[Discussion] Senatorial Status of Moderators

[fgalkin]

Keep in mind that it is possible to give Moderators posting rights here but prevent them from voting.

Just to be clear- this rule will apply to all Forum Moderators, even those who were Senators, right? So, Thanas, Stas, Simplicius, Surlethe, Beowulf and Keevan would also lose their right to vote in the Senate.

No, not if they are in the Senate group - "yes" permissions override "no" permissions, unless they're set to "never". Which raises another question: if a Senator is elevated to modhood, should they lose their Senate vote?

That would be the issue here, yes. Otherwise, it would be penalizing only a few individuals, the most prominent of which being...yup, guessed it!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Steve]

Stuart, I'm not saying we should deny Shep a voice in the Senate, but I do believe we need to strongly consider the fact of being a moderator (but not a mini-mod) basically making one a full member of the Senate? And if not, then mods should not be allowed to vote in Senate decisions even if they can argue the point. A separation of branches, so to speak - the Senate debates and votes on policy, the moderators enforce the policy but do not decide on what it should be, and Mike makes the final decision on any policy or if someone is fit to be a Mod.

If we go with the Moderator = Senator decision then that's fine, but at least let's make sure we have a firm position on the issue so there is no future confusion. Also, if we decide to do this, are all Mods created equal for this purpose? Does Shep as History Mod deserve Senatorship while, say, the Fanfic Forum mods don't?

[Coyote]

If we can come to a decision on this, and clear it up, it will go a long way towards clearing up questions about the size (and even roles) of the Senate. Once that logjam is cleared, we can expand the Senate or leave it the same.

One thing to bear in mind, though-- when the Senate was created, it was created by DW and the Admins with a lot of mods and minimods automatically included as Senators... which seems to indicate that (at least at the time of founding) Mods and Senators were of equal status and footing. Mike recently reinforced the status quo of the Senate, also.

[Dalton]

I don't know what we would call such a section "The Hounds of Hell" perhaps? Does the SW Imperial Fleet have an intelligence section?

The Empire had a "Ubiqtorate", but I think that name is taken.

It's already been done, but in this case that group had a different function. We could revisit this later.

One thing to bear in mind, though-- when the Senate was created, it was created by DW and the Admins with a lot of mods and minimods automatically included as Senators... which seems to indicate that (at least at the time of founding) Mods and Senators were of equal status and footing. Mike recently reinforced the status quo of the Senate, also.

This is an excellent point, except that it's not quite accurate, according to my recollection. We had a short list of Senate "starting members", which included many non-moderators, and Moderators and Supermods were granted forum access as well.

If we go with the Moderator = Senator decision then that's fine, but at least let's make sure we have a firm position on the issue so there is no future confusion. Also, if we decide to do this, are all Mods created equal for this purpose? Does Shep as History Mod deserve Senatorship while, say, the Fanfic Forum mods don't?

No, I don't think that would be very fair. It should be all or none, as far as I'm concerned, since anyone who becomes a moderator has mod privileges over certain other groups.

[fgalkin]

Stuart, I'm not saying we should deny Shep a voice in the Senate, but I do believe we need to strongly consider the fact of being a moderator (but not a mini-mod) basically making one a full member of the Senate? And if not, then mods should not be allowed to vote in Senate decisions even if they can argue the point. A separation of branches, so to speak - the Senate debates and votes on policy, the moderators enforce the policy but do not decide on what it should be, and Mike makes the final decision on any policy or if someone is fit to be a Mod.

Because SDN must be like a real government. I mean, I have an idea, how about we make a House of Commons to separate the houses?.

And mods have been historically free to set policy in their own forums- that was never under dispute, just look at the "forum rules" sticky/announcement in every forum. The Senate only concerned itself with board policy as a whole, not individual forums.

If we go with the Moderator = Senator decision then that's fine, but at least let's make sure we have a firm position on the issue so there is no future confusion. Also, if we decide to do this, are all Mods created equal for this purpose? Does Shep as History Mod deserve Senatorship while, say, the Fanfic Forum mods don't?

I firmly believe that all mods are created equal.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Steve]

Well, as I said, I'm not explicitly against Mods being automatically Senators, I just want the issue clarified.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think Dalton's solution might work best in this sense:

All full Mods (regardless of standing) should have permission to post and discuss
Only Senators can vote
A person can be both a full Mod AND a Senator (or they could be either one separately)


I'm not sure how that would work with regards to SuperMods. Rob as a double check would permission over rides apply to SuperMods as well (that is they would need to be part of the Senate usergroup to post)?

I say this because it would be a relatively simple fix, would let the Senate be in total control of its voting membership (e.g. should we get really uppity we could kick a Mod of the voting list but they could still post), and would mean that the publicly visible "Senators" usergroup would include all voting members for the board to see.

[Alyeska]

Wasn't this part of charter that the committee was going to work on?

[LadyTevar]

I think it was, Alyeska.. but we got distracted.

[CmdrWilkens]

The committee got tabled.

[Dalton]

I think Dalton's solution might work best in this sense:

All full Mods (regardless of standing) should have permission to post and discuss
Only Senators can vote
A person can be both a full Mod AND a Senator (or they could be either one separately)

I'm not sure how that would work with regards to SuperMods. Rob as a double check would permission over rides apply to SuperMods as well (that is they would need to be part of the Senate usergroup to post)?

I say this because it would be a relatively simple fix, would let the Senate be in total control of its voting membership (e.g. should we get really uppity we could kick a Mod of the voting list but they could still post), and would mean that the publicly visible "Senators" usergroup would include all voting members for the board to see.

The only thing I have issue with is having Moderators who are also Senators, as I think that once somebody is elevated to Modhood, they should be removed as a full Senator and only allowed to post and discuss.

Regarding SuperMod permissions, I can adjust those so that they don't have the ability to vote, but just in this forum. This is, of course, subject to Mike's approval.

[Surlethe]

I agree with removal of moderators from Senatehood upon elevation. As Simplicius said (and I agreed) in the mod forum, there's an inherent conflict of interest present: there's no reason for a moderator to be able to vote on recommendations for his or her behavior. We are the people being advised; we are therefore not the advisers.

[CmdrWilkens]

The only thing I have issue with is having Moderators who are also Senators, as I think that once somebody is elevated to Modhood, they should be removed as a full Senator and only allowed to post and discuss.

Regarding SuperMod permissions, I can adjust those so that they don't have the ability to vote, but just in this forum. This is, of course, subject to Mike's approval.

I think that might work AND cure the "too many Senators" syndrome because if I'm tallying things correctly we would only have 29 "active" Senators who can actually vote. We would still have roughly 60 posting members but only 30 (if all inactives were to return) could vote at any given time.

[Coyote]

I think that might work AND cure the "too many Senators" syndrome because if I'm tallying things correctly we would only have 29 "active" Senators who can actually vote. We would still have roughly 60 posting members but only 30 (if all inactives were to return) could vote at any given time.

Then we can open the possibility of elevating more folks to the Senate. At this point, is there any reason to discuss a maximum limit for number of Senators, or shall we just burn that bridge when we come to it?

[Alyeska]

Just to post another piece on the Moderator/Senators. Perhaps a transitory period? They lose their vote in the senate after a set period of time. This would address some recently modded members and further account for future promotions.

[Stark]

Should this be discretionary, based on what the vote in question is in regard to? If someone is the moderator of a single forum, there is no reason for them to be excluded from votes regarding other board issues, whereas broader powers might require voting to be restricted from more issues.

I have no idea how that would be implemented in a non-busywork manner, however.

[phongn]

Should this be discretionary, based on what the vote in question is in regard to? If someone is the moderator of a single forum, there is no reason for them to be excluded from votes regarding other board issues, whereas broader powers might require voting to be restricted from more issues.

An admin could probably create a group with voting rights and then set the Senate's permissions as such, but it'd have to be done for every vote (and good luck if there are overlapping ones).

[CmdrWilkens]

Yeah I'm gonna nix that idea. It be easier just to stick with Senators can vote, Moderators can post and leave it at that.

[Darth Wong]

I think everyone overlooked it.

If I had a major problem with the idea of Shep attaining full moderatorhood upon the elevation of the History forum, I would have said something myself. Frankly, we have never had this kind of discussion before for any other mod, and it seems to me like some people are just exercising a grudge against Shep for his checkered past. We can all agree that Shep has made mistakes in his past, but if that's the reason for the extra scrutiny being placed upon him now, I would expect people to be honest enough to admit it, instead of pretending that they're shocked to see a moderator posting in the Senate.

People were not shocked to see a new moderator post here. They were shocked to see Shep posting here, because they have a low opinion of him, because of his past. Well I'll go on record saying that yes, I am a liberal, and I do believe that people deserve second chances.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I was just suprised, as I thought after my demotion, and all the other drama in the past, he would be the last person I expected to be given mod/senator status, especially given Wilson, Dalton and others....

[Dalton]

Frankly, we have never had this kind of discussion before for any other mod,

Except for Mayabird, not long before Shep was elevated. Like, literally a day or so. Shep's elevation just brought it into the limelight since many were surprised to see him here.

I was just suprised, as I thought after my demotion, and all the other drama in the past, he would be the last person I expected to be given mod/senator status, especially given Wilson, Dalton and others....

None of us had any say in the matter, literally. It was Mike's decision, and I will abide by it.

[fgalkin]

Just to point something out- if you take away the Mods' right to vote, it will apply to things like new member elevations. If the staff's opinion on new members is not counted, then they are less likely to choose new mods from the Senate pool, and more likely to bypass it and choose them directly.

Meaning that you might see this problem a lot more in the future, since you're creating a rift between the Senate and the Staff where there was none before.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin