Topic: [Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Discussion] - page 2. (Read 11210 times)

All votes and results are recorded at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bOitaEjce12xUzddwAwtwXGn9pH7FOpyPKl5Cbeo6ww

The only convicts here are those who have served at least one ban. 



When is Theymos likely to take a call? Two additional global moderators might result in a vast improvement over the current scenario.

What were the raw counts? I'm 3rd or 4th from last? What's the popular vote?, and anyone else who isn't lazy to calculate for any other voting system?

And the winner is Mitchell with 51 votes with Lauda close behind with 48.

We will likely recommend both to theymos for a potential new global moderator (or two).

---

No offence taken. The results of this are already questionable.

There are currently 4 exhausted ballots that had all 3 preferences (and presumably would have had more if they were allowed to), and only 3 votes separating the top two candidates. No offence, but your laziness is likely to call the outcome into question.

thanks Dabs for the informations being here from a while and i do not have a clue about this
and by the way it is nice to see a mod talking a little from time to time
for the negative trust i think some members deserve to vote after all, for example ognasty/luptin before few weeks... maybe case by case
for sure eliminating them all together from the vote will simply make thing easier and less controversial
+- after all

The only mods being paid for posts are the ones participating in signature campaigns. (Like everyone else.)

The "shares" is just a term I used to describe the proportion of work among all the mods that can work on a section, or globally. If there are two global mods, if they do equal amount of work, then they get 50% each of what should be paid to both of them. If one does more work (like one handles more reports than the other), it takes away from the pool of work since once a report is handled, it normally does not get handled by anyone else.

I don't know what metrics theymos uses, and I'm quite sure none of the other mods also know, not exactly. Yes, it has something to do with activities other than posts, but it's all a guess.

As for mods from 3rd world countries, well, I'm supposedly from one of them ... don't get paid much because my local section is pretty well behaved, some spammers, some newbies. But most behave because 1) local posts are sometimes not paid, 2) they don't want their accounts banned, because 3) they get paid in bitcoin and can sometimes earn more than government mandated minimum wage once the BTC is cashed out in an exchange.

(all the signature guys in my local section get paid more than their mod.)

I don't know how to "be more active" in my section since there's not much to do as long as forum members follow rules. They can discuss almost any topic they want. Redundant posts or threads go to the trashcan. Newbie spammers get nuked. Some posts get edited to remove ref links, or the whole thread is deleted. And when I get a report in the middle of the night, sometimes a global mod has checked it out before I get to it.

Modding, at least for me, does not pay my rent or any bills. Maybe I can buy an SSD or a water filter; memory cards, boots, a camera. (OT: I buy them through purse from amazon paid in bitcoin.)

AFAIK mods are not paid for posts, but for handled reports. I think its also likely that some mods get paid for other duties as well, but I would be very surprised if they get paid for posts.

Thanks for shedding some light on how the staff payment system works around here. I would like to ask what do you mean by 'shares' of work for each mod? Does this include like the number of posts they do in a month, the number of bans they have issued, the number of reports they have processed etc.? And I have noticed some mods are super active so I gather they are getting paid more for the extra posts or? So all in all mods that are from countries with lower living standards would spend more time in here because the payments they are getting would make a bigger financial difference in their lives. Makes sense now.

It's not public information, but mod payments are based on some activity which is unknown even to mods, and possibly based on ad revenue. How they are related, I don't know (if ad revenue is low this month, does that mean mod payments are low this month too? For the same amount of work, do mods get paid less?)

Based on what is known, mods get paid if they do something. Mods who are absent or on vacation, don't get paid.

What will happen between global mods is that the activity that could have been done by one, can be done by the other, and they get the corresponding points or activity, which determines their payment. The more active global mod gets paid more.

If we suddenly have more than one global mod, the "shares" of their payment will get assigned proportional to the amount of work they do. If two global mods are promoted, and one acts as if he did not get promoted (remains in his original or local mod section), then he gets paid as if he did not get promoted.

Previously, (some months ago, maybe a couple years ago), mods were not paid. There is no promise to continue payment, nor to increase, nor to decrease, we don't even know what metrics are used to determine payments. It wouldn't be a good idea to stop or lessen payments now though.

Comparing to other industries, mods are paid "straight commission". There is no "minimum wage". And for most mods, depending on what country they live in, they don't even get minimum wage for being a mod.

Because then theymos has to pay more. It could entirely be about costs and whether the forum pulls in enough ad revenue to continue to pay those moderators at the rates that they have been paid.

I was following the practice of Felon Disenfranchisement where convicted felons (i.e. scammers/those who have an overall negative trust score) are not allowed to vote. Given that this election is mostly based on the Australian election system, it also follows their use of felon disenfranchisement.

Electioneering is not just that. Electioneering also includes actively influencing others to vote for a specific candidate, which is what we are primarily trying to avoid. The goal of the No Electioneering Rule is to avoid people saying "You should go vote for X".

That is true and unfortunately a result of having to make this election publicly verifiable. Even so, the goal of using IRV is to allow people to vote for whoever they want and still have their vote matter. It would have been better to use full preferential voting but I was feeling lazy.

Let's not be hypocrites

We all know that this is not the case. If it were so, there wouldn't be this whole shebang with electing a new global moderator in the first place. It is perfectly clear that these elections are intended to give more weight to whoever gets elected in the eyes of theymos. Apart from that, it is normal and human to like somebody more than somebody else, for whatever reason. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a point in the forum rules saying that moderators are allowed to interpret these very rules as they feel appropriate

Cattle is busy telling others how much grassland they'd buy if they had 1/5/10/X BTC.

I'd argue that someone who can not remain objective despite of those *proponents/opponents* should not be a global moderator in the first place.

Yes it does. It seems that nobody was around at that time to add it to the sheet.

If so, why all this charade then? They could just agree between themselves who is to be presented to theymos as the most skillful and qualified pretender for a global moderator job. If they don't come to a consensus, they could just flip a coin, after all. Whoever becomes a new global moderator, he would without doubt more favor his proponents than opponents if it ever comes to taking a moderator decision regarding them. The data is all there, in the spreadsheet, signed and stamped...

Just in case, I didn't vote for anyone and have no spite against any of the candidates, lol

The cattle seem to be grazing in the other sections of this forum.
In any case, the candidates are at present moderators in other sections. So the candidates satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria.

Even if everyone on the forum cast their vote and the right to vote was also granted to account farmers, shrills, trolls and just shit posters, this "election" still wouldn't make sense (very much like other such election, for that matter). How many people actually know the wannabe moderators to objectively and impartially evaluate their skills? And once the winner gets promoted to this position, how will we see the results of his moderation, many more users getting permanent bans?

Wtf, cattle choosing their slaughterman

If this is no longer the case, then this particular statement would no longer apply to you.

If you do have an interest in becoming a global moderator, then I would recommend that you indicate to theymos your interest in moderating bitcoin discussion or another section that has a very high volume of posts/threads. If he promotes you to moderator to said section, and you can show success moderating said section (which I have confidence that you would), then you would likely eventually be promoted to a global moderator in due time.

If two (or more) moderators are (roughly) similarly qualified to become a global moderator, then I don't see why theymos would not promote both to global moderator. I would doubt that the forum would ever be in a situation where it needs exactly one additional global mod, and two additional mods would be excessive.

---

---

Some of the rules of voting are arbitrary, results in the election not meeting UN election standards, and would likely be ignored in the event that theymos were to take the results of the election into consideration.

Being that the moderators do not take any actions against scammers, and do not moderate scams, there is no reason why those with negative trust should not have their vote counted.

"Electioneering" is a standard practice in any election, and allows voters to become aware of the pros and cons of each candidate.

Additionally, participating in this thread in ways other then to clarify rules, to say "hi" (eg what dabs did), or to clarify what is believed to be incorrect information about them would likely fit the definition of electioneering. The same is true for making the results of the voting publicly available prior to the closing of voting because if one candidate is down by a large number of votes, it is unlikely they will receive any additional votes from those that would otherwise vote for said candidate.

Also there are about 120 posts in the voting thread, but there are about 9,000 new accounts created last month, there are about 9,500 full member accounts currently, so I don't think the vote is a representation of the community.

Lauda and Mitchell each receive a single additional vote as we enter the last day of voting. Mitchell retains his lead. Does A!'s vote count? It's not on the spreadsheet yet. Whatever, it doesn't change anything.

That's why I asked achow101's permission before I started posting these results, but as I pointed out then, anyone can do what I'm doing. The problem, as I see it, is that since instant run-off voting isn't widely used outside of Australia, people might not understand it and think that votes for unpopular candidates won't count, which is exactly the situation that instant run-off voting is meant to avoid. You can safely give your #1 vote to any candidate you like, since if (and only if) they lose, your vote will go to your #2 choice (and finally to your #3 choice, if your #2 choice also loses).

Correct. Achow even created a script that automatically does tabulation now.

Indeed, but that is directly caused by votes being public. Anyone can keep track of the votes and calculate the current preferred candidates (e.g. like Foxpup did).