It has been increasingly clear that not all the problems that have originated in the Tavern have been solved. There is still some discontent. Notwithstanding all the issues that actually cause the problems in the Tavern, I see a different problem that seems to plague the possibility of resolution. We have no way of measuring the level of discontent. The discontent could be limited in nature and scope or it could be more severe. Is the problem potentially debilitating or is it just a few people who can’t adapt the culture here? What to do? I have an idea on how to solve this. After much thought, I believe I have come up with something that will tell us what our next course of action should be.
This plan goes by phases and applies only to the Tavern. The first phase is to have a referendum. I propose that an election be held whereby the preferences of the Org patrons is known. As to the format, I believe that there should be an actual list of viable candidates from which people can vote for their candidate of choice. One might assume that the current slate of moderators will run. It seems likely but the possibility exists that some of them are tiring of endless headaches and a decided lack of appreciation. I don't know but I do not propose it be manditory for current moderators to run. I wouldn’t want to obligate someone to do something that no longer interests them.
This phase has two steps. The first is to gather candidates. A thread in both the Tavern rooms advertising for candidates should suffice. The second step is the actual election. The ballot should be in the form of a poll listing all the interested candidates. If more candidates exist than poll options, a second poll should be opened with both polls containing in a post a full list of candidates and a link to the other poll. Each room in the Tavern should conduct its own election. Ideally, I would like for there to be an exception made for this poll only that a person be allowed to vote multiple times up to the number of available positions without being able to select the same person twice. This would allow for people to select a slate of moderators as opposed to only being allowed a single favorite. The vote tally should not be displayed while the vote is in progress but should be announced when voting is done together with the results. If there are three positions open (Frontroom), the top three votegetters win. If there are five positions open (Politcal area), the top five votegetters win.
Now we come to the second phase. If the elected moderators look suspiciously familiar (i.e. The existing group is elected), then I propose that this go no further. That result would mean that the patrons are overall happy with the status quo. The level of discontent is relatively small and the issue no longer need revolve around whether or not the Tavern should change.
But what if we find that some things have changed? Obviously, those elected should now serve. Further, a precedent has been set. Elections have been held and the results have been carried out. The question now becomes how often elections should be held and whether reelelction should be possible. I think that once every six months is a good period of time and that reelection should be encouraged.