for their position, but it should be open to new members to apply for the positions as well. My general concensus is that if you can't be bothered to run for your position again then you shouldn't be on the team anymore, it shouldn't just be a set "I win! Now i'm in till I can't be bothered anymore - or I get reviewed for lack on interest."

I get that implenmentation would be difficult, and it would be a pain to run the elections for positions that are already filled but it wouldn't have to be an immediate thing is this did happen. Could go 6 months and then slowly phase in re-elections. I'm not even really sure how long terms should be, moderator burn out is quite high because mod's tend to have a lot more they do than just their forums. And with Admin elections although they are elected by mod's in a private vote, again it doesn't mean we would loose Ams, Kelly or anyone else, it would just be as simple as putting your name into the pot again. No one is denying the level the admins contribute to the forums and as an ex moderator I know that a lot more goes on then people realise.


however the implications of a term-limit verse not-limit are, that with a term-limit you introduce change in influence. if this is the reason for having a term limit, than it's imperative we respect when the members vote for the ending of a mod's influence. the decision would be, whether to flat-limit a mod's terms, where once a mod has been influencing the forums for so long they can no longer; or whether to allow potentially unlimited terms but that the mod must be elected to be in the team.

This is a super valid point that hadn't actually occured to me. Spot on Teags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia

Admods being "at risk" for leaving is BS. There are several Admods who have been an Admod for a long time who have outright said they would quit immediately should term limits be implemented. Basically, it's because Admods don't want it and they're going to hide behind the "it's best for the site" curtain because that's what's most convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on

if admods are so passive aggressive that the best reaction they have is to quit should this be implemented, then they should not be admods. if they have an interest in how this site's implementation should improve, I'd want them to say something about it, not run away from the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyWorld

Just so you guys know, I'm preparing for finals, so I'm not as active. I'm not avoiding this discussion and I seriously plan to get back on this when given the chance. If anything, I knew it was only a matter of time before this came back up. Though, pretty confident it probably would have been taken better if it wasn't coming from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Admods being "at risk" for leaving is BS. There are several Admods who have been an Admod for a long time who have outright said they would quit immediately should term limits be implemented. Basically, it's because Admods don't want it and they're going to hide behind the "it's best for the site" curtain because that's what's most convenient.

if admods are so passive aggressive that the best reaction they have is to quit should this be implemented, then they should not be admods. if they have an interest in how this site's implementation should improve, I'd want them to say something about it, not run away from the discussion.

Wow. If that's indeed the case, then I have to agree with Teagz here.

These folks have stopped doing what they're supposed to do - they are only serving themselves anymore, not the AVEN community. If they really intended to serve the community, they should step down right now and make room for people better suited for a position on a democratically elected team. They are, or have become, characterly unfit for it. Losing these people would be a gain for AVEN in terms of integrity, regardless of how hard their administorial experience would be to replace. A good admod needs both qualities.

(Note that I have no clue who exactly the specific admods in question are.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kisa the Kit Kat

Ummm hi I'm outing myself as one of the admods who said that and here's why.

It is NOT because of my own self interests but because elections are a pain in the ass and when I said it I wasn't sure I would have had the time to run. It was basically my hand being forced.

Kthanx.

PS Not resigning. I do my job well but I do a LOT. The fact that I can't keep up with an election if it were to come up is not a reason I will resign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

You wouldn't have to do anything for a vote of confidence. No pain in the ass whatsoever, just your name in a "yes/no/abstain" poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

It doesn't seem fair to say that an admin or mod who thinks the current system is better for the site is hiding behind the easy answer or that there is no risk of losing experienced team members. I know from personal experience that for myself and others who have run in the elections, we feel that the process is stressful, (I don't think a simple yes/no vote would be fair to members or the person up for reelection). It doesn't mean we wouldn't choose to run again, but it might be the time we would consider being done. Does that mean the loss of that persons influence is a good thing? I personally don't think so.

