geeogree : So, if this idea were to be used, it would only be used to pick 1 moderator right? It wouldn't be used for picking out staff? The reason I'm asking this is because I definitely feel like this idea shouldn't be used for picking staff because quite honestly, I don't think that certain members would look at the quality of work that a certain user would make for whatever position they're trying to get, and instead would just pick one of their friends.
I had the same concerns for moderator, but after reading your posts here, I'm starting to think this might be an alright idea, as long as the person who's nominated is closely monitored. As far as the poll is concerned, perhaps make it so that users can't change their vote once they've cast it?

#Maguc4LocalMod
#Maguc4GlobalMod
#Maguc4Admin
#Maguc4KingOfVizzed

gamerforlifeforever2 : if triune or David want to use this method that is up to them. I doubt they would though. Site staff positions aren't more qualification based than moderator spots are.

Any new mods are monitored regardless of how they are selected so being voted for wouldn't change anything.

That's probably what I would do. And likely the votes would be sent to the global inbox so that it wouldn't require one person to handle all the vote counting.

maguc : if you can get enough support for local then by all means. The rest of the spots wouldn't change on how you get them.

play4fun : Your arguments make sense, but there is one flaw: to my knowledge, David doesn't hire Locals, Globals and Admins do and Locals are employees of David so to speak. That said, it's basically the same thing as an election only on a much more private scale.


As for my thoughts, I agree with geeogree that it has potential if used properly. I personally would want to see a lot of safeguards put in place first however.

geeogree : How about having people nominate themselves by filling out an app, then you could copy/paste them into an election thread? That way only qualifying members could be voted on to begin with, plus the Global+ members could weed out any "toxic" members beforehand. After that point it would be entirely up to the general board members to pick.

For me personally this is along the ideas of picking a class president.. 

1.People put themselves forward so that everyone knows who is "Competing" for the position
2. People not up for "election" than have the chance to perhaps mention other people they may think are suitable
3. Candidates are then asked a series of questions on what they would do etc, and make the results public. 
4. A vote is then carried out to see who people would like/deserve to be mod
5. Globals + (maybe even locals) then decide based on that information,

I feel that this is an interesting idea, As for people voting in their friends for roles.. I don't think it'll be that much of an issue, Mainly due to the necessary regulations a user has to meet to actually be able to apply. I also think it will take the blame from locals and higher ups if the person people feel got hired doesn't deserve it as it'll be a community vote and not one done by a few people. 

Honestly the thing that appeals to me is the asking and answering of questions for all to see. Because then people can see who thinks what about the site, how it can improve, what that views are on etc... Basically getting to know the people better, It can work against people who just bandwagon on other peoples ideas and it can go for people that have a bad name as well to redeem themselves as well.

Plus most importantly it might actually bring the community together.. You never know! 

sonicmcmuffin : You forgot a crucial step.
Let's call it 3.5
3.5. Say whatever you want as long as you have a funny response/are popular.

Staff+ are the only qualified because they know how things work behind the scenes.
The community really doesn't know a lot of the inner workings that keep vizzed going day to day.

We are looking to pick qualified people that reflect positively of the site and staff.
When we consider and ultimately decide who is chosen, we look at more than just a person's popularity.
Staff+ also shouldn't just be part of a checklist....

[x] 10 Posts
[x] 100 Posts
[x] 1000 Posts
[ ] Site Staff....

play4fun : Uh, wow. That's one of the most detailed and well-written responses that I have ever read. However, I feel that anyone can run, but it should be slimmed down to people who have good reasons. Last year, my sister ran for class president (she's in a lower grade). There were also many other people who wanted to run (like 30). The teachers slimmed the number down to 5 by speeches. So, whoever had the best speeches, or reasons, according to the teachers, now could really run. I never did something like that, but that's because only 8 people ran in the entire grade. The "teacher", David, could pick and choose who could run. It would be a semi-private election.
sonicmcmuffin : You realize that I was discussing a middle (secondary) school election. You should also understand that when you're in the 6th grade, popularity might mean everything in the elections. However, those steps make sense. We could have small debates, whether it be on the forums or chat rooms.
Uh, write-in votes anyone? I think that that could always be on option, but when has a write-in candidate ever won? 
Vanelan : You make a good case.
gamerforlifeforever2 : Well, it certainly wouldn't be used to vote everyone. I'm sure we can only do this for a small group of staff.
geeogree : If someone were to complain that they didn't win, that's their problem. Nobody should be complaining that they didn't win.
IgorBird122 : That's a good idea, but the users should have some say.

What if we did something like the Electoral Collage in the United States? Maybe someone is good with the users, but the higher powers (Admins, Mods, etc.) favor another user to be staff?

mario102 : We do have a sort of electoral college. The Staff+
And anyone can "run."
You have to apply for the positions.

Eirinn : That's actually called a committee, which is distinct from a general election. It is exactly analogous to the examples that I gave because the standard and the final decision still stays with the person in charge, and not the general public. When locals are selected, the globals are basically the committee that David entrusts to pick the right people for the job. The process is also not as simple as the top people with the most votes in the committee gets the position. There are discussions of candidates and people can change their mind. To add to that, David can (and has many times) vetoed people who were in the run for moderator, even when they seem to be on the way to being selected. As he's the one who needs to program people in, he would have the final say of the selection. So it still works the same way as employment, when we want to select people based on ability, not majority acceptance.

mario102 : Again, the issue here is more about who actually decides who should be selected. The goal is to pick the right person for the job, not majority acceptance, and for a site or for a job position, the person who has that ability should be someone who determines the direction of the direction of the site and the job, and that is the owner. 

