---

Quote: from August Rush at 5:45 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 10:39 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quasi-moderation power assigned based on popularity rather than any sort of objective merit doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all. I don't trust the unwashed masses of LiveWire to tie their collective shoe without burning the place down, I sure as hell don't trust them not to vote in some popular half-literate fucknuts who have the maturity of a manic toddler.

---

 

 Popular rep = No  

 Trusted rep with mod like qualities = Yes

---

An election is a popularity contest with a thin veneer of legitimacy crudely painted over it.

---

Ok, so on one hand you have what I am suggesting which is a system similar to the american election process. And on the other hand you have the current system (David has final say on the Mod's) which arguably resembles a dictatorship.

Ignoring the whole dictatorship argument for a second, are you suggesting that each and every election by public vote is less valid because underneath it is in fact a popularity contest?

I would also argue that there are only a few long standing members on this site who would even consider putting themselves up for this position; each with their own merits.

So its not so superficial and meaningless, a publicly elected representative can have a legitimate standing.

-------
From the UK? - Join the group!

Please Give Me Points :-)

---

Quote: from JohnQ at 2:39 pm on July 19, 2008

---

I agree. And it'd take a hefty script to even recognise topics that are in fact topics that need support and ones that do not. A lot more of wasted, countless hours would be put into a script that would never be completely flawless as the moderation team will be.

---

With a customized Fresh Topics bar you would just select the sub-forums you want to read, so for example, the "Support Fresh Topics" bar could be Teen Alcohol & Substance Abuse, Teen Depression & Emotional Imbalance, Teen Eating Disorders, Teen Pregnancy & Parenting Support, and Teen Stress & Anger Management while the "Social Fresh Topics" bar could be DTRM, Food & Cooking, and Religion & Philosophy or whatever you want. I don't know the exact code for LW or even if I can find that somewhere, which would be great, so I don't know how threads are ID'd, but I assume threads from the same sub forum have something in common so they could be distinguished.

Additionally, my idea has nothing do to with replacing the moderation team. It would simply make things easier for members to view the specific content they want to view.

---

When you put it as viewing only sub forums, yes, it seems like a decent idea.. But the moderators would still have to moderate every part of LW and you'd still get the trolls. It's more work that isn't entirely necessary.. But it's a good idea all the same.

-------
I love you!
Donate me points, please! :(

---

I would also argue that there are only a few long standing members on this site who would even consider putting themselves up for this position; each with their own merits.  

---

Then you'd argue wrong.  If you think for a second people like slim shady, Deez, and lunchbox wouldn't volunteer themselves, you're hugely mistaken.

---

When you put it as viewing only sub forums, yes, it seems like a decent idea.. But the moderators would still have to moderate every part of LW and you'd still get the trolls. It's more work that isn't entirely necessary.. But it's a good idea all the same.

---

Yes, you would still get malicious trolls who are trying to disrupt the support system, so they would likely post in support subforums. However, it would practically destroy "accidental" spamming, or at least, prevent it from hampering the support side of the site. For example, in the recent "Ask a _____" "spam"-fest today, most of the threads were posted in DTRM or other non-support sub-forums. If I were trying to support people, and I only saw fresh topics from support sub-forums, there would have been no problem.

-------
cuz i'm feelin for him what he's feelin for me

---

Ignoring the whole dictatorship argument for a second, are you suggesting that each and every election by public vote is less valid because underneath it is in fact a popularity contest?

---

Well, yeah.

The American public is, by and large, a mass of indifferent or one-issue voters that are easily distracted by shiny bells and whistles.

Now imagine this same process instituted into an environment that people don't take as seriously as the governance of a nation, and the voting public has higher than baseline jabbering idiot / spammer populations.

Disaster!

---

I would also argue that there are only a few long standing members on this site who would even consider putting themselves up for this position; each with their own merits.

---

I would argue that there are indeed some reliable members who would get in through this system, much as they'll probably become moderators anyway in the fullness of time under the current system.

I would also argue that there are plenty of complete idiots who shouldn't be trusted to babysit a pet rock that would be voted in, merely because through persisting spamming they've established name recognition without pissing off a potential voter base.

