Official moderator nominator
- Thread starter fury
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
You forgot outside looking in. I also think hardtellin' wanted to be a mod.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I would think that the fairest way would probably be to decide how many total moderators are needed. Then take a vote for all the moderator candidates as a whole.
Say you need six moderators at the moment... then the six nominees receiving the most votes would become moderators. After that, who moderates which forum could be decided, either by who wants it, working it out internally, another vote, admins putting the smack on, whatever.
Seems the best way... if you wanted to moderate a forum that had 10 nominees, and could only run for one forum, then that weights the votes depending on how "popular" a forum is.
My buck-three-ninety-eight anyway.
Say you need six moderators at the moment... then the six nominees receiving the most votes would become moderators. After that, who moderates which forum could be decided, either by who wants it, working it out internally, another vote, admins putting the smack on, whatever.
Seems the best way... if you wanted to moderate a forum that had 10 nominees, and could only run for one forum, then that weights the votes depending on how "popular" a forum is.
My buck-three-ninety-eight anyway.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Of course, in voting theory there are other methods that work better than a "one vote" method (though I don't remember the names of those methods). Might be useful in this case, cause if all candidates were lumped together, and each member voted on their favorite, it is very possible that only four or five candidates would even receive votes. Then how would you fill the other spots?
There are two good alternatives. One is to allow members to rank the candidates from best to worst, and total the score for each candidate. This guarantees that all candidates receive at least some points, so ranking the totals to pick the top six or whatever will be easy.
The second alternative is to allow members to assign a "value" for each candidate, and can score as many candidates alike as he/she wishes. For example... greenfreak only knows Leslie, so it's likely she would put Leslie in the top spot. How would she assign the rest of the candidates if she didn't know anything about them but was forced to put them in order? It would be easier for her to just give Leslie a "10" and each of the other candidates a "1" (or "5", or whatever she wished). Then total the scores as before, and pick the top however many are needed. This, IMO, is the fairest and most accurate representation of "what the people want".
So, I'd suggest the above scoring method... but it would cause problems with how to collect scores. The BB's poll doesn't allow such a complex voting scheme, so it would have to be done through emails, or just out in the open voting (that probably isn't a good idea... the out in the open part).
A compromise might be if this BB has an option to allow members to vote for more than one choice. That way, each candidate could at least be scored a 1 or 0, and though not the best method by any means, it is better than only getting one vote and having to decide where to place it. I don't remember any option like that when I did my poll though, so that might be out.
Oh well... there's my two-bucks-three-ninety-nine.
There are two good alternatives. One is to allow members to rank the candidates from best to worst, and total the score for each candidate. This guarantees that all candidates receive at least some points, so ranking the totals to pick the top six or whatever will be easy.
The second alternative is to allow members to assign a "value" for each candidate, and can score as many candidates alike as he/she wishes. For example... greenfreak only knows Leslie, so it's likely she would put Leslie in the top spot. How would she assign the rest of the candidates if she didn't know anything about them but was forced to put them in order? It would be easier for her to just give Leslie a "10" and each of the other candidates a "1" (or "5", or whatever she wished). Then total the scores as before, and pick the top however many are needed. This, IMO, is the fairest and most accurate representation of "what the people want".
So, I'd suggest the above scoring method... but it would cause problems with how to collect scores. The BB's poll doesn't allow such a complex voting scheme, so it would have to be done through emails, or just out in the open voting (that probably isn't a good idea... the out in the open part).
A compromise might be if this BB has an option to allow members to vote for more than one choice. That way, each candidate could at least be scored a 1 or 0, and though not the best method by any means, it is better than only getting one vote and having to decide where to place it. I don't remember any option like that when I did my poll though, so that might be out.
Oh well... there's my two-bucks-three-ninety-nine.
sbcanada
New Member
If we need two more mods right now, I say we take a vote on the list of candidates and the top two who receive the most votes get the job. I think they could talk with each other to see who will moderate which forum... If mods ever want to move to a different forum, then they should need to "trade" with someone else, with the approval of both parties.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I guess the first question to get out of the way is "how many moderators are needed right now?"
An automatic scoring tally would be hard to achieve on short notice, so it would have to be done through email. That is a good idea, and while it may prove a bit more difficult to keep record of the votes without an automatic tally, it could produce a more accurate result on which people would be best preferred as moderators by the people.
Right now, there are only three moderators immediately necessary, one for each of the forums without moderators, and they need to be added in as soon as possible so that the forum will look completed (for lack of a better word... ?(). When more candidates are nominated, more votes will be held.
I think I will have to agree with and favor OSLI's idea of picking the top candidates out of a single poll and having them decide which forum they want to moderate, it sounds like the fairest and easiest method by far, and much less confusing than making a vote for each individual forum. Does anybody agree or disagree with that? Or does the scoring system sound like the best way?
Right now, there are only three moderators immediately necessary, one for each of the forums without moderators, and they need to be added in as soon as possible so that the forum will look completed (for lack of a better word... ?(). When more candidates are nominated, more votes will be held.
I think I will have to agree with and favor OSLI's idea of picking the top candidates out of a single poll and having them decide which forum they want to moderate, it sounds like the fairest and easiest method by far, and much less confusing than making a vote for each individual forum. Does anybody agree or disagree with that? Or does the scoring system sound like the best way?
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Then the next logica question is "are there currently enough candidates for a three position vote?"
After that would be "what is the scoring scale... 1 to 5, 1 to 10?" I think 1 to 5 would probably suffice.
When those questions are settled, you can work out the logistics of who receives and tallies scores.
After that would be "what is the scoring scale... 1 to 5, 1 to 10?" I think 1 to 5 would probably suffice.
When those questions are settled, you can work out the logistics of who receives and tallies scores.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Or... things could be discussed openly in this forum.
I've seen it done both ways on different forums.
I've seen it done both ways on different forums.