If someone chooses not to go through it (opts to step down at that time), does that mean they're not driven and should be off the team anyway? I don't think so. It seems to me that people are driven in different ways. Some are quiet and more laid back, but they could very well be just as driven to serve AVEN as the person who proposes changes in policy or a new sub forum. I think it's good that we have all types of personalities and types of drive on the team.

So, I do believe that there is the chance that we could lose some experienced people if we had terms and I think it's a very valid point against it. If we had term limits would I run again? I don't know...it would definitely give me an opportunity that until then I don't give myself. And in that regard, I do consider myself driven.

However, I can see how people might think it's something we should do and if it were implemented, I would have to weigh and consider the choice at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

I don't think a simple yes/no vote would be fair to members or the person up for reelection

Why? :huh: I really don't see what would unfair about that, at all. We don't need bios, Q&A or any of that from you - you folks already successfully went through all that, or you wouldn't be on the team in the first place.

And any further campaigning etc. should really not be needed. Basically, the quality of moderation you've shown in the years before the vote of confidence was your campaign for the VoC confirmation... and honestly, if a week of Q&A could turn around a vote based on two years of performance, I'd see that as more of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

I don't think a simple yes/no vote would be fair to members or the person up for reelection

Why? :huh: I really don't see what would unfair about that, at all. We don't need bios, Q&A or any of that from you - you folks already successfully went through all that, or you wouldn't be on the team in the first place.

And any further campaigning etc. should really not be needed. Basically, the quality of moderation you've shown in the years before the vote of confidence was your campaign for the VoC confirmation... and honestly, if a week of Q&A could turn around a vote based on two years of performance, I'd see that as more of a problem.

Well, I think there would have to be some Q&A...for admins in particular. They aren't always as visible to the members and might want to answer some questions or even say what kind of time they spend contributing to AVEN.

I can see both sides to this issue. I have my own personal feelings about it as well as what I see could happen from a team angle (as an Admod myself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia

Here's the thing LG (and this is just a response to your post, not a personal thing):

Admods say that no term limits is what's best for the site, because the election process is stressful and because we would lose experienced members.

But that's double talk. If the election process is stressful, then that isn't what's best for the site yet there has been no move to make changes to it, other than reducing the time spent on any particular part of the process (noms, Q&A, voting). If it's stressful to think about for an Admod, then it's no wonder we have little to no candidates 90% of the time.

We would lose experienced members? Then that means that the community they were originally elected to serve has lost confidence in them, and that's part of the show. There are several Admods back there who were elected or put into place long before 99% of the current member base was ever a member. The current member base has had NO say in those Admods positions and that's not very fair. They can't say "well we were elected by you" because they weren't. I can think of 5 or 6 Admods right now who I never voted in their elections because they happened, sometimes literally, years before I even knew AVEN existed. Both scenarios are not what's best for the community. Having an administrative staff in which the community has no confidence in some of its members and having members of an administrative staff in which the current members of this community never got a say on is not what is best, nor is it fair.

So to any Admod, without saying those things, how is having no term limits for Admods best for AVEN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tanwen

The way I see it is that we have to do what is best for the site before what the members want. Fixed terms means that some admods with experience are at risk for leaving. People like Ams, Kelly and SGM bring great things to the team and I really don't want to lose them because of a term limit.

But you're happy enough to make immediate changes when the membership agree with you - in fact can't do it fast enough. Why include the question if you had no intention of acting on it? Or were you hoping the membership would just throw it out? Fixed term limits work - the PT have proved that. IF admods have done a good job, they'll be re-elected, simple as that - of course you would have to rescind the 'you can't nominate yourself for your vacant post' rule.

But other than that - wow, just WOW! How can you possibly be so sure that YOUR view of AVEN is what's best for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

Here's the thing LG (and this is just a response to your post, not a personal thing):

Admods say that no term limits is what's best for the site, because the election process is stressful and because we would lose experienced members.

But that's double talk. If the election process is stressful, then that isn't what's best for the site yet there has been no move to make changes to it, other than reducing the time spent on any particular part of the process (noms, Q&A, voting). If it's stressful to think about for an Admod, then it's no wonder we have little to no candidates 90% of the time.

We would lose experienced members? Then that means that the community they were originally elected to serve has lost confidence in them, and that's part of the show. There are several Admods back there who were elected or put into place long before 99% of the current member base was ever a member. The current member base has had NO say in those Admods positions and that's not very fair. They can't say "well we were elected by you" because they weren't. I can think of 5 or 6 Admods right now who I never voted in their elections because they happened, sometimes literally, years before I even knew AVEN existed. Both scenarios are not what's best for the community. Having an administrative staff in which the community has no confidence in some of its members and having members of an administrative staff in which the current members of this community never got a say on is not what is best, nor is it fair.

So to any Admod, without saying those things, how is having no term limits for Admods best for AVEN?

I didn't mean we would lose them through not being voted back in. In my particular case and maybe others, we might choose not to run again. And I think that would be a loss. But like I said, if this were implemented, we would have to do the considering and make that choice. I agree that the election process is stressful. I've wanted it shortened considerably, and that hasn't happened. Maybe because over all, the current system does work well.

I think it's really good that we have people who have been on the team for a long time. When I was first on Admods and even now, I think they offer something that even I can't. It doesn't bother me that I didn't vote them in.

To Tan, and to answer the original question...there are lots of issues that are presented to the members for member opinion. That doesn't always mean they will be implemented. It sometimes happens that a minority of Admods wants something presented to the membership, but the majority doesn't think it's a good idea. I think it's a stretch to assume the hope was that the membership would think one way or another about it.

I think all the extra elections could be detrimental to all parties involved. I think it would take up a lot of extra time and energy. That's just my opinion though. I know others disagree with me. And if it comes down to having them, the extra work will have to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyWorld

Okay, I'm still quite busy with my finals, but I'll squeeze in some time. Anyways, like I mentioned earlier, I knew it was only a matter of time before this topic was brought back up. Though, I knew it would probably be best if it wasn't coming from me, or else I'd probably be accused of not letting things go. It would be best if it was coming from members, so all I did was wait for it.

Disclaimer: neither am I accusing admods of making assumptions of me not letting things go... I said probably. It wasn't a statement.

This topic really was abandoned, there's no denying that. The BWB says it all, or else I would have put it in there for recent discussions. Personally, I don't like how the majority of the admod team ignored what the majority of the members want when they voted. Though, we must be reminded that polls with members are "unbinding". And considering that I have green to my name, I'd have to follow through with what the majority of the admod team decides and deal with it. Whether I liked it or not, it's just the way it is...

So, yes, it would be best coming from members than a fellow moderator. Though, since this discussion is brought back up, I'll be more than happy to share my own views. With that said, of course (if it wasn't obvious), my personal views are my own and are not on behalf of the admod team.

I think term limits are good for a variety of reasons. An increase in performance and quality in said performances since it promotes competition. As shown by declass, some admods can be lazy (emphasis on "some"). Some admods barely even make an effort to catch up with what's going on in admods itself (emphasis on "effort", sometimes admods go on LoA and may take time to catch up). In which these particular things are quite a big problem for various reasons in the backroom and the site in general. If they can't do their job, let's get someone who will. If admods are doing a good job, they shouldn't have anything to worry about... Besides, they can also run again. There's nothing stopping them except themselves.

In regards to losing experienced admods, what happened to the buddy system? Isn't that was training is all about? So that new mods coming in can perform to the most of their potential and be ready to replace anyone should something go wrong (regardless if the reason being is term limits). It's actually very quite similar to teaching a new generation to lead to a better future. Mind you, I'm not trying to kick out the more senior admods, but giving a reasonable opposition to the statement of "losing experienced admods". Like I mentioned, there's nothing stopping them running again and if they're doing a good job, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

In regards to elections being stressful, well, as Lia mentioned, if admods don't like it, how can we expect future candidates to run? If that's the problem, then maybe elections should be improved to not be as stressful.

In addition to that statement, why have it be another election would it could just be a vote of confidence for admods currently in office? That would certainly be less stressful than an election and won't be much of an effort at all. Admods' names would be up there, that's it. If there is a Q&A period, reminder, not all participants have to answer every single question. Also, depending on how VoC's are set up, Q&A only lasts for 3 days and participants have the 3 days and the rest of the week to answer questions (if they so please) during voting. Or perhaps, VoC events can be much shorter than the average election so that it doesn't take up as much time. If it was a VoC, it would hardly be a bother if it doesn't take much time and effort as a regular election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tanwen

I think the answer is clear. Fixed terms for admods will not happen because admods don't want it! It has nothing to do with what is best for AVEN - what they want is more important than members. Saw this on Fakebook the other day and I thought 'How appropriate' :D

for%20avens%20admods_zpskg1dw71p.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Fixed term limits would be better, IMO, if you're going to go to the users have a say in mods route. Otherwise, I feel kinda like you should do away with elections and just choose the team from the team. If the members choose the team, then the members should be allowed to choose who is not doing well on the team after elected. It's kind of like "You have two choices of King, once you elect this King, he is your dictator for life - choose wisely!"

Elections being "too stressful" for the team is kind of a cop out. You could rotate the elections so that another admod can cover for a couple of days your duties and do an election. Or, simply give a brief description of what you do as an admod and let the members vote "Am I doing a good job? Would you like me to stay? Yes/No" ... we really don't need bios and Q&A for the current admods. We've seen your moderator actions for a while. We can judge off that. Or, do a 48 hour vote. Or, change the election process if the admods themselves won't even participate in it. You're not exactly filling us with confidence on the elections by saying you would never want to go through one again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia

It's kind of like "You have two choices of King, once you elect this King, he is your dictator for life - choose wisely!"

This is how I feel exactly. It's a dictatorship rolled up in a cloth labeled "DEMOCRACY".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member4445

Admods are voted in by the community.

The community is constantly changing.

There are community members who were unable to judge the suitability of admods because they were too new to vote in elections.

Fixed terms will allow those members to have the voice that they deserve. If Admods don't trust us to vote for the most suitable candidate (presumable they believe that is themselves), then why do we have any say at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain

I, having considered this debate for a long time, am prepared to support fixed terms for admods. My reasoning is that it encourages democratic process,

In most, not all, elected bodies, people are voted in for fixed terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tanwen

for%20avens%20admods_zpskg1dw71p.jpg

He didn't say that. He said voters elected him to exercise his judgment, and he thinks Hillary is better.

Here's the youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXyoCB6A0So

It was a Fakebook meme - like Hollywood doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story. However, the principle applies - admods consider their views to be superior to those of members.

The way I see it is that we have to do what is best for the site before what the members want. Fixed terms means that some admods with experience are at risk for leaving. People like Ams, Kelly and SGM bring great things to the team and I really don't want to lose them because of a term limit.

I still dispute the 'what is best for the site', I don't think it is. It's what's best for the admods :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Also, alternatively, fixed term limits for admins doesn't mean they have to be voted by the members, as most their work is back room and they do not moderate the forums. We don't vote people to admin in the first place, after all. Mods do. Then Kelly and other mostly back-end admods wouldn't even have to worry about explaining what they do to people who can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Lia

Also, alternatively, fixed term limits for admins doesn't mean they have to be voted by the members, as most their work is back room and they do not moderate the forums. We don't vote people to admin in the first place, after all. Mods do. Then Kelly and other mostly back-end admods wouldn't even have to worry about explaining what they do to people who can't see it.

