A proposal

[Demon of Light]

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.

[scooter_the_shooter]

i am a newb here but if i wasnt i would be interested

[Demon of Light]

A couple of things that aren't in the proposal:

First thing is that I do not intend to be a Tavern Moderator myself. I won't drop my name in the hat because I am not about to give anyone cause to question my motives.

Second thing is that this post is not at all about how well I percieve the Tavern mods to be doing their jobs. I understand their difficulties and respect them for doing the best job they know how.

So why this proposal? Fair question. We have been discussing the problems for a while now. So far, substantive discussions that serve to set forth a course of action have been sparse. This is a starting point. I would be happy to see it adopted as I have written it but I invite input. Whether we take action or choose not to, I believe we would be well served by making a decision. Certain measures have already been taken. I am fully aware of this but the discussion and discontent continues.

Next question might be about my structure. Why not just do a poll asking if people even want change? The problem there is that you aren't really giving people a choice there. Choices need to be well defined to be valid. It wouldn't seem either effective or valid if we gave people a choice between the status quo and a vague, amorphous second option. That lacks clarity. A true election is about making choices between clear possibilities. That is why we need candidates. We need to give people a choice between either A or B and not between A and something we haven't figured out yet.

Why do this at all? As I said, there is discontent. Can anyone tell me how severe? Of course not. No measurement exists. There are two options here. Either the discontent is significant and will lead change or it is insignificant and the status quo will remain in place. Either way, this measures it and at the very least we can all say that everyone has had an equal voice

[scooter_the_shooter]

it seems like a good idea but i am not sure how many GOOD people( i think most would abuse the power to suit their views) would want to be a mod in the tavern in the front room alot of people would want to be a mod there because usually everyone is happy there

[hrvojej]

With all due respect, shouldn't we let the administrators decide on these things? After all, they are the ones responsible for keeping the forum (and the site) online in the first place, and basically they bear responsibility for other things that require it to function as well, such as the server host, etc. I don't see it as appropriate if we as users of something that is basically a service provided to us through the good will and free time of some people would suddenly start making demands on those same people on how to run it. To put it bluntly, I think this is something for Tosa and barocca to decide if that's how they would like to run things, seeing that they haven't so far, and not the general populace, otherwise it feels a bit too forceful. Not to mention that this would in fact go against their judgement of appointing the current moderators, and effectively mean that the current mods will be ousted (even though they might get "reinstated", this does not detract from the initial act). Another decision that I don't think it's ours (as in, us patrons) to make, since we haven't appointed them either. I believe that the mods can resign whenever they want to even now, so if they feel like being tired etc., we would know by now. That's why this strikes me as disrespectful to the staff and their better judgement if it was put to action, though I don't doubt at all that your motives are anything but honorable. But, the idea itself, again to put bluntly and this time with a bit of a hyperbole as well, looks a bit like a coup to me.

Just my honest opinion, no offense meant or intended.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]looks a bit like a coup to me.

A coup by election now that would be different. Of course its up to the administrators he is not trying to go around them. He is only putting forth a proposal.

[Duke John]

The Moderators are not the problem. If you compare the Backroom with all the other forums the one factor that causes the discontent are misbehaving members. A single member may behave civilly in all the other forums but goes berserk in a political forum.

Fixing the discontent in the Tavern is done by fixing the behaviour of the members and that doesn't happen in a few days or even weeks and some people will never change. The tavern would a lot more friendly if people understood you should discuss subjects and not other members if they bring up an argument that you disagree with.

[Colovion]

What is the discontent focused around? Differing opinions?

From the poll that asks if the Mods are doing a good job:

Here

...it doesn't look like there is any need for a change.

[Teutonic Knight]

DOL, that proposal sounds brilliant, I'll endorse it.

I don't have time to comment, and even if I did I would just be mirroring what you said, great post.

I hope the Admins give it a fair look.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I understand that it would be fair, and would dispel some of the doubts about the moderators that have been discussed recently, but I think that this could in fact lead to the tavern becoming even more politically polarised than it already is.

I think it's fair to summise that the left wing patrons will vote for left wing moderators, and the right wing patrons will vote for right wing ones. This will then lead to a moderating team that is half left wing and half right wing. Not only is there the danger that this will cause bias, but if the moderating team was split so, there is a danger that it would simply not fuction effectively, and spend most of its time fighting amongst itself.

[JAG]

Quote[/b] ]I think it's fair to summise that the left wing patrons will vote for left wing moderators, and the right wing patrons will vote for right wing ones. This will then lead to a moderating team that is half left wing and half right wing. Not only is there the danger that this will cause bias, but if the moderating team was split so, there is a danger that it would simply not fuction effectively, and spend most of its time fighting amongst itself.

