User-Elected Staff

Have you ever considered having a system where you (and/or your current staff team) nominates members they find to be suitable to bring onto the moderator team, and then let the members vote and elect the moderator(s) of their choice?

 

I've taken suggestions from my existing staff and then chose the person I felt would handle the place keeping as close as possible to my own vision for it. I don't think putting it up to a vote is a good idea... for one, it would turn into a popularity contest, and two, it would give the users the idea that the forum is a democracy. (And while I'm happy to listen to suggestions from my users, I can't let every decision go to a vote.)

 

Well, in the past Pisoga staff was elected by users. When I was made mod, I had some insight in modship, so I created my own view on the kinds of mod, one of these being the 'popularity' mods. At the time I defined them as mods who are chosen by the public on a poll or just simply by posting on a thread, which ever user had more mention. Ultimately these guys can become power abusers due to lack of properly 'wanting' modship and earning it by admin mention. On Pisoga we had popularity mod contests, and to be honest, all the mods who were chosen by contests are demoded. Two of them were demoded because of power abuse, another one NEVER banned on the chat and the last one chose to leave.

The users do have a voice, but the staff is staff, and since they are the site's staff they know what it's best for the site, because at the moment THEY are the best.

 

I don't know if I'd implement such a system.

When it comes to choosing staff team members, I am excruciatingly picky. While I will indeed take recommendations and/or suggestions from members, I generally tend to use a combination of both my standardized requirements and recommendations from the existing staff team.

 

Yes, I take recommendation from staff and the standard requirements. Though my point of view on the user influences the decision.

 

The only reason I tend to not take suggestions from the members is because I find that they can, at times, be a bit too biased. For example: they could be recommending the forum's most popularly known user, but he/she may not be viable for such a position.

 

Exactly. This, fails. I know a site who does this and the site is EPIC failure.

 

That's why I put a little twist in my post and said that you (or your current staff team) devise a list of nominees - members that meet your requirements and you would gladly bring onto the team - and let the members vote from this group of nominees.

I guess this is good when you only need one or two moderators but have a handful to choose from.

 

Not my cup of tea. I prefer to do the picking myself.

 

Not my exact method I'd like to follow, but I ever had a member recommend a possible staff member, I will keep close eyes on that member and maybe appoint him/her as a moderator.

 

Me too, however I do like to -hear- what the community has to say as well.

 

I have found that election of mods is much the same as elections in our western sociaty. It's all about popularity and not about competence.
We tried this on one or two forums, always with the same result: it didn't work out in the end.
There is a quote that I don't quite remember; it went a little bit like this:
You are suitable for having power if you don't want it, but since you don't want it, you won't get it, because only those that want it, get it.

 

We already do that.

The new staff and moderators are elected by the other staff and moderators. Then I give the final approval.

 

This is pretty much how I go about selecting new staff members, as well (although, I've had staff members choose some pretty "odd" candidates, let's just put it that way).

 

A lot of times users would tend to nominate popular people, without really understanding the implications of their choice. From the perspective of a forum owner, they might seem completely unsuitable.

 

I don't think i would ever allow members/users to elect staff or influence my decision. However, any possible recruitment's would (after I have made a selection) go through staff for their thoughts on the matter and whether they can work with the possible staff member.

 

What are the tasks/roles of the staff you are thinking of having members choose?

If it is moderating member behavior, member election is a recipe for disaster. Mods are in a position of authority over members. That is a change from a position as equals in friendship. Members don't respect their friend's authority more, rather they expect breaks and favoritism. The mod has to choose between the friendship and being effective as mod. This is how friendships are lost - or mods just don't mod.

The most effective mods can make recommendations for other effective mods - and likely it may be people they know, but not that well, because they recognize the above conflict.

If instead the role is strictly expert, mentor, advisor, not behavior-police, then members might have good insights. Let them recommend, not choose. Their choices may be impractical and then it's hard to fulfill the promise.

 

When it comes down to having existing staff team members recommend and/or choose members for newly created positions, there are a few questions I like to ask myself before making a final decision.

1) Are the recommended/suggested members "active"?

There are two ways in which I define the activity levels exerted by members:

• The "Positive" Activity - Members are not only dedicating their time towards the community, but they are making logical, well-written posts on a daily basis. They are liked by the community and have built an excellent reputation over time (or, if they are newly registered, have begun building this successfully). These individuals are also friendly and personable, offering positive feedback and logically defending their position when put into an argumentative/debatable scenario without causing disruption to the community.
• The "Negative" Activity - Members dedicate their time towards the community, but in turn, make posts that are of low quality. These individuals have no problem with arguing and/or debating freely, and feel that they are above the rest of the community when it comes to the passion and/or dedication that they have put into the forum. The feedback given is generally not useful or helpful, and they believe that posts composed of three words or less are of "high quality".

Obviously, I'd rather promote members that exert high levels of "positive" activity - by doing so, both the community and the staff team will benefit greatly.

2) Do these members relay a sense of logic and maturity?

I (personally) cannot stand dealing with members who are immature to an extreme extent (i.e. always causing trouble, bashing fellow members, posting messages that are of little to no value, etc). Because of this, I'll only consider staff recommendations that are for members who are mature and logical in thought. If a fellow staff member were to recommend one of the more immature members of the board, I'd not only decline the recommendation, but I'd also question the logic behind it. What would drive that individual to make such a suggestion? Why?

3) Do these members have "growth potential"?

Let's say that I decide to take the community to the next level - meaning making wildly extravagant changes to not only the discussion forum, but the overall structure, as well. If I were to do so, and if I were to promote these recommended members, would they be able to deal with the change? Would they rather stick with the current structure, or would they be willing to "go with the flow", so to speak? In other words, I'd be looking for members who'd be flexible in such a situation.

Furthermore, if I were to promote these members, what would they have (knowledge-wise) to bring to the table? Assisting the community in growing is crucial, and if these individuals aren't up for the task, I'd rather not have them working with me.

 

We do not allow members any votes on staff.

If we need a new moderator (on Cable Forum) we advertise for applicants, and then the existing admins make a decision. On vb.org we generally (tho not always) pick from the advisors. The current admins make the decision.

 

You know I almost hate to say it, but the only recommendation I look for from a member as to moderating staff is "not a good idea." A couple of times a member was able to tell me something about a potential mod candidate that showed the candidate to be totally unsuitable, something I needed to know but would not have had they not spoken up.