Administrator said:It's pretty simple:
The mission statement is here: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/our-mission.html
- Nominations collected (we'll leave nominations open until next Friday)
- We'll collect the names, let people know they've been nominated, tell them more about being a mod (and subsequently at this point they can retract from being up as a mod)
- The user's history is looked at, yes - realistically, if you haven't been banned, spend time on the forum and are supporting others in their journey then all is good.
- A poll is then put up
- Votes collected
(The mission is simple - connecting people makes people better, but there's obviously more about that on the link!)
Personally, I haven't seen anything untoward going on .........
I did read between the lines, and was aware of that being a possibility. I too have crossed the line on occasions. Sometimes i feel we are at a WI meeting.Now its time for me to put my coat on.....You should have seen the other adjectives I was going to use before I decided on 'old'
I noted that regarding potential bias.One thing I found fascinating, and a point of note, is bearing in mind the proportions of site users T1/T2, the resultant nominees have a significant T1 skew. No judgements made, just an observation.
Maybe our T2s are more passive? Maybe the T1s see a greater desire for fresh blood? I have no idea.
In fact that last bit is just a little film-flam in all reality, but it piques my interest.
Yes I suggested that the vote should be secret until the voting has been closed. I thought this was what was going to happen, but sadly not.
I noted that regarding potential bias.
A second thing i noted was that not all the nominees presented a public profile, so we the voters were voting in the dark since we had no access to their on site profiles.
The third thing I noted was that although the statistics were hidden until my vote was cast, they became visible after, and I was offered the opportunity to change my mind. Thus tactical voting is a possibility,
The thing about Change is if you always do as you have always done, you will always achieve the same results.
Maybe Admin wants some "new blood". Maybe the existing mods didn't want to choose the next batch, or couldn't agree on them.
One thing I found fascinating, and a point of note, is bearing in mind the proportions of site users T1/T2, the resultant nominees have a significant T1 skew. No judgements made, just an observation.
Maybe our T2s are more passive? Maybe the T1s see a greater desire for fresh blood? I have no idea.
In fact that last bit is just a little film-flam in all reality, but it piques my interest.
It doesn't matter what type of diabetes the nominated member has, is a voluntary role and an unbiased one.
'quote 'Maybe our T2s are more passive? Maybe the T1s see a greater desire for fresh blood? I have no idea.
I doubt the above very much , I have enough of my own blood to deal with, so desire, I think not, lol ?
I meant fresh blood in the Mod population. I wasn't suggesting you RRB. You've taken your turn in the seat already, as I recall, although that could be wrong?
quote 'Maybe our T2s are more passive? Maybe the T1s see a greater desire for fresh blood? I have no idea.
Who are these type 1's 'with a greater desire' , care to embellish, as there are type 1's and type 2's in the moderating team already ?
Can I change my username?At least Trump isn't running!
Can I change my username?
I see that as unimportant. More of those nominated (I don't recall any up front volunteers, although I may be wrong there) and agreed are T1. More of those nominated, but declined for all their own, valid reasons were T2s, leaving the proportions we see above. I said in my post it was apropos zero, just an observation and it remains so.
I have no hidden agenda and wish I hadn't commented now. But, sometimes I speak with mind open.
Doughnuts.......... The best type of nuts availableNow I had thought of a witty response to your initial post along the lines of 'Maybe we "passive" T2s are too busy lazing on the couch and munching our way through crisps and chocolate to have the time to be mods?' It's a good job I didn't now, isn't it?
lol you might have to get out of that habit soon.But, sometimes I speak with mind open.
Ah - missed the change vote button. That can be removed by @Administrator.
Now what we could have done is put the 7 new names and all the old mods up for election together for however many positions there were....... I'll get me coat before I get a warning....
No you can't see who voted for who, but you can see who has the most/least votes. That leads to tactical voting especially as you can change your vote.It should still be on the poll (we can see it?)
It's about the new mods, not the old ones! Progress is progress... (look at how many people have something to say about *this* vote!)... one step at a time.
Votes are made public because it doesn't seem we can hide it, so hiding votes isn't possible. You can change your vote if you want. Transparency is what we wanted - although perhaps this is too transparent. You can't see who voted for who.
In regards to anything untoward - literally, no idea. We have been transparent from the original mod thread to this. If people have been on the list, please let me know. I did miss 2 people from the original list who notified us when the original mod nominations thread was updated. Completely unintentional, but mistakes happen.
It's tricky to please everyone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?