Note: I'm not really sure if this was suggested recently, but here we go anyways.
So, my question is...what if we elected Vizzed staff?
I'm more than definitely sure that it would be for high positions such as Owner, but maybe like Site Staff, and moderators. It would really be interesting because people can have campaigns and other things.
What do you think? Bad idea? Great idea? Who are you, mario102?

That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Why? Bias. What if there's an awful member that just has lots of friends? They would get elected and suck.

On a side note, Faded4Owner2015

TheFadedWarrior : Well, I see someone took my question seriously. But you have to understand, anyone can vote. Anyone can run. There are many people in the real world that have many friends and might get elected for something. You wanna know a great example? Myself. I was elected class president and many people said it was because of the number of friends I have. So I really see your point.

mario102 : Well, for site staff being selected, the higher power choose who should be a staff member. As for a new owner if David decides to retire (which won't happen for a very very very very long time, close to never), He will hand-pick a replacement person to take over his site which could be a family member of his, one of the admins, or just give it to me.

For me, I don't vote for friend biasness, I vote them in if they have done a really good job on the site.

IgorBird122 : Now, what about moderators? Should we elect those? I'm sure that it would be easy to do. Some sort of "Vizzed Council".

mario102 : This how it goes...

Site staff get elected by other site staffs and higher
Local Mods get elected by Global Mods and higher
Global Mods get elected by Admins and higher
Admins get elected by David himself

I don't feel like this is such a good idea... The problem with this not only people getting elected by friends but this could cause a bunch of problems especially if the certian member elected is not trust worthy .. breaks rules ... or is an overall bad member or even possibly a hacker (the hacker part is more unlikely but still possible).

Honestly I feel like we have a great staff and moderator team as it is and if more mods or staff do get hired it's up to the staff+ to decide on whether or not the person picked is trustworthy and/or meets the requirements. If elections were held there would be all kinds of rules that would have to be placed especially because there would end up being a 10 year old who gets elected as mod and you have to be 16 + to be considered as moderator among other rules. Overall this idea is not a good one and that's just my honest opinion.

So, it seems that most people don't approve of this idea.
IgorBird122 : That idea seems more realistic than everyone voting, so props for you.
Bintsy : Of course, if someone were to break the rules, they could be banned. The age was also something that I was thinking about, so it would probably not work.
After all, this would have to go straight to David if this were to become real. But from what I'm seeing, it's not even close!

I'll honestly say that the idea is interesting.

I would be in favor of it in a limited capacity. Like 1 person would get elected to be a moderator instead of using this method to pick 4 or 5 mods. However, just because someone was "elected" doesn't mean they remain as a staff member long term. Like others have pointed out there are concerns related to this method. Just because someone gets voted in doesn't mean they will be a good moderator.

However, I would be willing to give this idea a shot with the right limitations put in place. Might be interesting to see who the board members would vote in versus who the global+ group would pick.

geeogree : Right. Elections can take place every so often, like yearly, quarterly, or whatever. Many people here seem afraid that someone bad might be elected. I feel if so, a petition must be put in place, and if a specific number of people support it, then the "bad" moderator should be dealt with.

well, I don't know if it would need to go that far really. I would figure out pretty quickly if someone was a bad moderator. I have my sources of information

And we likely would hold an "election" when needing to replace only 1 or 2 people. This would probably be an easier process for the mods than a normal application is.

Anyway, I'm interested in seeing more feedback on this and possibly trying it out to see what happens.

geeogree : From what you said ... it made me interested myself. If it was held in a limited capacity it would probably be better.

I think the reason you don't see this happen at all on online forums is because the responsibilities of the moderators and site staffs themselves are directed towards what the owner wants, not what the rest of the site's wants. It is seen as a job to operate the site rather than a position of power. Just like other employments, they are not elected in by the common people because it is all about what the employer desires in the position. The examples of president (or in your case, class president) is that your responsibilities are directed towards the common people (or your fellow students). The common people becomes the standard and the employer. But when it comes to positions like the cabinet, those are picked by the president because those positions have the president's standards to decide employment, to work under the president's power and then their understaff are also appointed by the cabinet. They can persuade the president to their opinions, but ultimately the president makes the final decisions. 

Let me bring a couple more examples: I, as a teacher, am responsible of teaching my students, but the students don't set the standard, but the principal and the district in deciding whether I fit my position. So the students don't vote for me, but it is decided by the district. If I am a customer service employee, my responsibility lies with serving customers, but the standard lies with the boss of the company. So the customers don't vote me in to the position, but the employer or the company decides my employment.

