|
|
Post by macecurb on Nov 11, 2017 7:10:25 GMT
So, here we are. The second episode's script is done, and it's looking fantastic! We're starting to get the process down pat, and I think now is as good a time as anything to talk about something that's going to be very important going forwards. STAFFING.As most of you are probably already aware, there are generally only two “official” roles currently in existence: Moderators, and Episode Leads. Since the Episode Lead system seems to be working out pretty well so far, today we're going to talk about moderators. THE PROBLEM WITH MODERATORSSo far, there have only ever been three Moderators: Myself, NGnius, and Parker (PfBourassa). There was no formal selection process involved; If I remember correctly the role evolved out of the Discord Channel, which NGnius founded, where Parker and I were eventually added as Discord moderators. At some point or another, we ended up deciding amongst ourselves that we were the de facto channel leads. Up until now, that's worked out just fine, with low stakes and only good intentions to act on, I like to think we've done a reasonably good job so far. We are the only ones with access to the various official social media accounts, including the official youtube account. We have full control over the forums, and the Discord server. There are some obvious problems with this situation. First, there's no transparency or formal process behind Moderator selection. Second, there's no guarantee that the three of us won't decide that we should become channel dictators, nor are there any safeguards against that possibility. So, over the next week or so, we're all going to, as a community, fix these problems. To kick things off and make discussion a little easier, I've prepared a proposal for how things might be organized in future. A quick note, first: THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT BINDING. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY PART OF IT, OR ALL OF IT, PLEASE FEEL VERY FREE TO EXPLAIN WHY IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER.ProposalSo, here's my own (personal) broad-strokes proposal for how to organize ourselves going forwards. First of all, what we currently know as “moderators” would be renamed to “admins”, for reasons that will become obvious in a couple paragraphs. - Admins:
- Largely retain the broader, “final voice on Idea Project” responsibilities that moderators currently seem to have, and also, by necessity, have access to all the official accounts, along with admin powers on the forums.
- Admins are elected for fixed-length terms, with no term limits.
- Specifics regarding elections to be decided later. 2-3 month terms, most likely using a Single Transferable Vote system.
- ADMINS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THE OFFICIAL YOUTUBE CHANNEL.
- Access to the eventual associated adsense account and matters relating to money will be determined at a later date.
[/ul][/ul] So, you might be thinking, “All that does is rename the moderator role and make them elected!” That's true. Perhaps the more important aspect of this proposal is the creation of two new official roles: Moderators and Public Relations. - Moderators:
- Are individual to each communication channel (Discord, Forums, whatever else might come up).
- Discord Moderators can create channels and move them around, give people roles, etc. Forum moderators have the moderator role on the forums and everything that that entails.
- Appointed by admins, rather than elected. Meant to be meritocratic.
- Does not have access to the official youtube channel.
[/ul] - Public Relations:
- Have access to whatever “official” accounts they have been entrusted with. Twitter PR people have access to the twitter account, etc.
- Appointed by admins, rather than elected. Meant to be meritocratic.
- Do not have access to the official youtube channel.
[/ul] So, that's all well and good, but what's this about appointing people? That sounds like it's begging for corruption, cronyism, and probably an assortment of other unpleasant things that I can't think of right now! Well, that's a very reasonable criticism to make. So, with that in mind, we'll also be implementing the possibility for Votes of no confidence on anyone that holds an official role. - Vote of no confidence:
- Anyone currently holding a staff position can be subject to a vote of no confidence.
- A vote of no confidence can be initiated by any three members of the community.
- The required number may be increased slightly in future if the community grows to a significant degree. For example, if, at some theoretical point in the future, we end up having a few hundred people on the Discord and forums, it might be increased to 5. This would be mostly intended to make it harder for hypothetical trolls to start frivolous votes.
- Whether or not the appointed person retains their position will be determined by simple majority. If voted out, the person cannot be appointed to or enter into an election for any other position for a period of least three months.
[/ul] [/ul] With that in mind, I'd like to offer two alternative options for your consideration: - The first option is to simply hold elections for the PR and Moderator positions. These could come with fixed-length terms or not.
- In my mind this would probably be cumbersome, especially so if these positions come with fixed terms. As much as this is ideal in terms of fairness and community participation, I will admit to wanting to keep things as streamlined and straightforward as possible.
[li]The second option is to instate a “cooldown” period of one week before any appointees actually take on their roles. This time can be used to bring up concerns regarding appointees, and, if need be arrange a pre-emptive vote of no confidence.[/li] - I personally much prefer this option, as it would both allow for the community to voice their opinions on future staff, while keeping from having to run a large amount of elections on a regular or semi-regular basis.
[/ul] What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Nov 11, 2017 12:18:07 GMT
Nice job explaining the problem. And a solid first pass at solving it.
The main unanswered question is the length of term limits, as well as the stuff at the bottom.
Just to explain further about the YouTube password: anyone with that could delete all of our videos and the accociated comments, causing irreparable damage. Twitter, and other social media accounts are less important for this reason. And populating them with interesting content should be possible for as many members as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by ketiao on Nov 11, 2017 16:43:12 GMT
Thanks both for your thoughts!
I'd like clarification on admin selection of moderators. Do admins select whoever they want, or are they selecting from a pool of folks who have volunteered themselves to mod? Though, I suppose people could always just say no if they're selected but not interested
And a thought on mod selection; one way to incorporate the community into the process without holding full elections could be to have members nominate potential mods. Could allow self-nomination to allow folks to volunteer. Then, admins could designate mods from that pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Nov 12, 2017 2:26:50 GMT
With regards to both moderators and public relations:
My original intent was that the admins would just figure out amongst themselves who would be given an appointed position. I deliberately chose not to outline a specific process for that, since I felt that having a formal process for appointments would defeat the purpose of appointing people rather than electing them. By "defeating the purpose", I mean that it would make things more time-consuming than with a simple, unstructured appointment process.
All that having been said, I personally don't think having a nomination process, while also allowing people to nominate themselves, would particularly change things. Anyone could nominate themselves or someone else, which in my mind would simply make it an unnecessary step tacked onto the process.
However, I do understand that appointing staff members is probably not the most popular idea. I'm genuinely curious what other people might think of when it comes to alternatives/modifications to an appointment system, such as the one you suggested or the ones mentioned in the original post.
TL;DR: I disagree with your specific suggestion, Ketiao, but I agree with the wider sentiment. See the first post for some alternatives I suggested earlier. I'd like to get more feedback on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffinx3 on Nov 12, 2017 9:55:44 GMT
There should be a process created to change passwords quickly if the need comes up. Maybe every 3 months, and if any admins/mods are voted out early. Hopefully a rouge admin would never be voted in but if someone decided to change all the passwords that would be a mess. Has a phone number been tied to the channel yet? Other than that the idea looks fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Nov 12, 2017 20:45:28 GMT
A phone number has not be attached to the youtube channel, and for the forseeable future I doubt there will be one attached.
Unless we feel like assigning one particular person to be a semi-permanent admin (Who would therefore use their own phone number), having a single phone number attached to the youtube account would probably not be the best idea.
Edit: I should probably mention, passwords on accounts will likely get changed every time someone gets shuffled around. We're already using random strings for some of the passwords, and I expect that we'll continue to do so in future.
|
|
vinico
Junior Member
edit: hello!
Posts: 65
|
Post by vinico on Nov 12, 2017 23:58:10 GMT
Nice writeup, Mace! As I've said before, I agree with most of this and I think it's all sensible. I do have a few suggestions, I haven't had much time lately but I'll try to organize my thoughts to try to contribute to this.
If there is ever need for such thing, say we want to register a domain or something, I wouldn't mind that being Parker assuming he'd agree. He's been involved with a lot so far and seems like a pretty trustable guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Nov 13, 2017 16:16:15 GMT
A phone number has not be attached to the youtube channel, and for the forseeable future I doubt there will be one attached. Unless we feel like assigning one particular person to be a semi-permanent admin (Who would therefore use their own phone number), having a single phone number attached to the youtube account would probably not be the best idea. Edit: I should probably mention, passwords on accounts will likely get changed every time someone gets shuffled around. We're already using random strings for some of the passwords, and I expect that we'll continue to do so in future. A Google voice number could be generated under a separate account to provide this backup function without being tied to any specific person. This is borderline overkill, but it is a good safeguard. Also, all passwords should be changed every time anyone "loses official access" to them, just like changing the locks between tenets. I would suggest changing them on a regular basis as well. |
|
|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Nov 13, 2017 16:24:15 GMT
My overall view on this:
I'd like to give anyone who wants to contribute the ability to do so. As an example, Vinico has been doing a lot of work on building the community, but he isn't able to create new boards/channels. So he has to ask a mod (no big deal.) Given that he has shown consistent interest in this, I'd rather empower him as much as possible. In the current setup, that would mean also handing over all of the passwords to Vinico, and anyone else who "seems like a good mod." That's not very secure, so splitting up the duties seems like an obvious fix.
Also, as Mace said, we shouldn't be the benevolent dictators for life just because we showed up early. As much as possible, I'd like to see this project outlive any of us. (Not that I plan on bailing anytime soon.) So some sort of election process should be outlined.
It's my view that a low odd number of admins would be best to ensure a consistent voice, and for tie-breaking.
|
|
ngnius
Channel Manager 
Discord bots are hard
Posts: 80
|
Post by ngnius on Nov 13, 2017 19:16:52 GMT
Adding on to the phone number discussion: The Twitter account is linked to my phone, but the Google account (including the YouTube account) has no phone recovery set up.