I think this defeats the purpose. It would mean virtually no turnover of Admins, which would make things stale. Admins bring quite a bit to the table, and nearly all of them do public "work" on the board. They're still working for the community. All Admods (admins and mods) should have fixed limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steph Ace

Admods is without a doubt a dictatorship. Reason being is that there is a political atmosphere to Admods, despite lacking the necessary structure that governments require. This leads to rule without direction and judgments without consistency.

It is masked as 'Democracy' due to the election process in which the Moderators and Admins are voted in based on the will of the community. However much like shifting societal opinions, the government must reflect the public. Admods unfortunately does not reflect the public due to a lack of rotation that is found within democratic governments. This is supported by a 'stale block' of Admods that were not elected by the current community and do not represent the interest of the current community as they were selected during another era.

Going by a 2 year rule (to mirror the Project Team term limits) the following Admods DO NOT represent the current community.
*Information based upon this Thread*

Another issue with the Admod Structure is that there is no means to remove an Admod/AVEN Staff Member due without 'justified cause' such as breaking the ToS and/or other heinous means. There is no way to remove an Admod due to unpopularity (With the public/ Team) or enforce standards that should be met. Admod Nudges (Made public here - not breaching) weaken the chances that a Staff Member would be removed because it can be swept under the rug and said 'They came close but not warrant enough to be removed'. Furthermore, as reporting Admods is the only means of removing them from the team, there is a constant stream of reports on Admods (exhibited here, here and made public knowledge by the frequent removal of names from the Staff List).

Therefore, despite claiming that AVEN is a democratic system and claiming the 'best interest of the membership', 8 out of 19 Admods were not elected by the current membership. There is no means to hold Admods accountable aside from mudslinging and reporting on each other, and they remain untouchable so long as they remain silent.

While declassification is an amazing tool and transparency is excellent - what can be done about the injustices that arise when there are no tools to remove those in power? Checks, balances, Impeachment policies, Term Limits, Referendums and external powers all exist to keep those in power accountable. AVEN possesses none of these tools despite claiming to be a representative democracy.

Admods is a Oligarchy masked as a democracy due to its induction process. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spew

Since I can already hear the outcry over Admod nudges being a thing, let me clarify some things.

First, these nudges are the not the same as the nudges members get. If an admod breaks the ToS, they are still out. Admods still don't get regular nudges. These nudges are for when Admods behave unprofessionally, but not in a way that breaks the ToS. It's a way for the team to express that they think their behavior is unacceptable (but not ToS breaking) and that it needs to stop if they want to continue being on the team.

Second, I completely disagree with Steph that it makes it harder to remove Admods from the team. Imagine if AVEN ran on a system where it was either ban or nothing. All of a sudden people are going to be able to get away with a lot more bad behavior because there is going to be hesitation about banning members who bring a lot to the table, but sometimes act inappropriately. .

That's what the old system was like. Admods would not report other admods despite having massive problems with how they were acting because they didn't want an otherwise good mod being kicked off the team or they didn't think the rest of the team would. It caused severe dysfunction because people would get away with tons of unprofessional and toxic behavior without consequence because the only tool the team had at its disposal was seen as too extreme. You can see it in action here. WIthout nudges, either a productive member would have been demodded or they would have been given a pass which legitimizes what they did as acceptable which is opposite to how the team felt.

Talking it out unofficially almost never worked either and often times caused more problems than it solved. People get dismissed and ignored or accused of bullying the other person and these talks had no real consequences. If someone got talked to and they kept doing whatever it was they were doing, nothing happened.

Now, with nudges, the entire team can express its displeasure with someone's unprofessional behavior and there are real consequences because if that behavior continues they will be demodded for it.

So nudges are not about sweeping shit under the run. Nudges are about correcting unprofessional and toxic behavior without having to resort to what's seen as the nuclear option. That's not to say the system is even close to ideal, but I think this was a huge step in the right direction.

EDIT: Oh and for the record I do support term limits, although I don't see them being as beneficial as others do.

Edited by Pookzar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now