Same thing goes for Vizzed. Employment ultimately comes down to the owner, David, and he sets the standard of who fits the position, not the site members, nor is it a popularity contest.

Bintsy : yeah. If we were to use this idea at all it would be very limited. I don't want the entire moderator group to be elected. That doesn't sound like a good idea at all.

However, picking 1 or 2 on occasion in this method could be beneficial.

Thinking about it even more here are some of the things I would likely require:
Age - 16+ (to match the way the app is now)
Trusted member (most likely regular members wouldn't be picked anyway so this rule may be pointless)
We (being the global+ group) would have first viewing of the potential candidates and would reserve the right to veto people based on past indiscretions. While this likely wouldn't weed out many it would weed out the most problematic users who are unbanned.
And to what I said before - even if someone did get elected that doesn't guarantee them a permanent position until a future election. They would get treated like any other staff member under my watch and if I'm not satisfied then they are out the door. Simple as that.


I'm liking this idea more and more. Not sure how people would "campaign".... maybe an ask anything thread would be allowed or something. This is getting interesting

geeogree : Yeah that's what I was thinking.. if an entire moderator group was elected that would probably cause more problems than anything that is needed. Yeah the veto thing sounds like a good idea.. I mean it would get rid of some of the people who are problematic.

Well a staff + member possibly you or somebody you would prefer make it.. could make a Ask Anything  where people couple post and say they would like to run. We could give people a certian amount of time to let us know who would want to run and then after that's finished and globals+ veto and discuss it .. another thread can be created listing the people who are running and everyone would then be aloud to place their vote on who they want elected.

Not sure if that's really an ideal way to go about it but I wouldn't know any other way unless somebody trustworthy didn't mind getting their PM's box spammed with messages from people stating who they wanted elected.

Bintsy : well, there could be just 1 ask anything thread where people could summon the candidates and ask them questions.

And the voting threads are all anonymous (even to me) so we could easily hold an "open" vote. However, the only problem with that is that people would be able to see the progress as the votes came in which might sway things. Hard to know until we actually did it.

geeogree : Oh yeah I had forgotten about the Poll threads where you can list things and people can vote. And yeah makes sense.

I see the benefits of a system, but I worry heavily about the drawbacks.

While it's easy enough to tell who is and isn't a good or bad moderator once they start the job, sometimes, it can take a while to promote (or more importantly demote) somebody once they have been chosen for their specific change...

I think at its base, it's not a horrid idea, let the community voice what they themselves want in a moderator, and let the globals+ decide if it is in the best interests of the community to go through with it.

As a member of the community, there is just no way the Globals can be everywhere. They can't appreciate everyone, and they might not see the good a specific member does. A couple moderators in the past year, I know weren't heavily favored to begin with, but were clearly great choices from the start. That's not a blast on the globals, that's more a credit to the size of the community, that a group of 3-5 people can't see everything that's happening at once.

I'm in favor of the idea, provided that the globals+ are on the ball, and make sure to keep an eye on the community "nomination" as it were, before any such promotion (I figure this is what would happen, but I figure it is best to voice said opinion).

Well, for site staff positions this idea is useless. In that position, we want someone capable of doing his/her role, and the way to demonstrate it is by giving proof of their work. No campaign needed.

For local mods it could be used, as everyone said, in a limited way. David said he could maybe add new forums to the boards, which would require 2-3 more local mods in his words, so we would already have the imposed limitation in effect.

On another note, the last time that there were applications open for the local mod position, earlier this year, it took quite some time to select a few mods out of no more than 20 applicants. If this idea can shorten that timespan, it's another good point, seeing how site staff elections are way faster than local mod elections currently (I admit they are also a lot easier for what I said at the beginning).

As for the poll system, I don't think it would sway things that much. Even if you can see the progress, is more than probable you wouldn't change your vote if they were visible. If your candidate is winning, vote him/her to widen the gap against the competitors, and if your candidate is losing, support him/her to not lose track of the rivals. 

The other problem it (might) eliminate is the complaining about who got picked.

Take the decision out of the global+ hands and give it to the general membership of the forums. That way people can't cry about bias or favoratism from the staff itself. I really like this potential benefit In the end the person who is picked is the result of the membership of the forum and not the choice of 3-5 people.

Also, those concerned with someone using their current popularity to somehow win.... the point of an election is to gain support. 1 person might have a small pocket of support that seems big but this side has thousands of members. We have hundreds of people who have posted in the last month. Someone with a dozen friends can't win outright without a lot of support from "undecided" votes