Posts from Are you in favor of electing Moderators?

I would like to discuss the issue of electing or appointing moderators. For example, moderator elections could be held by creating a thread in each section, and users could choose those they trust to perform moderation duties. Currently, new moderators are chosen (approved) by the existing moderation team. I believe that this should be decided by the users themselves. In this way, we make the forum more open, and the moderator election system encourages users to participate more actively in the forum's life, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm in a mafia, choosing Kosh as the moderator. Someone is in a trio, choosing an abstract Vasya as the moderator. And so they'll choose the most convenient one, and classic moderators like Slonysh and Zubr will be left out because they weren't chosen anywhere. And then what? Promote them to coordinators? Or demote them to regular users? P.S. This describes a THEORETICAL situation that might happen in the end. There's no need to look for any hidden meaning.

I'm in a mafia, choosing Kosh as the moderator. Someone is in a trio, choosing an abstract Vasya as the moderator.
And so they'll choose the most convenient one, and classic moderators like Slonysh and Zubr will be left out because they weren't chosen anywhere.
And then what? Promote them to coordinators? Or demote them to regular users?

P.S. This is a THEORETICAL situation that might happen in the end. There's no need to look for hidden meanings.

As an alternative, the current Moderators, on equal footing with other Users who have submitted applications, participate in re-elections.

I once received points for something similar, as if it were trolling. Just a random thought I had.

That’s how moderators were chosen before anyway (at least there were some polls, I don't remember exactly anymore) until the forum was filled with them and the need for selection disappeared. But if someone suddenly wants to, they can always submit an application. Otherwise, everything is correct; democracy for everyone, guys.

I remember there were such polls. After the last one, they created a topic for submissions.
Voting is more objective and ultimately satisfies more people, but it takes more time.

I’m talking about the situation where they participate but lose.

Elections! Elections! Candidates - tra-la-la

What's the point of these elections if:
a) the same people will be chosen as are currently in power
b) it's problematic to please everyone, which means the winner of the vote may become a moderator, but some will be unhappy. The result - nothing will change in terms of trust.

Against it, because, firstly, in terms of trust, nothing will really change. Yes, there will be cases where a moderator is unanimously chosen, but I remember that in the forum of one online game, such a thing led to the fact that the elections were difficult - each guild voted for its own person, and as a result, the chosen moderator favored his own. It is clear that since he was chosen, there are more people in his guild, but... Here, perhaps not with guilds, but the same thing is possible. On the other hand, elections by the moderators themselves are not always objective, I agree. But, in the end, you can always question the actions of the moderator.
And secondly, what threshold should be set in the case of a public vote? How much time will it take, how many people need to vote. It is easier to gather a couple of dozen moderators.

Why not? Maybe something will change for the better.

Funny topic) Choosing a system for selecting moderators. Before this topic, they should have created another one – "Do you want to have the option to choose moderators?"))

But seriously, democracy is awesome!))

Despite what some have said, I believe that democracy is still better. The reason is simple: democracy, in this context, has a system. Whether it's ideal, not ideal, or even a complete failure in this case is not important; the main thing is that a system exists. Without elections, it is problematic for the Creator to determine how suitable a particular user is for a position, i.e., how objective they are and how well they understand the section they are going to moderate.

The following should be understood.
The moderators of this section are a team. The team is selected by the (playing) coach, not by a fan vote.
I am responsible for my section, and for the absence of other moderators in my section – it’s my responsibility. If there are no other moderators, I must ensure that everything runs smoothly. And if someone is assigned to my section by a vote, I will not be able to be held responsible for their actions.

I don't usually agree with Querty, but in this case, he's 100% right. In each section, or almost each section, there is a moderator or a team of moderators who oversee all the affairs of the section. And it is he (they, if it's a team) who should select a candidate if he (they) sees the need.

There is some merit to that as well, but ultimately, it still comes down to elections rather than appointments; it's just that the electorate is being redefined, so to speak.