Resmod Feedback Suggestion

Hi all

I came to this forum because I've been noticing some particularly overactive resmodding recently, and I wanted to post about that.

Looking over the threads in the forum, it seems that I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

I think part of what's missing is that there's a lack of accountability in the system - the resmods are not responsible to the community to ensure their actions are fair and impartial.

So I had this idea - what if resmods were democratically elected? This would ensure that resmods are accountable to the people for their actions.

Practically speaking though, I think by and large, most of the resmods are good choices. It seems like a lot of work to have to elect an entire panel of resmods every now and then.

So this leads my to my suggestion: What if anyone could start a vote of no-confidence against any particular resmod? If a resmod does not survive a vote of no-confidence, they would have their moderator status revoked, and LL would appoint a new moderator in their place as they always have.

This would not be particularly difficult to implement - anyone could come here, and start a poll thread, with their reasoning on why a resmod should lose their moderator status. The resmod (and anyone else) would have an opportunity to respond, and then we would have a vote.

What do you think?

As long as you dont name the name of the resmod you're starting a vote of no confidence in, of course!

You are right. There is a lack of accountability.

I am not speaking of all the resmods. I know that most of them (99.9%) appear to be level headed, rational, and do a great job moderating the forums. But that (0.01%) makes a mockery of the resmod program and lacks the respect of the community due to his/her/it's own actions.

I also think that small percentage demonstrates a biased opinion on many of the threads as well as a biased attitude towards certain residents for whatever reason when choosing to take action to moderate.

But since there's no one to complain to that will actually hold that resmod accountable, what's the point? They do what they want and for their own reasons...not for the good of the community. I think it's time for a resmod turnover. They have served for long enough and an election is a very good idea. (Applause)

Your post was very well worded. Thank you.

I like the idea of voting for resmods, and here's why.(other then accountability)
-- In second life they say your imagination, your world.. or something like that.

If resmods were elected, the forums could be like that... so to speak. If people wanted more moderation, then they could pick people they think will do that, or conversely ones who moderate less, maybe even not at all. (if its what the people want that is) don't know how the TOS can fit this though. But at the very least choose people who have the same ideals as the majority of forum goers. It can also be a positive thing for the mod's. It may be a way for people to at least feel like they have some say about moderation, instead of it feeling forced upon them, allowing possibly for more people to like the mod's.

-- you poor poor... poor poor bastards..

With free signups, that wouldn't work.

What is there to stop me putting myself up for vote as a resmod, creating 500 alt accounts and using them all to vote for me, guaranteeing me a place on the moderating team?

What is there to stop someone else simply getting on board by using the same trick in order to get revenge on someone that upset them?

Lewis

Now that you brought it up Lewis, what's to stop a resmod from using their alt account in threads to troll and flame and then have the thread locked in order to get revenge on someone they do not like? It wouldn't surprise me if this is something that is going on right now.

Stratics has a system that intercepts and blocks all logins from particular IP addresses that are associated with a ban, regardless of the login name.

I don't expect these forums have anything as advanced... but I wouldn't be at all surprised if what you mention is happening, especially given the seemingly arbitrary application of forum discipline.

It's actually a rather simple trick, and although I have a lot more to say on the subject I won't elaborate for fear of being accused of giving out an exploit.

Lewis

One thing that would potentially deter it would be that the IP address of each post appears to admins - so you could tell they were all coming from the same place, unless they used more than one internet connection, which would be extreme (though using alts in the way you suggested would be extreme anyway, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone went that far).

Lewis,

I know you love Stratics, but IP address blocking to prevent logins is pretty standard with most forum software - SLUniverse has it, so does Second Citizen, as does this forum.

I don't know about this. Many people post from home and from work, two different addresses, and many post from airports, hotel rooms, etc. as they bring laptops along on business trips. Just seems to random to use IP only to identify.

Oh I'm not saying it is difficult to do - and yeah the person could flame at work and then come home and swoop in and close the thread. I was referring more to a situation where someone was actively posting in a thread as an alt and then alternating with posting as the resmod - while you should never underestimate the cleverness of people, more often then not, you should never underestimate their sheer stupidity. They often slip up and can be caught. IP address is not the only thing, obviously, but not everyone realizes that is happening behind the scenes and think they are anonymous, so they are less careful.

Ok, having not worked with any of the others I wasn't aware that it was such a common thing. Thanks for the information.

Lewis

Just out of curiosity, has anyone approached Torley Linden to become a resmod lately? And I mean seriously approached. I'll leave her a note to ask about that also. But last I heard after the first group of resmods rotated off or quit and the second group was installed, there haven't been many, if any, serious inquiries. Perhaps because it's such a controversial role? Who knows but I'm more than willing to give up my role as resmod for someone who has a strong desire to perform those duties. Although the way I see it, we can always use more especially with vacations and the such.

Now as far as a resmod using alts to flame then being a resmod again to mod that thread...Well I guess I've seen stranger things happen in SL. But personally that is way too much energy expended and for what? I'd rather spend my time actually playing the game. But who knows.

Jana

How does it make a resmod accountable for their actions? It merely creates situation where resmod may feel forced to act "in best interest" of that particular part of forumbase who voted for them, and the drahma of "no confidence" voting if the group that elected that particular resmod feels the moderation is performed in way they don't approve. (read someone from the group gets moderated and they think it's unfair)

I mean... just look at politics, and how the whole democratic selection, catering to voters and 'being accountable' really works out in practice most of time :/

I think that's exactly the point - they are now responsible to the forum to act in its best interest, rather than their own.

I believe that forummers do essentially want to a certain level of moderation to prevent everything from devolving to just chaotic flamefests, but disapprove of overambitious moderation, or resmod actions that further the resmod's self-interest.

This would be a tool for allowing people to express that.

That is a BAD Idea. Why have the Resmod there then hurt their feelings by trying to vote them out? No. I would say the following may be a solution;

Have a new forum where voting for ResMods can take place. Only admins can start new threads, general users can reply.

an admin posts the selections for the new mod team (around 20 people), then users go in and vote, by simply replying with their choice of whom they would like on the team (each person being able to vote for up to 5 people)

Then, after a week or so, the thread is locked and votes are counted. Anybody who's less than 1 month old does not have the right to vote (that would sadly include me, but it's just like nobody under 18 in Australia can vote-This would deter making lots of alts to win)

Once the votes from all members who voted and are over 30 days old are counted, the top 10-15 are the new mods.

That way you're not singling the individual mod to vote against them.

So only members over 30 days old can use their alts to cast multiple votes? Seriously, alts are not a new phenomenon and there are a good number of them in existence that would meet the 30 day criteria which you suggest.

Yes, but at least people wouldn't be able to create a rake of new ones Just to get the vote....