Spiderboy4 and I were discussing the Artwork forum, and I thought I might put this here instead of just in PM so other mods or anyone else who wants can look at it.
To back up my point that the Artwork forum needs more mod activity I just went through the last 3 pages of the Altered Art Thread and pointed out whatever I saw wrong.
Altered Art Thread p1022:
Crystallic's post is asking for trades. Should've PMed.
Hakiza double-posts.
Kburts backseat mods.
The whole discussion p1022-1023 about how Hakiza already posted those cards shouldn't be there. One of them should've PMed a mod and he or she should've warned the guy for spamming the forum with the same art.
p1023:
MagusOfthe_Funk's post says nothing. If he doesn't have actual critiques, there's no reason to post. We all know the cards are good.
Chronitog_Drake should not be asking about trades here. Should be PMed.
p1024:
Shepherd_Faeries: Again, we know the cards are great. Unless he has artistic comments, no reason to post. It just clutters up the thread.
Trancebam: Same thing.
ZUZY: He keeps doing this. If he wants to talk to Yawg, he should PM Yawg, not post his conversation publicly.
So, there we have it. In only 3 pages, there are 9+ posts I believe should not be there/break the rules.
It's gotten to the point in that thread that since its so sparsely moderated, people think they can post whatever they want.
As I said before, I just think the mods need more activity there.
And I've reported half the posts on those lists already! I certainty agree, we need another artwork mod.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Venser »
They can't even comprehend nature. How could they improve it?
.....i was also thinking of applying towards casual because thats my home thread, maybe i should have actually done it......well gotta wait for next time
.....i was also thinking of applying towards casual because thats my home thread, maybe i should have actually done it......well gotta wait for next time
Next time? This is the first and probably only time this will ever happen. I do agree that this forum needs a better process of resigning and adding moderators, though. It feels like this forum has a bunch of inactive mods all the time. By this, I mean the subforums with supposedly 3 mods with only 1 mod active.
This was a test on a new way to create mods, Sentiment. Different from our normal 'offer the position to members who do a great job already'. Also different from our test of the mod helper program. If this goes well, we'll probably do it every couple of months as need be.
Popular vote has nothing to do with actual qualifications, though.
Neither does private vote - the votes of the admins/global mods/whoever is choosing these new mods also have nothing to do with actual qualifications. The people making the choices now are presumably making the choice based on qualifications, but that isn't the same as the private votes themselves being actual qualifications. Popular vote works the same way, and in the past it has been quite successful
Popular vote works the same way, and in the past it has been quite successful
In the past there were less members. I don't think I would want the masses over in the The Rumor Mill picking out mods.
Even Thomas Jefferson knew that democracy works best when you have the people that really know about the issues and can make informed decisions making those decisions.
I mean, you would not whoever makes the best campaign banner and posting the most in The Rumor Mill becoming a mod just for that would you?
Popular Vote and Public Vote are not the same things. "Popular Vote" means just what it says: the people vote for the popular candidate. But 'popular' and 'qualified' are not the same things. Neither are 'popular' and 'good for the position'. Yes, there's a possibility that popular vote will get a good candidate. But it's much less likely than other methods. It's the same problem with any other popularity contest. Like, say, American Idol.
When the mods/admin vote in a new mod, we're doing it primarily on the actual qualifications of the person in question. If they do well in the forum they're being considered for. If they know what they're doing. If they've been helpful so far. If it's a tie between several people, we may bring in popularity or personal considerations into the fact. Usually, though, we're going just on how good they are for the job.
However, it would be pretty funny to see those banners, making campaign promises and such: "Read my lips, I would never infract anyone for having an opinion!" or "If I become mod I promise to have all of the spoiler up a month before the new set comes out!"
Popular Vote and Public Vote are not the same things. "Popular Vote" means just what it says: the people vote for the popular candidate. But 'popular' and 'qualified' are not the same things. Neither are 'popular' and 'good for the position'. Yes, there's a possibility that popular vote will get a good candidate. But it's much less likely than other methods. It's the same problem with any other popularity contest. Like, say, American Idol.
When the mods/admin vote in a new mod, we're doing it primarily on the actual qualifications of the person in question. If they do well in the forum they're being considered for. If they know what they're doing. If they've been helpful so far. If it's a tie between several people, we may bring in popularity or personal considerations into the fact. Usually, though, we're going just on how good they are for the job.
Actually, there is no such thing as a popular vote. (As far as I can tell, you are talking about a Majority vote, unless you use the Plurality system which is the way it should be.)
Congrats to those who did get spots. To those who didn't, the people making these decisions have been doing this for much longer than the people who applied, and I'm sure their decisions were well justified.
You may have to explain your thinking to me. Popularity contests are what I refer to as the 'popular vote'. Popular vote being defined, by me, as votes only put in because you like the person, not because you think they deserve whatever you're voting for. Like voting for Obama because you like how he looks, or voting for Bush because he was a friend in high school. Popular vote referring to an entire contest based (or a winner based) on votes given because they actually like the person.
For instance, if I was hypothetically nominated for Best Moderator and if all the guys from the Colosseum and the Personal Writing forum voted for me just because they like me, not because I actually did a good job, that's what I would consider the popular vote.
Neither does private vote - the votes of the admins/global mods/whoever is choosing these new mods also have nothing to do with actual qualifications. The people making the choices now are presumably making the choice based on qualifications, but that isn't the same as the private votes themselves being actual qualifications. Popular vote works the same way, and in the past it has been quite successful
We vote for our President almost the same way, and it's my opinion that we RARELY elect the most qualified person for the job.
Congratulations to all new Mods, and thanks you to current Mods for the good job they do.
We vote for our President almost the same way, and it's my opinion that we RARELY elect the most qualified person for the job.
Congratulations to all new Mods, and thanks you to current Mods for the good job they do.
For the record, I don't vote for your president, not in any fashion. And if you keep on electing someone who isn't qualified, then why is democracy the system of choice across countries, states, etc?
On top of that, I'd expect that mtgsalvation users are able to do a better job of picking based on qualifications than the american population.
Lastly, I'm talking about popular vote for and within specific subforums, where the users have a very good idea of what will make someone a good mod and what won't - possibly a better idea than the staff, if sapphiretri is taken as an example.
Hey guys let's just let the mods do their things cuz I dont want to see people get an infraction on account of trying to derail the discussion at hand. :'(
But god child does bring up some very fine and great points on an otherwise controversial, and touchy subject.
God Child: You have a point. I can see subforums, like Rumor Mill, where the users that know who bring in the best rumors and who confirms the most, etc., would be good for popular vote. But I don't think the users have a better idea of who can do the job than the Mods. Reason being, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that needs to be done too. It's not just infracting and moving threads. We also decide on site policy, decide when to change rules, working on keeping spambots to a dull roar, etc.
It's also a question of who fits well within the team. Every so often there may be a member who would be an absolutely fantastic moderator... Except for the fact that he tends to get heated with people that argue with them and has a tendency to flame. Or a moderator who has problems with other moderators that they can't let lie. He may do his job amazingly, but he's going to cause strife among the moderators and between moderators and members. That's not a good thing.
That's a big reason why Moderators choose Moderators. Because we want there to be a good fit between us. We want to be able to do our jobs well because we all work well together. We can disagree, but we don't want to be at each other's throats.
I'd love to say we could just do Popular Vote and let the Moderators have veto power. But then there'd be a lot of drama over why the mods veto'd someone, and we don't want -that- either.
Nai, I meant in choice theory and political science realms, even if you vote for someone based on their popularity, the name of the voting system which democracy uses (and most of the contests here apparently xP) is the plurality system (not the way it should be; I had the systems mixed up in my original post).
Allow me to explain:
You can vote for whoever you choose based on their popularity. If the winner is determined by majority, you are using a majority voting system. If the winner is determined by plurality, you are using a plurality voting system. There is no such voting system that determines voter based on popularity, though it may be a factor.
For example:
Lets say you are running for best GMod against myself, marriedwithchildren, and god_child (hypothetically).
The results are as follows (determined arbitrarily):
Nai: 45%
CXA26483: 20%
god_child: 20%
marriedwithchildren: 15%
A majority would indicate that you have 50% of the votes, + 1 single vote. This is not the case here, you simply have the plurality of votes. In reality, 55% of people who voted prefer someone else over you. This is Arrow's Theorem.
In short, a system of voting which is best would make voters rank the candidates in order of favorite, to least favorite, then by process of elimination, determine the winner by majority. If this process continues until only two candidates, one of them MUST have the majority. So, looking at our previous statistics, marriedwithchildren is eliminated. Lets say, hypothetically, all voters in that group preferred you over everyone else after their favored candidate was eliminated. We now have...
Nai: 60%
CXA26483: 20%
god_child: 20%
You now have the actual majority, because only 40% of people preferred someone else over you (or, you have at least 50% of the votes, + 1 more vote).
I was making the comment that IMO, if you have a list of candidates for a specific forum, the method for determining which of them would become a mod for that forum should have been the one I just described. It was only a side comment lol, I'm not trying to derail the topic or anything.
The system you're proposing that's 'best' is simply taking the lesser evil. That first vote didn't vote someone in with majority, so you just drop the one that's least voted for and try again. You're just taking the one the people dislike least, since you didn't take who the people like most.
Plurality is fairly good but, once more, it's mostly going to be popular. I call it the popular vote because many people, in these types of situations, just vote for who they like the best.
In reality, if we could do it, the best system would be to have the moderators test a big pool of candidates to wean down to those who actually would be good at the job, test the personalities to be who would fit in, and then put the rest to vote.
And that's basically what we do, minus the final part. We take people who seem interested in the job. Either they ask us about it, or we see them doing everything anyways minus mod powers. We decide if they're a good fit, and if they're helping the forum. Then we offer them the job. The list is usually quite short.
I'll be honest and say I'd -like- a better way to choose mods. But most of the peole who -want- to be a mod only want the power involved, or the station. Those who would be good at it, usually don't want to deal with it. The ones remaining are those that try to help people understand the rules, who advise people to help they stay out of trouble. The people who do the non-administrative aspects with no desire of recognition. Those are the people we go for. And, unfortunately, there's no real way to -find- them without looking for them.
God Child: You have a point. I can see subforums, like Rumor Mill, where the users that know who bring in the best rumors and who confirms the most, etc., would be good for popular vote. But I don't think the users have a better idea of who can do the job than the Mods. Reason being, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that needs to be done too. It's not just infracting and moving threads. We also decide on site policy, decide when to change rules, working on keeping spambots to a dull roar, etc.
Well, I not really sure how much of this 'behind the scenes' stuff should actually be going on behind the scenes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you are saying, only a moderator is capable of recognising what makes a good moderator. I don't think that is true, even if there are things mods do that I don't see them doing. I think I can accurately judge what is required despite never having seen behind the scenes, and I'd imagine most other mtgs users could to.
I mean, I know that relevant users would never have picked sapphiretri. Perhaps it is most relevant in my subforum, where I know there is a disconnect between the moderators and the users.
It's also a question of who fits well within the team. Every so often there may be a member who would be an absolutely fantastic moderator... Except for the fact that he tends to get heated with people that argue with them and has a tendency to flame. Or a moderator who has problems with other moderators that they can't let lie. He may do his job amazingly, but he's going to cause strife among the moderators and between moderators and members. That's not a good thing.
That's a big reason why Moderators choose Moderators. Because we want there to be a good fit between us. We want to be able to do our jobs well because we all work well together. We can disagree, but we don't want to be at each other's throats.
So we don't get the best moderators, we get the moderators that fit best with the current moderators. That seems silly, and it seems like an excuse to let personal feeling get in the way of choosing a moderator. I mean, I know their are current moderators who don't like other members of the staff, so I don't think this is a real problem.
I'd love to say we could just do Popular Vote and let the Moderators have veto power. But then there'd be a lot of drama over why the mods veto'd someone, and we don't want -that- either.
In the end, I guess I just feel really strongly that the users of salvation should have some say in the people who moderate them. As of right now, the body politic has zero input in staff and policy choices, which just seems wrong.
Because this topic has garnered interest, and official thread has been created on the subject so we can split the threads up. Please move the discussion to that thread. God-child, in the interest of not double-posting on said thread (and not leaving the discussion here), I'll respond to you when someone posts over there.
Great! I'm sure they will both make excellent mods.
And I've reported half the posts on those lists already! I certainty agree, we need another artwork mod.
My helpdesk should you need me.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Neither does private vote - the votes of the admins/global mods/whoever is choosing these new mods also have nothing to do with actual qualifications. The people making the choices now are presumably making the choice based on qualifications, but that isn't the same as the private votes themselves being actual qualifications. Popular vote works the same way, and in the past it has been quite successful
Even Thomas Jefferson knew that democracy works best when you have the people that really know about the issues and can make informed decisions making those decisions.
I mean, you would not whoever makes the best campaign banner and posting the most in The Rumor Mill becoming a mod just for that would you?
Popular Vote and Public Vote are not the same things. "Popular Vote" means just what it says: the people vote for the popular candidate. But 'popular' and 'qualified' are not the same things. Neither are 'popular' and 'good for the position'. Yes, there's a possibility that popular vote will get a good candidate. But it's much less likely than other methods. It's the same problem with any other popularity contest. Like, say, American Idol.
When the mods/admin vote in a new mod, we're doing it primarily on the actual qualifications of the person in question. If they do well in the forum they're being considered for. If they know what they're doing. If they've been helpful so far. If it's a tie between several people, we may bring in popularity or personal considerations into the fact. Usually, though, we're going just on how good they are for the job.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Vote for me!
Anyway, can you please tell me when hopefuls can stop being such?
Actually, there is no such thing as a popular vote. (As far as I can tell, you are talking about a Majority vote, unless you use the Plurality system which is the way it should be.)
Congrats to those who did get spots. To those who didn't, the people making these decisions have been doing this for much longer than the people who applied, and I'm sure their decisions were well justified.
For instance, if I was hypothetically nominated for Best Moderator and if all the guys from the Colosseum and the Personal Writing forum voted for me just because they like me, not because I actually did a good job, that's what I would consider the popular vote.
