Moderator vote - 2016

[Administrator]

Hi all - following on from the moderator nominations, the vote is now open!

The following members have confirmed they'd like to be up for the vote:

@AndBreathe
@Andrew Colvin
@himtoo
@Juicyj
@Spiker
@tim2000s
@urbanracer

The vote is open until March 1, 2016. You can choose up to 5 people when voting (i.e. you can vote for the 5 you'd like to elect).

The 5 people with the most votes will be selected. The remaining 2 people won't be automatically selected, they will replace anyone who drops out of the moderation team, in order of votes.

Please vote above - and thanks for being part of the evolution of the forum! Any problems, please comment or PM @Giverny or this account.

 

[Jaylee]

All great candidate choices..

 

[Bluetit1802]

Bump.
This has already fallen down the order.
Maybe it should be made a sticky and pinned right at the top of the new posts and recent posts?

 

[britishpub]

I think democracy is overrated.

Just tell us who they are, and then we can start moaning about them.

No need to waste time with a vote.

 

[hels]

I'm probably asking a dumb question but how do you vote?

 

[Pipp]

I'm probably asking a dumb question but how do you vote?

Just check the box(es) next to those you would like to see as moderators.

 

[iHs]

Moderating a forum such as this one and holding down a job full time is not something I could do without making mistakes, probably with my work and that is something I would not want to risk.

 

[hels]

Just check the box(es) next to those you would like to see as moderators.

Thanks
I'm on iPad at the moment so can't see boxes. Will log in on PC tomorrow.

 

[Pipp]

Thanks
I'm on iPad at the moment so can't see boxes. Will log in on PC tomorrow.

I am on iPad, too. The boxes are to the left of the names of nominees.

 

[Bluetit1802]

@Administrator

Am I being cynical, or should the voting progress be hidden from everyone until the voting closes? Very open to corruption and tactical voting.

 

[lovinglife]

@Administrator

Am I being cynical, or should the voting progress be hidden from everyone until the voting closes? Very open to corruption and tactical voting.

Just thinking the very same thing

 

[BooJewels]

It seems somewhat churlish to me to even hold a vote. If it's a voluntary position and seven worthy people have put themselves forward to undertake the task out of the goodness of their hearts, then eliminating two of them through a vote seems rather vulgar to me. Can't you just divvy up the responsibilities/forum areas 7 ways instead of 5? If you build in some overlap, that will cover for holiday periods, illness etc.

Edited to add: When you need to choose 5 from 7, it then becomes a negative vote - you're inevitably having to choose the ones you don't want.

 

[zand]

I agree 100% with @BooJewels . There was such a long list of nominees and for whatever reason most of us dropped out. I would like to say 'Thank you' to the remaining 7. I really don't see why 2 of them should be potentially humiliated by not being chosen in a negative vote having bothered to put themselves forward. It isn't at all respectful for them to be treated like this.

 

[tim2000s]

Whilst there's a lot of very friendly disagreement on the page, it's also worth noting that all of the people who agreed to take this forward were aware that it is a vote and therefore are clear how the process works, and we still agreed to be put forward. At the end of the day, it's an internet forum and if you don't get selected by the members who participate, it's not really the end of the world! I'm happy with it not all being "fair and equitable" and if the forum only needs five additional moderators, is it such a big deal? I'll leave @Administrator to provide his thoughts, but my point is that I, as a participant, am comfortable with this approach.

I'd also note that until you vote, you can't see the results so tactical voting is fairly tricky unless you work together as a team to elect someone by having one person vote first and sharing the voting view at that point in time, but maybe I shouldn't have given you ideas

 

[Robinredbreast]

I personally think it should be down to the site's admin and moderators, so lets hope it is all fair and above board regarding the voting system @Administrator

 

[britishpub]

Who has won ?

This is dragging on longer than the US Presidential primaries

 

[Pinkorchid]

How long and drawn out it has been first they asked us to nominate someone we thought would be good this resulted in dozens of nominations even though they may not have wanted the job. Then the mods had to ask every nominee if they wanted the job then out of those that did they then get it down to seven and now they are asking us to vote out two of them. I sure the majority of us do not want to vote and would rather leave it to the mods to just choose the five successful candidates

 

[britishpub]

I hate waiting

 

[BooJewels]

I hate waiting

Sorry mate, you've got at least another week to go. You'll have to find something to distract you from the excitement. It's probably not good for your BG to get too wound up.

 

[CarbsRok]

Spiker hasn't been on the forum since September 2015! Lovely chap but would he be classed as an absentee moderator?