The school election example doesn't fit here because school elections are trying to pick someone that's right for the student body. The teacher, other than making sure that everything fits under school policy and act as an adviser, is unaffected by what the results of the election are. It affects the student body. The same thing with national elections. Those are there so that the people can have the power to decide who should lead them in their country. For completely free elections, they basically are the standard of what direction the country should be going. But after that point, after determining who "has" the country, all of his advisers are decided by him or by his assistants, not by general election.

That is not the case when it comes to positions for private institutions and companies. A store doesn't let their customers vote on who should be hired, a principal doesn't let their school kids to vote on who their new hired teacher should be, and an organization doesn't let the public vote on who the chairperson or committee member should be. Since the focus on the staff and the mod positions are about what David wants those positions to be doing and their responsibilities, the decision to select people for these positions should not be given to the members unless David lets the vision of his site to be left for people who signed onto the site.

play4fun : First off, my apologies if I seemed to be challenging you. And as I said, I could only guess how the elections would go since I've never been involved in it.

However, technical terms and points (though valid) aside, in the end a committee is a form of a vote which is what I was getting at. All I'm saying is that this idea frightens me a little (lol), but if handled right...there isn't much to lose in trying it one time.

I've thought of a potential idea that would make this quite interesting for the general membership.

The vote would happen every 3-4 months allowing 3-4 new mods per year. So, if we did one of these I would expect we would have the vote in December and the mod would start in January. Very scheduled sort of thing.

Now, the person who won would become a local mod for the allotted time (either 3 or 4 months). At the end of that time frame the global mods and above could choose to keep or remove that person from their spot. If kept they would become permanent just like any other mod. If removed they would lose their mod status and become Vizzed Elite (which might help strengthen that forum a bit ).

In this way we could combine both methods into 1 basically. People would submit their candidacy. The staff would review each application and then the candidates would have a short period of time to "campaign". Then the vote would happen and the mod would be promoted. After 3 months (give or take) that mod would get reviewed again by the global+ group to determine if they have been good enough to stay on as a mod.

This gives some control to each group. The general membership gets the chance to vote on someone they think would make a good moderator and the global+ would have control over whether or not to keep the mod (which is put entirely in that mods control based on how they perform over the 3 month period).

Thoughts?

geeogree : Looks like a good idea. It would help to bring fresh mods to the roster every so often.

Allotted time of 3 months seems nice for me, but I'm more of starting the voting on a post-TdV month, to make the site more active after the breakdown, have the first month as a test and then a TdV month to really see if that mod is up to the task and then a final cooldown month (which many will say that can be skipped).

We could use this idea to find a replacement for EM in the threads he was tasked with modding. If we did, I'm in for saying the voting should be in November, so December serves as a period to get used to the new powers, duties and whatnot and January starts the fun with a TdV and extra dedication needed.

EX Palen : fair enough. You wouldn't want their first month to be a TdV month. The timing we will have to work out. We also have to wait to see when David finishes some more of his back end features so that I can take care of all of this on my own. That'll help a lot

i think if we were to do this it should be required that candidates be trusted members 

Sounds like a good idea. Then again, probably not. It would be soft of unfair.

Staff members do campaign to the only people that matter in this situation, the admins and globals. Why bother mucking up the new posts with "vote for ender! He's the attractive, cynical red-head that this site needs!"? Why bog down the site with reality show BS as people get offended, people lie, and people parade themselves around like peacocks for the sake of an election? Vizzed doesn't need this

ender44 : That's precisely the same point that I was trying to make.

ender44 :

Because it's unrealistic to expect the globals, all of whom are adults with lives, to know absolutely everything about the community.

In the end, it's just a nomination platform, to push a candidate that the globals may have missed or know less about.

legacyme3 : I think if anyone did something that should bar them from the position, it should have been reported by someone. Realistically, I don't see a situation where someone capable of the position is completely missed by the globals. Even if, I don't think it's necessary to change the entire system, especially to something like elections, which just sounds like such an annoying process to me. The forums being filled with different posts about "hey, hire me, I'm way better than all those guys"

ender44 :

I think you missed the context of my comment ENTIRELY.

It's not about telling the globals they missed someone who did something bad.

It's about telling the globals that a specific user is super helpful, but the globals are never around to see it. There have been numerous cases over the past year, where a user isn't given enough credit over things they actually did. This gives the community a chance to recognize the good deeds of these users, when the globals may have been too preoccupied to notice.

I don't know how things are now, but back when I was a global, there was so much more to the job than simply paying attention to the community. There was a lot of work to be done, and that left our ability to converse with the community rather limited.

The forums wouldn't even be filled with different posts like that, because it would be up to the globals to dictate the RULES of how it would be done. There's a lot of ways that this can be done, outside of a conventional election, and when the idea is done, I doubt it will be 1:1, the idea that OP suggested, but rather an offshoot of the idea.