My helpdesk should you need me.
We vote for our President almost the same way, and it's my opinion that we RARELY elect the most qualified person for the job.
Congratulations to all new Mods, and thanks you to current Mods for the good job they do.
For the record, I don't vote for your president, not in any fashion. And if you keep on electing someone who isn't qualified, then why is democracy the system of choice across countries, states, etc?
On top of that, I'd expect that mtgsalvation users are able to do a better job of picking based on qualifications than the american population.
Lastly, I'm talking about popular vote for and within specific subforums, where the users have a very good idea of what will make someone a good mod and what won't - possibly a better idea than the staff, if sapphiretri is taken as an example.
But god child does bring up some very fine and great points on an otherwise controversial, and touchy subject.
It's also a question of who fits well within the team. Every so often there may be a member who would be an absolutely fantastic moderator... Except for the fact that he tends to get heated with people that argue with them and has a tendency to flame. Or a moderator who has problems with other moderators that they can't let lie. He may do his job amazingly, but he's going to cause strife among the moderators and between moderators and members. That's not a good thing.
That's a big reason why Moderators choose Moderators. Because we want there to be a good fit between us. We want to be able to do our jobs well because we all work well together. We can disagree, but we don't want to be at each other's throats.
I'd love to say we could just do Popular Vote and let the Moderators have veto power. But then there'd be a lot of drama over why the mods veto'd someone, and we don't want -that- either.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Allow me to explain:
You can vote for whoever you choose based on their popularity. If the winner is determined by majority, you are using a majority voting system. If the winner is determined by plurality, you are using a plurality voting system. There is no such voting system that determines voter based on popularity, though it may be a factor.
For example:
Lets say you are running for best GMod against myself, marriedwithchildren, and god_child (hypothetically).
The results are as follows (determined arbitrarily):
Nai: 45%
CXA26483: 20%
god_child: 20%
marriedwithchildren: 15%
A majority would indicate that you have 50% of the votes, + 1 single vote. This is not the case here, you simply have the plurality of votes. In reality, 55% of people who voted prefer someone else over you. This is Arrow's Theorem.
In short, a system of voting which is best would make voters rank the candidates in order of favorite, to least favorite, then by process of elimination, determine the winner by majority. If this process continues until only two candidates, one of them MUST have the majority. So, looking at our previous statistics, marriedwithchildren is eliminated. Lets say, hypothetically, all voters in that group preferred you over everyone else after their favored candidate was eliminated. We now have...
Nai: 60%
CXA26483: 20%
god_child: 20%
You now have the actual majority, because only 40% of people preferred someone else over you (or, you have at least 50% of the votes, + 1 more vote).
I was making the comment that IMO, if you have a list of candidates for a specific forum, the method for determining which of them would become a mod for that forum should have been the one I just described. It was only a side comment lol, I'm not trying to derail the topic or anything.
Plurality is fairly good but, once more, it's mostly going to be popular. I call it the popular vote because many people, in these types of situations, just vote for who they like the best.
In reality, if we could do it, the best system would be to have the moderators test a big pool of candidates to wean down to those who actually would be good at the job, test the personalities to be who would fit in, and then put the rest to vote.
And that's basically what we do, minus the final part. We take people who seem interested in the job. Either they ask us about it, or we see them doing everything anyways minus mod powers. We decide if they're a good fit, and if they're helping the forum. Then we offer them the job. The list is usually quite short.
I'll be honest and say I'd -like- a better way to choose mods. But most of the peole who -want- to be a mod only want the power involved, or the station. Those who would be good at it, usually don't want to deal with it. The ones remaining are those that try to help people understand the rules, who advise people to help they stay out of trouble. The people who do the non-administrative aspects with no desire of recognition. Those are the people we go for. And, unfortunately, there's no real way to -find- them without looking for them.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Well, I not really sure how much of this 'behind the scenes' stuff should actually be going on behind the scenes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you are saying, only a moderator is capable of recognising what makes a good moderator. I don't think that is true, even if there are things mods do that I don't see them doing. I think I can accurately judge what is required despite never having seen behind the scenes, and I'd imagine most other mtgs users could to.
I mean, I know that relevant users would never have picked sapphiretri. Perhaps it is most relevant in my subforum, where I know there is a disconnect between the moderators and the users.
So we don't get the best moderators, we get the moderators that fit best with the current moderators. That seems silly, and it seems like an excuse to let personal feeling get in the way of choosing a moderator. I mean, I know their are current moderators who don't like other members of the staff, so I don't think this is a real problem.
In the end, I guess I just feel really strongly that the users of salvation should have some say in the people who moderate them. As of right now, the body politic has zero input in staff and policy choices, which just seems wrong.
My helpdesk should you need me.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)