BKS gone and said the main thing I was going to say. The current system works perfectly, there is no bias there is no conflict of interest. Why can we not let the moderators moderate and the administrators moderate the moderators? That is how every single forum works and how this one should, I see no reason for otherwise. I think the moderators do a brilliant job under sometimes very harsh environments in the tavern, and I see no reason for change. There are different opinions and positions politically on the moderators team too, it is very wrong to say they are all left wing liberals, because they are not. We cannot have a situation where we have people voting on preference of political position and character over the ability to be a fair and good moderator.

[Teutonic Knight]

let's see a right-winger reject it...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]let's see a right-winger reject it...

I doubt that you will see that happen

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ June 01 2004,19:17)]

Quote[/b] ]let's see a right-winger reject it...

I doubt that you will see that happen

my point exactly...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

So my concerns about the polarisation it might cause mean nothing because I'm not a conservative?

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 01 2004,19:21)]So my concerns about the polarisation it might cause mean nothing because I'm not a conservative?

no, the point is that so far it's only left-leaning patrons who think that everything is perfectly fine the way they are.

[JAG]

TK what are you trying to say? Instead of silly remarks liek that why not try and back up what you think? I fail to see how right wingers on these boards have their knickers in a twist. The way you all speak you would think they were socialist party members

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]I think it's fair to summise that the left wing patrons will vote for left wing moderators, and the right wing patrons will vote for right wing ones. This will then lead to a moderating team that is half left wing and half right wing

So then it is your position that no matter what political leaning a mod has they will be impartial but the rest of the community will vote only along political lines and will not be impartial? As for me I would not vote for someone just because they are conservative. I would like I hope the rest of us out there would look for those who I consider fair and impartial.

Quote[/b] ]Not only is there the danger that this will cause bias, but if the moderating team was split so, there is a danger that it would simply not function effectively, and spend most of its time fighting amongst itself.

You mean like congress? Would a one sided government be better. It certainly would get more done but would it be fair and impartial?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

correction

Quote[/b] ] I would like I hope the rest of us out there would look for those who I consider fair and impartial.

Of course I meant that you consider fair and impartial. Although like BK pointed out if you would look for those who I consider fair and impartial more would get done

[JAG]

Gawain do you see Capo and his ilk voting for people on the basis of fair and impartial not political leanings? ...

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (JAG @ June 01 2004,19:40)]Gawain do you see Capo and his ilk voting for people on the basis of fair and impartial not political leanings? ...

ah the old democracy is not reliable argument?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ June 02 2004,00:29)]

Quote[/b] ]I think it's fair to summise that the left wing patrons will vote for left wing moderators, and the right wing patrons will vote for right wing ones. This will then lead to a moderating team that is half left wing and half right wing

So then it is your position that no matter what political leaning a mod has they will be impartial but the rest of the community will vote only along political lines and will not be impartial? As for me I would not vote for someone just because they are conservative. I would like I hope the rest of us out there would look for those who I consider fair and impartial.

Quote[/b] ]Not only is there the danger that this will cause bias, but if the moderating team was split so, there is a danger that it would simply not function effectively, and spend most of its time fighting amongst itself.

You mean like congress? Would a one sided government be better. It certainly would get more done but would it be fair and impartial?

That last part is the whole point-the moderating team at the moment is both fair and effective because politics has nothing to do with it. They're just people who've been selected.

This will be my final word on the subject, as I've just realised that I have a big conflict of interests. I've said what I think is important-do what you will.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]That last part is the whole point-the moderating team at the moment is both fair and effective because politics has nothing to do with it

Says you.

Quote[/b] ] They're just people who've been selected.

By who thats the whole point? Can you imagine if Bush could appoint the whole US congress and supreme court justices on his own?

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 01 2004,19:45)]That last part is the whole point-the moderating team at the moment is both fair and effective because politics has nothing to do with it. They're just people who've been selected.

This will be my final word on the subject, as I've just realised that I have a big conflict of interests. I've said what I think is important-do what you will.

I don't see how this really affects you as a moderator BK, you're in the Frontroom where politics isn't involved, and you're doing a damn fine job there might I add.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 02 2004,00:50)]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 01 2004,19:45)]That last part is the whole point-the moderating team at the moment is both fair and effective because politics has nothing to do with it. They're just people who've been selected.

This will be my final word on the subject, as I've just realised that I have a big conflict of interests. I've said what I think is important-do what you will.

I don't see how this really affects you as a moderator BK, you're in the Frontroom where politics isn't involved, and you're doing a damn fine job there might I add.

Quote[/b] ] Each room in the Tavern should conduct its own election.

The elections would be held in the frontroom as well. Therefore, I would be affected.

Thanks for the compliment.

[JAG]

Gawain I fear I have to tell you this, this is not real life, this is not politics. This is a forum. What Bush should be allowed to do or not to do has no affect what so ever on a forum for a gaming site, I think you are slightly taking this too far. The context of Bush being able to select who he wants and the context here of administrators choosing who they want is completely different, and I hope you see it.

Quote[/b] ]That last part is the whole point-the moderating team at the moment is both fair and effective because politics has nothing to do with it


Says you.

Says you - that it is different. Wow arn't we big and clever saying 'says you'. The fact Squippy could make a post in the other thread which was equally convincing as any you have made on the attitude of mods, I think shows the true situation. Sat picked up on it - the mods are infact right where they should be, no side is happy because no side has it all their own way, and that is right.

Quote[/b] ]ah the old democracy is not reliable argument?

But this is not to elect people to govern, this is to elect people who are MEANT TO BE FAIR AND EQUAL AND NOT BE BIASED. Surely you can see my point?

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 01 2004,19:53)]

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 02 2004,00:50)]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 01 2004,19:45)]That last part is the whole point-the moderating team at the moment is both fair and effective because politics has nothing to do with it. They're just people who've been selected.

This will be my final word on the subject, as I've just realised that I have a big conflict of interests. I've said what I think is important-do what you will.

I don't see how this really affects you as a moderator BK, you're in the Frontroom where politics isn't involved, and you're doing a damn fine job there might I add.

Quote[/b] ] Each room in the Tavern should conduct its own election.

The elections would be held in the frontroom as well. Therefore, I would be affected.

Thanks for the compliment.

Well I disagree about the Frontroom, I think it should only apply to the Tavern Tavern.

Politics has nothing to do with the Frontroom, therefore the political leanings of the mods there are irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ]Quote
ah the old democracy is not reliable argument?


But this is not to elect people to govern, this is to elect people who are MEANT TO BE FAIR AND EQUAL AND NOT BE BIASED. Surely you can see my point?

Ah but that is the point. You're saying that because Capo is a little wacked out in the head he is incapable of electing an impartial mod.

And just one more thing, who exactly are the people complaining that Sat of all people is too conservative?

[Dhepee]

I think that a fundamental point that is missing from this thread, one that Barocca made in another thread, Link. This is a gaming site, not a political site. The entire reason for being of the Org is to discuss the Total War games. This site is not a government or a public corporation, it is run solely at the discretion of the Admins. The Admins maintain the site and keep it up and they appoint the staff as they see fit. Any member joins at the discretion and subject to the rules of the Admins and no one else. Comparing the administration of the Tavern, or any part of the Org, to a national government is incorrect.

This site is a private enterprise not a government. It exists at the sole will of its directors and is solely administered by their will. Like any private enterprise if you do not like how it is administered you are free to go as you hold no controlling interest in it, either shares or citizenship. If your local movie theater requires that you buy a popcorn and soda every time you watch a movie you don't get to vote on it or change the managers you either buy the buy the popcorn and soda or find a different movie theater.

This is the single best fansite that I have ever seen for a game in terms of content, freedom in the forums, and longevity and that is due in large part to the decisions that the Admins make. The vast majority of members seem happy and it is only a vocal minority that wants to change things. I think that this is a situation of "like it or lump it" and I hope that the Admins don't start ceding control because ultimately it would be bad for the Org.

[A.Saturnus]

As you have probably already guessed, I´m against the idea. But I was already against elections before I was a Mod. That isn´t the first time the idea comes up. There´s no need for democracy at a gaming forum and certainly not restricted elections for the Tavern. Or do you elect the barkeeper in your local pub? Democracy at a gaming forum is only for roleplaying.
I also don´t think that will actually solve any problems. If the liberal members of the Tavern vote a liberal moderator, do you think the conservative members will then agree to everything that Mod does, just because he has been elected? Do you usually agree with your elected politician? Have you seen an impartial politican lately? BTW, a Mod shouldn´t be a politican, he should be a judge. And I don´t think judges should be elected.

[Duke John]

What of this radical approach of looking at this proposal?

TosaInu and barocca provide us all with these forums. They do not get money for this. The banners you see at the front side are put there because the host demands that as "rent" for hosting.

They spent their free time trying to run everything here as smoothly as possible. Then whose right is it to choose moderators? The people who make this all happen or the people who only receive?

Cheers, Duke John

ps Wohoo, just noticed that another smily of mine is uploaded: