Ok, a discussion that started backstage was how mods would be chosen. This ideas that came up were:

1) Hold a hiring sessionn - This would be a traditional hiring session everyone is accompanied with. It would include the applicant meeting the set requirements and writing out an application of why they feel they should be chosen as a mod.

2) Staff hand pick the potential new staff candidates and hold a mini vote amongst themselves

3) Let the staff and the community nominate who they think would make a qualfied applicant for a staff postion. Should these nominees agree, they would go on about actually applying for a staff postion in the traditional format.

All of the above would still have to met the set requirements approved by the bylaws in order to apply.

So, discuss.

i go with 3. you've got a certain amount of community involvement without mob rule.

^ agreed.

i pick number 3 as well.

im changing mine to number 1

three sounds best, but how would we go about nominating people o.o and how do you know the nominees want the position?

the best leaders are the ones who don't want power. that is why they are the best.

it really shouldnt be considered power, you're given these options so that you can help the community and actually want to help, so the people who don't want the power in this situation deffinately arent the best (for the job)

1) i like number 1. Anyone can apply if they meet the requirements. It won't be a popularity contest, and the people who are qualified who aren't as social as some other people have a fair chance as well. We all have our "favorites" here on createblog. I wouldn't want that getting in the way when you hire someone. I don't see a problem on how it is done now?

three, yep.

If you are in favor of one more than the others please explain why you think that is the best choice.

I'm torn bteween 1 and 3.

Katie explained it best by saying

However, for such postions as People staff it helps to be known around the community. I'm really not to worried about it becoming a popularity contest because either you are qualifed or not. But I like the freedom option 1 gives as far if you meet the requirements you are given consideration, it also allows for a more varitey of applicants to apply.

As for option #3....It gives members of the community some say in who they think would be qualifed . There is a chance that maybe some well known or "popular" members may be nominate but if they dont qualify to be on staff they wont be hired, simply as that. It gives mods a chance to nominate who they think would work best as staff as well. So its equal pretty much on both sides.


If someone is nominated and they dont want the postion they can decline and not go through with the application process. I think the best way to go about nominations is to think of those members (even the lesser known) that you think should apply for a staff postion. Off the top of my head I can think of quite a few I think should be considered for a staff postion.

i still like the reasoning behind the application. number 3 seems like a popularity contest and only people that are well known get nominated. i know you said its best to be known, but not all qualified members are known. i didnt know katie came around much until i saw she applied for staff. that could have just been me, but i still favor 1.

I really don't think it matters if it's 1 or 3. If for 1, members apply but they're not popular enough to be on People Staff, then it'll be an easy choice to make for the moderators. I have a slightly bigger problem with 3, though, because some unqualified members may apply. However...in that case the moderators will also be able to weed through the bad candidates.

Either way...it'll be easy to separate the good and the bad.

I see what you're saying.....thanks for the feedback =)

Oh and one more thing I would like to mention about option 3. If a person is nominated it doesnt mean the automatically become staff, the nominees still have to through the traditional application process as far as meeting the set requiremens and writing out an application., etc.....

heres an idea. mix one and three together. have people nominated. if they choose to run, they take it a step further and submit an application...

eh, sounds stupid, but i guess ill say it.

grrr...kiera beat me to posting and i didnt know that was already in effect.

Um. I thought that was the whole point..?

EDIT// Never mind, you edite your post. Sorry.

yeah, i didnt realize/remember that it said somewhere that they still had to do the application even if we go with one.

We can just make me mod again! that will solve all your problems!! (not)


Happy Veteran's Day, everyone! <3



I liked the traditional way.

hiiii jeff. :DDD

Hi frankie!! Did you know I beat Jusun in cB fight?! WHOA! my defining moment on cB MUST have to be that.


Grammer are a better!

haha :) nice

Yes, i do like the traditional way also.

what's wrong with nominating yoruself if yo're not well known?

^
no one would vote for you?

Members wont be voting, they will simply be nominating who they think would qualify for a staff postion.

can you nominate yourself?

^..........Hrmmmm...good question. When we dicussed all this backstage that was never brought up. I suppose one could but then that would kind of deminish the point of nominating, if that was the case than we mine as well do it the traditional way since by doing it the traditonal way you are self nominating yourself when you apply. So I would say no, someone else would have to nominate you.

well, then i still dont like the whole nominating thing. i think people would play favorites like the whole endorsements thing. someone could also just go "hey kiera, will you nominate me?" to anyone and im sure theyd find someone to just post their name. i think THE STAFF should nominate who they think would make good candidates, get their approval, and then make applications. i just dont think member involvement would help much. i think the mods would be better for the sheer fact that they know what is needed and what they are looking for.

im starting to not like the whole nomination idea
like katie said, theres no real problem with the way we always do it . . . and nomination really isnt a go for design related positions

i like number three.

members should have a degree of say in who becomes a mod

Roar, torn between 1 and 3. I personally like 3 because it gives the community more say. As Gigi was saying, you need to be somewhat popular/known to be a good people staff. I also think that with 3, we get to see who staff wants to work with. Yes, it might turn out to be a popularity contest, but in the end, only the head honchos have the say in it. Also, to avoid the whole "Hey nominate me", just asking friends thing, why don't we say you have to be nominated by like 3-5 members and 1-3 staff. That way, we know that more than just the persons friends think they are good.

1 is also good because that just takes all the scare of popularity. It also doesn't put restrictions on who can apply and who can not apply. It is almost like a free for all.


I think I am leaning more towards three.

^
This (# 3) sounds like endorsing all over again.....but I get what you're saying.

^
isnt that basically endorsements?

i think the whole 'popularity contest' scare is the cb politics equivalent of media hype.

at the end of the day, if a person SHOULDNT be hired, they WONT BE.

which is why three is good. it gives members a say, but ultimately the decison lies with teh moderator team as a whole

NUMBER THREE!!!!!.

SEX.

Yes please, Sandra. :D

I agree with James. It could end up to be a popularity contest or whatever, but what would that show? That would show that the person is active and is liked. His/her posts probably interest a lot of people. I think thats a pretty good starting point.

Of course, if it were only that, we'd be screwed. After the community votes, the nominations should be passed to the moderators and head staff. They would then determine which nominees are best suited for the job.

Don't give me "But it'll be a popularity contest!" Chances are that if a person is popular, s/he must have done something right. Not many idiots are that popular, if you didn't notice.

Yeah, pretty much. If people are so worried about popularity, if you at least have a certain number of people nominate you, then maybe you actually deserve the job. Instead of having a thread, because people jump on bandwagons, we could set up system of nominating, like a PM system or something. ex)I make an account specifically for people to PM me their nominations. PM would just simply have the person who they are nominating in the title and thats it.

Meh. 3=<3

how about you get someone to nominate you, but a staff member has to second it.

so say i nominate james...kiera or someone else on staff would have to second my nomination.

thus, it gives the community involvement, but the staff still gets to pick who they work with.

i think you should be able to nominate yourself.

simply so you don't ahve to get someone else to nominate you.

and if nominations are private, then that works out fine.

and at the end of nomination time, post everyone who's been nominated.

cross out the ones who don't meet requirements

and let the people PM if they don't want to be staff

and then start choosing the normal way.

i like that idea, but i still think a mod should second it even if you vote for yourself.

no . . . really no
i keep thinking of the " " of the month threads
people always nominate their site when they KNOW they wont win
i think itd be stupid if we allowed that

^ I was thinking the same thing exactly.

I mean, if you want to be nominated, ask a friend. Kind of like the endorsement thing in the past, I guess.

Maybe it should be reversed. Mods nominate people, the members vote on those nominations in a poll (so you don't necessarily have to jump on a bandwagon - you can vote for who you want) and the Heads/Admins take both sets of opinions into account and choose who they want from that batch. We could do separate polls for each category of mods and those who are picked the most are considered from the members and those who are said the most from the mods are considered there.

Mods nominate people. I always thought that it wouldn't work in bigger forums (that's how we do it in a small forum of mine), but now that I think about it... that really would work. Mods know better than anyone what the job entails and who is going to be good at it.

i really like sammi's suggestion (which feel odd, but pleasant)... how many mods have to nominate a member for them to get into the poll?

i would say three...

ooo i like that idea too
if we did go through with it it could be like
1 admin/head
1 peoplestaff
1 design related staff
to get nominated and have a specific number of nominees so that there is competition
i think this way we could fill in some of the design related positions . . . i bet if some people were nominated they would take on the job

meh... im not entirely sure we need design nominations for people candidates and vice versa...

how about one from admin/head, and two from either design or people?

Well, we should fill up the poll, so..just the 10 people that get nominated the most by any mods should be up there.

thats a good plan, sammi...

ok...

i asume we are saying the member elections will apply onl yto people staff?

No, of course not. I mean, the Design Staffers are the ones who really affect the members directly and affect what most people come here for in the first place. Like I said before, we would have separate polls for each category - People, Myspace, Xanga, LJ, and Blogger.

oh, ok then.

so.

we will havemoderator nominations, with the ten most nominated members in each staff category (people, xanga, myspace, etc.) being placed in a poll for members to cast their votes. the final decision will be made based on these results and staff discussions/votes.

all those in favour, say aye, all those opposed, say nay

aye

*applauds sammiiiii*

EDIT;; oh...AYE. :D

^Frankie- does your vote count?

Anyways, Aye.