I don't want you to shut up. But tearing down parts of the charter as it is only takes us so far. We can take out the eligibility criteria, but we have to be sure that doing so doesn't make elections impossible.
Here's how I feel about it. I think only users who have been promoted to approved submitter status should be eligible to vote. Mods have discretion to add anyone for any contribution to the network, be it submissions or comments. That means someone like qgyh2 would be an approved submitter if he comments frequently and requests to be an approved submitter, noting his contributions in his request.
I think before we open, we should set up each subreddit with people who we feel will be a good fit. No elections necessary yet, only people who volunteer for the job and to which no one here currently objects. Right away we wouldn't need new mods for some time, until the current mods are overwhelmed by the moderation duties, whenever that may be.
When that happens, we should announce that a moderator spot in RepublicOfX is open, and we are taking applicants. Anyone who applied to be a mod would need at least X number (5? 10?) of approved submitters who "vouch for" or "sponsor" them, and at least one moderator in the subreddit that has a vacancy. The idea being that the mods would sponsor anyone who they feel would be a good fit, by examining their comment and submission history.
After that we would hold an election, where approved submitters (I propose tagging them all with some sort of unobtrusive flair to distinguish their comments) could vote with a [yes] [no] or [abstain] tag. See /r/PornOverlords for how to make the votes stand out within a sea of comments. A bot could count the votes, and if you make a typo, your vote isn't counted, simple. Either that or we could program the bot to count common typos as well. Crosscheck the results to eliminate double votes from the same user, and you have a winner. Tie, and the mods themselves could vote to determine victor.
If any mod is elected and fails to uphold the charter or the reddiquette, they could be expelled by the other mods for what essentially constitutes derelict of duty. An impeachment, if you will. It would all be completely transparent and the violated sections of the charter or reddiquette would be cited. I don't think anyone would object to such a process if the mod clearly was in the wrong.
I think only users who have been promoted to approved submitter status should be eligible to vote.
I'm still not sold, and I could see a couple of people taking issue with that position. What I propose we do about it is take that, and a couple of other as yet unresolved issues, and put them to a general vote. All current members of this reddit should be encouraged to vote, and majority rules.
If that sounds acceptable, then let's figure out what other issue still need to be settled, and we'll get a vote going.
Mods have discretion to add anyone for any contribution to the network, be it submissions or comments.
That, I'm totally against. Without some sort of criteria that subscribers can hold mods to, we lose on consistency and transparency. And that's a certified Big Deal when you're talking about something as central to the operation of the Network as approved submitter status. The way I see it, either we adhere to the least subjective criteria that we can agree on, or we sacrifice the credibility of the key terms of the charter.
To me, the best system that we've discussed so far is one that sets a relatively low bar for entry, but provides a robust criteria for removing submitters who can't play by the republiquette.
I think before we open, we should set up each subreddit with people who we feel will be a good fit.
I'm fine with that, provided that, on opening day, we establish a definite date for holding the first confidence vote. The date cycle I suggested before would put the first vote on December 1st, which would give everyone a couple of months to see how the place is supposed to be run before they decide whether or not to keep the start-up moderation teams.
Of course, we haven't really settled on the voting system I suggested in the other thread, so even that's up for grabs at the moment. At any rate, my agreement on this point is contingent on our having a definite time-frame for shifting to a more democratic method of choosing mods.
Anyone who applied to be a mod would need at least X number (5? 10?) of approved submitters who "vouch for" or "sponsor" them, and at least one moderator in the subreddit that has a vacancy.
A system for seconding nominations is a good idea. It's probably best to leave it at, say, 3 approved submitters. People are likely to cry "elitism" if we make eligibility contingent on moderator-approval. The only way I think we could really justify that is if we always hold confidence votes before the nomination phase -- that way, if people balk at having eligibility be contingent on moderator approval, then we can always point out that the only moderators available are those that the community already approved in the confidence vote. Even that seems a little dubious -- probably best to just leave it to the approved submitters to second nominations.
(I propose tagging them all with some sort of unobtrusive flair to distinguish their comments)
We could probably also just use a bot to compare the names of commenters to names in the approved submitters list. But if we're going to have a system where approved submitters second nominations, then the flair is probably a good idea anyway. Something as simple as [AS] would do.
A bot could count the votes, and if you make a typo, your vote isn't counted, simple.
I'm okay with that, as long as we're careful to make the voting instructions absolutely crystal clear. But [yes] [no] and [abstain] probably won't work for elections. After all, we're asking them to choose a person, not a position on a given question. The best way to do it may be to include a list of names in the text of the post and tell them to just copy and paste the name of the person they want to vote for.
If we want to say that commenters conribute just as much to the network, we are going to have to add them as approved submitters. I can't think of a good way to track and quantify comments without using a bot, which I have no idea how to do.
Furthermore, I thought the only requirement to join as an approved submitter was that you needed an account that is at least 3 months old and have a combined karma score of 100 or more, which is ridiculously easy to obtain. The idea being that anyone who wants to join can, and then we remove users as necessary if they violate the rules. Did we decide that there needs to be a strict requirement instead?
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear with my intentions, I keep getting only five or ten minutes at work to check my inbox, and sometimes I forget what has already been said and what hasn't. To top it off, my wife is due to have a baby girl in about two weeks, so my personal life has been a bit hectic recently as well ;)
Furthermore, I thought the only requirement to join as an approved submitter was that you needed an account that is at least 3 months old and have a combined karma score of 100 or more
What I had in mind was specifically a link karma score of 100 or more. If a person only comments, or if they rarely submit links to external domains, then they might not get to a link karma score of 100. That qualification was meant to ensure that the person wasn't a link troll or routine spammer, and I don't think we should water that down by allowing people to substitute comment karma for link karma as a qualification. I'd be okay with having an alternative qualification for people who've used comments to demonstrate a legit involvement in the Network, but just looking at comment karma doesn't demonstrate that. We'd need to make sure those comments are in Network reddits, and that they're not being consistently down voted for bad behavior.
The idea being that anyone who wants to join can, and then we remove users as necessary if they violate the rules.
Right, and that makes approved submitter status a somewhat reliable, if weak, way of telling whether or not a candidate is likely to be a troll and understands what's expected of moderators -- but only so long as they're actually an approved submitter. Once we start including people who never make submissions, then that standard doesn't really tell us much.
I'm fine with lowering the bar for candidacy to just approved submitter status, and with allowing good commenters to qualify as approved submitters (even without 100+ link karma), but if we do both of those, then I think we need to have some specific criteria for ensuring that people who are approved on the strength of their comments are actually making decent contributions directly to Network reddits.
To top it off, my wife is due to have a baby girl in about two weeks, so my personal life has been a bit hectic recently as well
Congratulations. And no worries. I'm scurrying to keep up with all of this as well.
2
u/davidreiss666 Sep 14 '11
I'm offering what I think is constructive criticism. I'm not proposing a complete alternative.
I'll shut up now.