Who Wants to be a Mod?

[TrustAndObey]

Sophia doesn't want to do it either?

The list looks good.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Out of that list, 3 have expressed wanting to do it.

 

[tall73]

No, Sophia does not want to either.

Anyone interested in seconding Jim?

I think he is pretty reasonable. He has been gone a bit for the summer, but I think he will be back soon.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Jimlarmore?

 

[TrustAndObey]

I will second Jimlarmore if that's who you're referring to.

 

[tall73]

Yup.

Alright well then we need to find out if the others are even interested.



Reddogs-Nominated by NightEternal
Seconded by Honor (and OntheDL)

Mjona3-Nominated by TrustAndObey (in a different thread)
Seconded by NightEternal

IceDragon101-Nominated by NightEternal
Seconded by TrustAndObey

StormyOne-Nominated by Mjona3
Seconded by TrustAndObey

TheCountryDoc-Nominated by TrustAndObey
Seconded by Jon0388g

IntotheCrimsonSky Nominated by tall73
Seconded by TrustandObey

JimLarmore Nominated by tall73
Seconded by TrustandObey

 

[TrustAndObey]

I'll PM the ones that haven't said, because they might not even know they were nominated.

 

[tall73]

Yup, was just thinking that! Just let us know how it turns out, or better yet they could come and accept or decline.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I gave them the link to this thread and asked them to come here because they have been nominated and seconded.

 

[StormyOne]

lol.... sure..... this is gonna be interesting...

 

[sentipente]

lol.... sure..... this is gonna be interesting...

Just check your membership card at the door.

 

[Sophia7]

This might be a good option. However, an outsider does not understand the dynamics involved in differing SDA theology, much less the social dynamic going on here.

Since much of the disputation arises from doctrine and different SDA worldviews, someone who isn't familiar with our church will not be able to mod as effectively.

At least have the majority of mods be Adventist.

At this point it may be very difficult to get someone from outside.

It wouldn't take much to spot a personal attacks and flames. The theological discussions are not what we want to avoid. It's the unchristian comments we want to do away with.

I think it would be good to have both Adventists and non-Adventists in this position. It is important in some cases to have people who understand Adventist doctrine (regardless of whether they are TSDA or PSDA), but really that's only a small part of the job. It doesn't take an Adventist to recognize flaming or to identify when a non-SDA is debating in opposition to the rules, for example. In the past, we haven't had enough mods to assign only people of specific denominations to the congregational forums. We have always had some non-SDA mods in the SDA forum, and they've done a great job. They also have the advantage of not aligning themselves with either the Traditionals or Progressives on certain controversial issues, which can be good as far as the way people perceive their actions.

My recommendation would be to put in at least five or six mods in order to facilitate a good representation of viewpoints in reports and to minimize accusations of bias. That should be better now anyway since the reports are open to the public, and everyone can see how things work. The report process is not normal right now due to all the changes, but I think if we had enough mods in the SDA forum, it would run a lot more smoothly. It probably will be necessary to vote in some non-Adventists if we can find any who are willing.

What I wouldn't want to see is only one or two Adventist mods here if that were all that we could find. We need more than that, and we also need to have a balance between Traditionals and Progressives in order to minimize accusations of bias. Good mods separate their personal beliefs from their staff responsibilities, but, even so, perceptions of bias still exist. Until now, mods were not allowed to talk publicly about anything that happened in reports, but now everyone can see them, so that aspect should improve. Still, I think it would be good to keep things as balanced as possible.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Maybe we should ask each nominated person what they consider themselves to be? Traditonal or Progressive?

I have a list of questions I'd like to ask each potential mod. Can we interview them?

 

[Sophia7]

i agree. i am not for outside mods. Lets keep it within SDA.

I think my post several pages back got ignored. so i will post again.

What behind the scenes things do mods do? How does it all work? I am curious.

Happy, I really don't know the procedures here either honestly.

I know there are channels when someone is about to get banned, but I don't know if mods can make decisions independently when it comes to editing posts or deleting them, etc.

I don't know, but we could ask Tall or Sophia when they come around again.

I'll tell you how things used to work. When a report would come in, all staff members assigned to that forum would get an automatic PM with a link to the report thread. Then the mods were supposed to weigh in on whether they thought the post was a rule violation or not and what should be done about it. Mods were never supposed to make decisions independently (unless, for example, there was a clear case of trolling by a new member, which would warrant an e-ban). The consensus would determine whether a post should be deleted or edited, whether a member should get a warning, infraction, FSB, etc. (Only supervisors were allowed to issue infractions, FSBs, and normal bans.) The protocol was also clearly defined as far as how many infractions it took to mandate a temporary or permanent ban. Because it took time to gather opinions, sometimes reports were not handled as quickly as people would have liked.

Now that there is no CF-wide warning system, things are quite different. Basically, what the mods are doing currently is either deleting posts or asking people to edit them. FSBs and other bans can still be used, but it's somewhat unclear as to when they should be used, especially since there are no more records of warnings or infractions to go by in making such decisions. Still, the mods assigned to a specific forum are supposed to weigh in with their opinions before anything is decided. A lot of forums are short on mods, though, especially since many staff members have quit due to the changes at CF.

I do think that it's good to have the reports open to the public, so everyone can see how the process works. This will be especially important once things calm down, and the rules are more settled. Right now some of the reports are just continuations of arguments from the threads.

 

[StormyOne]

Maybe we should ask each nominated person what they consider themselves to be? Traditonal or Progressive?

I have a list of questions I'd like to ask each potential mod. Can we interview them?

if from my 1200+ posts here one cannot determine where I am on most things, then there might be a problem....

 

[sentipente]

Calling Houston.

 

[TrustAndObey]

if from my 1200+ posts here one cannot determine where I am on most things, then there might be a problem....

Rather than going through 1200+ posts, I'd rather just ask for an answer.

 

[Sophia7]

Maybe we should ask each nominated person what they consider themselves to be? Traditonal or Progressive?

I have a list of questions I'd like to ask each potential mod. Can we interview them?

What some of the other forums are doing is setting up a poll thread in which to vote and an interview thread in which people can ask questions. These are done individually for each nominee. Here is the current temporary procedure that has been set up for mod elections:

BELOW IS THE CURRENT PROCEDURE

1. This current guideline is only in effect until the community establishes WIKI guidelines for holding moderator elections, and no later than December 31, 2007.

2. Moderators elected under this guideline keep their positions until December 31, 2007.

3. These guidelines will only serve for election of moderators outside of the Congregational Forums, and for forums which do not have election guidelines already established in their respective WIKI's.

4. To receive a nomination, a candidate must approach or be approached by a moderator and receive their support.

5. The supporting moderator will start two threads.

a. A poll with two options. "Yes" and "Apply Later".​

b. A thread for Q&A with the candidate. In this thread there will be no more than ONE primary post per member (questions or statements)--with the ONLY exception being ONE additional post for one of the following reasons:​

1. to ask ONE follow up question (must be directly related to the original question)​

2. to clarify the orignial question IF asked by the applicatant, or​

3. to recant a statement made by the member in the original post the member made.​

c. While the application itself is no longer necessary, it might be usefull to use the old mod application to glean some of the questions for the applicant.​

6. The poll and Q&A threads will remain open for 7 days. At this point they will be closed.

7. The poll thread will be used ONLY for voting purposes. The only posts to be made in this thread are to indicate a change in voting. All other posts will be moved to the Q&A thread.

8. At the end of the seven days, the votes will be tabulated. Greater than 70% approval (Yes votes) will result in the candidate being elected. This option is chosen over a simple majority (50% +1%) to avoid polarizing the fora. 70% or greater demonstrates a wide degree of acceptance of the candidate.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36936882&postcount=1

As I understand it, the congregational forums are supposed to set up their own guidelines, but those that don't have any yet can use these.

 

[StormyOne]

Rather than going through 1200+ posts, I'd rather just ask for an answer.

why? people can "say" anything if they want something bad enough.... you have a body of "evidence" through which I have answered probably every question you would want to ask..

 

[TrustAndObey]

Thanks Sophia! I was hoping we'd have something just like that.