On the topic of term lengths: I would suggest 3 month terms, as that would allow for about three episodes to be made, which should indicate if the admins are competent enough to keep their jobs or not. It would also reduce the turnover which can happen from having a lot of changes a lot of the time, without the terms being too long to the point where the admins feel like they can do whatever they want because no one will remember by the time elections come around. Accountability is important (imo). (This would also mean that anyone subject to a vote of no confidence can't be re-elected for exactly one term length, which makes it a bit easier to remember)
On the topic of moderator/public relation roles: Admins can also kick them out (no vote required), since we promoted them in the first place. Of course, we should only be able to demote people with those roles if they are inactive or causing harm. Also, mods are expected to enforce the rules on whatever platform they have the role (which wasn't explicitly stated in Macecurb's post), since having a few admins isn't an ideal situation for enforcing rules. In order to make sure that mods are accountable for their (moderation) actions, logging their actions is also a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Nov 13, 2017 20:37:14 GMT
Back to the phone number discussion: Maybe a position called "designated backup?" They hold the password for the backup gmail, but not the other passwords.
|
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Nov 14, 2017 3:14:46 GMT
I don't really know if I'd be comfortable designating anyone in particular with that sort of thing, especially considering that the official channel and (presumably) most of our other official accounts are also tied to that one email account.
It'd essentially be saying, "Here, we trust you absolutely not to do anything crazy with this unlimited power we're giving you".
|
|
|
|
Post by The TNT Tiger on Nov 21, 2017 15:22:18 GMT
So, I've been thinking about this, and I've come up with me own idea of how I think some sort of server Government system should work:
There are four kinds of role: Admin, moderator, the Seanad (Con the Primary Representative), and Gangers. I, however, am not attached or anything to these names, they’re basically placeholders for the moment.
Admins
Admins organize and have the veto power on most things in the process. They have access to the official social media and YouTube channel, and all in all are basically the same as Mace said- the founders of the channel, elected for long terms, and are expected to listen to what people say, especially from the Seanad, which should represent the community’s best interests. In regards to elections, they may be totally open or done in the Seanad. They cannot also be Mods or Seanadóirí while being Admins
Moderators
Moderators are also basically the same as Mace said- community organizers that do not have direct power over any media. They also have the responsibility of making sure the Admins, once the community grows, know everything that is going on around the place. They are meritocratically selected by the Admins, though the Seanad has veto power if they believe a moderator is unqualified and should be demoted. They have the power to bring this up at any point they wish.
The Seanad
The Seanad (Or Parliament, senate, council, etc.) entirely exists to keep checks and balances on all the other branches. They have the power to remove both moderators and Gangers from power (Admins are a different matter, to be dealt with on the occasion). They also have veto power on what projects go forth- while Admins get to pick which ones get done, if the Seanad has the power to block them. The Seanad is voted in after an undecided timeframe (I recommend monthly, though it doesn’t matter too much to this proposal) and the amount of spaces are relatively proportional to the amount of people in the discord server- x=(0.5(n^2))-(0.5n)+9, with x being the number of people on the server and n being the number of Seanadóirí (See attachment). The highest voted person is the Primary representative, and has the deciding vote in the Seanad and acts as their spokesperson. If a person is accused of abusing power or misconduct in the Seanad, they can be kicked out by majority vote (In which they cannot partake). The Seanad is expected to listen to people's complaints and make it their duty to crush any abuse of power that might happen in the community.
Gangers
This is probably unnecessary at the moment, but is something we must think of looking forward and officialise. Selected by Admins, (Though may be vetoed by Seanad) they control and regulate each of their creative roles respectively- Lead host, Head idea writer, Lead editor, Lead public relations (May want to have social media access, at Admin's discretion, basically like Mace’s ‘Public relations’) etc. Their job is simple and resolute, and share most of the same rules and regulations as Mods (Mods may be considered discord Gangers). They organize their respective factor of the project, and if the system functions as effectively as hoped, this could even mean they could organize the creation of many projects in sync, which highly boost productivity.
Also, the votes of no confidence and all that still apply in all this and can be called if 10% (Rounded down) of the community think it necessary. I also think the cooldowns after elections are a good idea, though neither of these are integral for my proposal.
So, that's it as far as I think. Please give feedback. It' s basically just a build on what Mace already had done.
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by macecurb on Nov 21, 2017 15:54:31 GMT
My immediate concern with the idea of the 'seanad', is that it essentially forces us into a representational system rather than a direct one.
On some level one of my (personal) ideals here is that we try to make things as self-governing as we can, with Admins ideally just acting as glorified tie-breakers and sysops.
While I think your proposal could certainly work, I don't personally think it would offer any significant advantages over my own. That said, it's possible I'm just being naive about our ability to self-govern.
|
|
|
|
Post by The TNT Tiger on Nov 21, 2017 17:21:42 GMT
The problem with a direct system, especially as the community grows, is that not all users will be active enough to participate in decisions, nor will it ever be strictly proportional due to the effort bias (Many people may be quite opposed to something, but a very vocal minority can cause the appearance that most people want it the thing because they act more. It's how trolls take over Naive servers). Also, because of CHECKS AND BALANCES (Fast heavy metal music starts playing) it's important to have both long term representatives (Admins) and short term (In my proposal, the Seanad) so that one is more in tune with what the people want, while the other can focus more on the big picture rather than petty politics.
|
|