---

So its not so superficial and meaningless, a publicly elected representative can have a legitimate standing.

---

I refer you to the flying sea cow.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from August Rush at 4:51 pm on July 19, 2008

---

I would also argue that there are only a few long standing members on this site who would even consider putting themselves up for this position; each with their own merits.

---

Then you'd argue wrong. If you think for a second people like slim shady, Deez, and lunchbox wouldn't volunteer themselves, you're hugely mistaken.

---

I think you misunderstood

-------
From the UK? - Join the group!

Please Give Me Points :-)

---

Quote: from August Rush at 4:51 pm on July 19, 2008

---

I would also argue that there are only a few long standing members on this site who would even consider putting themselves up for this position; each with their own merits.  

---

Then you'd argue wrong.  If you think for a second people like slim shady, Deez, and lunchbox wouldn't volunteer themselves, you're hugely mistaken.

---

I was thinking of Deez specifically. For someone with the wit of moist sponge, he is distressingly popular among what I can only assume is our population of moist sponges.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

I said there are only a few who would consider nominating themselves. Not that there aren't many who wouldn't.

I think you misunderstood

---

Apparently, because it looks like you're saying two completely conflicting things right there.

"Not many will nominate themselves."
"But there aren't many who wouldn't."

I have actually thought about this.
The most logical conclusion i came up with is that we probably should have monthly shifts of mods.
So that even if they do abuse their power they will not have it for long.
The monthly new mods will be chosen as the best candidates based on applications to the admin.
they shall not be chosen by other mods, and should not be chosen based on compatibility with others opinions.
Difference of opinion is good in government.

Also maybe in serious cases of serious moderation repots and banning of members, we should have shirts of an "LW jury"
somewhere around ten people picked randomly who will make the decisions instead of the mod.
they will be presented with the problem, and vote how they think best.

I think these things would make it more democratic.
Thoughts?

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

Quote: from August Rush at 4:59 pm on July 19, 2008

---

I said there are only a few who would consider nominating themselves. Not that there aren't many who wouldn't.  

 I think you misunderstood

---

Apparently, because it looks like you're saying two completely conflicting things right there.

"Not many will nominate themselves."
"But there aren't many who wouldn't."

 

---

No, you still misunderstand.. I said that not many long term members would nominate themselves for the position (only the good ones would put themselves forward.. "But there aren't many who wouldn't" is where you got confused; if you thought thats what I was trying to say.

Sorry, i know its petty, i just had to clear that up.

-------
From the UK? - Join the group!

Please Give Me Points :-)

---

"I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site."

I have actually thought about this.
The most logical conclusion i came up with is that we probably should have monthly shifts of mods.
So that even if they do abuse their power they will not have it for long.

---

I don't think we have nearly enough reliable members to field a different full-strength mod team from month to month, and that is way too much work.

The interesting thing about a mod abusing their power is that the other mods will notice and become distraught.

---

The monthly new mods will be chosen as the best candidates based on applications to the admin.

---

As the sudden demotion and repromotion of The Professional might indicate, davjs might not spend enough time on-site as it stands to be familiar enough with the community to know for certain what decisions are the best in matters like this.

It is a bit much of a burden to try to throw this in his lap as well.

---

Also maybe in serious cases of serious moderation repots and banning of members, we should have shirts of an "LW jury"
somewhere around ten people picked randomly who will make the decisions instead of the mod.
they will be presented with the problem, and vote how they think best.

---

I don't think that would be sufficient to fix a crisis that, arguably, your own new system would likely be responsible for. Random members are just that, and can hardly be trusted.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from The Professional at 11:00 pm on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from August Rush at 4:59 pm on July 19, 2008

---

I said there are only a few who would consider nominating themselves. Not that there aren't many who wouldn't.  

  I think you misunderstood

---

 

 Apparently, because it looks like you're saying two completely conflicting things right there.  

 "Not many will nominate themselves."  
 "But there aren't many who wouldn't."  

 

---

No, you still misunderstand.. I said that not many long term members would nominate themselves for the position (only the good ones would put themselves forward.. "But there aren't many who wouldn't" is where you got confused; if you thought thats what I was trying to say.

Sorry, i know its petty, i just had to clear that up.

---

What do you base that on, though?

It seems like idealism. Don't you expect that there are plenty of people who would appreciate the e-peen boost of acquiring moderation powers who would put themselves forth?

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

"I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site."

I have actually thought about this.
The most logical conclusion i came up with is that we probably should have monthly shifts of mods.
So that even if they do abuse their power they will not have it for long.
The monthly new mods will be chosen as the best candidates based on applications to the admin.
they shall not be chosen by other mods, and should not be chosen based on compatibility with others opinions.
Difference of opinion is good in government.  

Also maybe in serious cases of serious moderation repots and banning of members, we should have shirts of an "LW jury"
somewhere around ten people picked randomly who will make the decisions instead of the mod.
they will be presented with the problem, and vote how they think best.

I think these things would make it more democratic.
Thoughts?

---

Well thats my whole argument - democracy!
I don't care how its achieved, your way is just as good if not better than mine.

Maybe in reality changing an entire team of mods each month would make the site rather unstable but I really do agree that the positions do need to be more flexible.

In the UK there is the government and usually 1 or 2 apposing parties. All this lays in the houses of parliament.
There is also however a house of lords.. a group of people who always have power and don't have to defend their positions.

I think something like this could be achieved.

Maybe a team of stable Moderators (lords) and a team of unstable (removable) moderators (the government).


-------
From the UK? - Join the group!

Please Give Me Points :-)

---

Quote: from carracer at 6:02 pm on July 19, 2008

---

"I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site."  

 I have actually thought about this.  
 The most logical conclusion i came up with is that we probably should have monthly shifts of mods.  
 So that even if they do abuse their power they will not have it for long.

---

I don't think we have nearly enough reliable members to field a different full-strength mod team from month to month, and that is way too much work.

The interesting thing about a mod abusing their power is that the other mods will notice and become distraught.

---

The monthly new mods will be chosen as the best candidates based on applications to the admin.

---

As the sudden demotion and repromotion of The Professional might indicate, davjs might not spend enough time on-site as it stands to be familiar enough with the community to know for certain what decisions are the best in matters like this.

It is a bit much of a burden to try to throw this in his lap as well.

 

---

Also maybe in serious cases of serious moderation repots and banning of members, we should have shirts of an "LW jury"  
 somewhere around ten people picked randomly who will make the decisions instead of the mod.  
 they will be presented with the problem, and vote how they think best.

---

I don't think that would be sufficient to fix a crisis that, arguably, your own new system would likely be responsible for. Random members are just that, and can hardly be trusted.

---

1) We need a new admin. David doesn't care about the website.
2)Who decides who is reliable or not? Anyone and everyone is good at deciding what is spam and what to do with it etc.
3)As stated above we would need a new admin or multiple new admins to make this site a little more successful (we should have more of a republic then a dictatorship)
4)" I don't think that would be sufficient to fix a crisis that, arguably, your own new system would likely be responsible for. Random members are just that, and can hardly be trusted."

a jury system works in reality why not on a forum?
governments don't decide everyday people can't be trusted why should we?

-------
The world is only as sweet as you make it and only as terrible as you see it

---

"I think something should be put in place to counter balance the Moderators rule on this site."

I have actually thought about this.
The most logical conclusion i came up with is that we probably should have monthly shifts of mods.
So that even if they do abuse their power they will not have it for long.
The monthly new mods will be chosen as the best candidates based on applications to the admin.

---

Absolutely terrible.

We have 33 team members now.  So each month, we would demote all 33 and appoint 33 more?  The next month the same thing?  Simply math should tell you the idea fails.  12x33=396.  How would such an idea work?

Also, have you not considered learning curves, or consistency?  Each mod comes with a different opinion, that forms around what the team has PREVIOUSLY decided.  Factor that in with 33 new mods every month, and you'll see there would be zero progress in the mod department.