Procedure for vote of no confidence in moderators or admins

Due to problems that we have had in the past and disturbing whispers I have being hearing around the community I feel we need a set procedure for entering a vote of no confidence when a moderator or admin starts to abuse their power.
This procedure would have to be un-editable by anyone but founders so as to remove the possibility of mods or admins who are abusing their power further by removing any traces of complaints.
Does anyone have any ideas for this?
Please don't use this thread for bringing up any problems you are having, save that for if/when we get a set procedure.

I'm behind this 100%, even if it affects my rank.

Good idea mate.

Cheers,

Hmm this is context sensitive. Who gets the right to vote? What percentage of votes would make a mod/admin loose their power? How long would voting go for? Could anyone who has an account get to vote, or would you have to have been in the community for a certain length of time?

A way you could do it is to have a board (about 9 or so people, odd number) who get to vote. The board is chosen by the users and has no other powers but to vote. Clearly no board members can be mods.

Another way is to actually have a forum section where we can discuss this without being punished by said admins. Personally I have seen a lot of snarky comments going around on both sides of the fence here. No one seems to want to talk about it though they just want to rally out people and get more annoyed. Possibly even have the mods have no power in said forum and appoint a special mod to keep the peace in it.

Honestly none of this crap should be going on, its a forum but for some reason everyone keeps taking things personally and then they get out of hand.

What happened to not being biast?

clunk07 wrote:I'm behind this 100%, even if it affects my rank.

Good idea mate.

Cheers,

Your a piece of work mate...

The thread that was created after this one, the one you deleted because someone said a similar thing, where they did not agree to what has been happening.

DW about, Yes the vote of no confidence is a good idea. However the foudners arnt on enough to enforce it.

I don't really think it necessary, other admins can deal with it if the need arises.

I voted no, because this place ain't a democracy. Kids need to realize that the internet can only be two things - anarchy or an absolute monarchy

2120 wrote:I voted no, because this place ain't a democracy. Kids need to realize that the internet can only be two things - anarchy or an absolute monarchy dictatorship.

Fixed that for you.

I personally haven't seen any real issues with the admin team, honestly.

They are just doing their job of enforcing the forum rules. Face it, it's not the rules people dislike, its the interpretation. Admins/Mods have the disclosure to enforce the rules how they will.

So, don't whinge if they act tough.

FaytZero wrote:

clunk07 wrote:I'm behind this 100%, even if it affects my rank.

Good idea mate.

Cheers,

Your a piece of work mate...

The thread that was created after this one, the one you deleted because someone said a similar thing, where they did not agree to what has been happening.

DW about, Yes the vote of no confidence is
a good idea. However the foudners arnt on enough to enforce it.

That other thread was open slather for trolling, hence why it was deleted. If I was against his opinion, I'd have expressed it in a message. Isn't one of our roles, as admin's, to avoid having threads being created that will end up in useless spamming.

Cheers,

I voted yes, but I doubt that it will be necessary; however, it makes good insurance against the admins. Personally, we presently have the best admins I've ever seen on any site, ever here, IMO, but that could change as more admins come and go.

Anyone who have been A) in the community for over a year and B) have over 100 posts should be able to vote, as they will be the ones with a lot of experience. Anyone who doesn't fit either of those criteria should not be allowed to vote, as they are more than likely 'n00bs' or inexperienced in the ways of the admins (no offence intended to anyone here).

Wow, what's going on all of a sudden??

Has there really been bad behavior by the mods?

I hadn't noticed.

I got myself banned for a week recently by posting in the pictures forum, but it was my fault (I was drunk, sorry).

I've noticed a couple of nasty posts recently by punters who were banned for it, but they did get pretty nasty.

Basically, you don't get to vote till you're 18. And that's for the government.

Not many of us actually pay to be here, so while we wouldn't want to be crapped on, we shouldn't be too whingy either.

If we didn't have mods, we'd have a cloud of smartarses crapping on about spelling mistakes and you should have searched first every time we posted.

Maybe if we all focused on a spot of nerf modding...

oznerfnerd wrote:I got myself banned for a week recently by posting in the pictures forum, but it was my fault (I was drunk, sorry).

Drunk? You just received a vote of no confidence from me.

Anyway I find the current mods are doing pretty decent job, especially Clunk who has been very mature in his approach (though he sometimes could get a bit too business-oriented)

Torn between yes and no.

I think people should be gracious enough to step down (or elsewhere) if they feel that public opinion has turned against them. Whether or not that time is now remains to be seen, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable that a strike be issued if roles were reversed.

I voted yes, even if we never use it, why not have it? Seriously, there is no reason to say no.

I've decided to hold back to a lot things I could say to simply make this statement:

I'm not fussed what you guys want to share and believe. It's expected from time to time that these pressures build up and thus need to be relieved.
Going along the notion originally taken, it seems perverse yet evident to me that such notion would've been helpful 6+ months ago when a lot of rife was occurring before I became admin. This may have prevented the NIC from fracturing within the country and helped progress the game and hobby further.

However, I was the one who actively involved myself with addressing my concerns on the personal level with Frankie.

If there's anything I need to say on my account, it's that I have no intentions of leaving at this stage because of my commitment in doing the usual gig of guiding newbies and teaching things about the hobby as best I can. And I will continue to do so until I make up my mind when it may be the best time for me to leave this place in pursuit of my own interests. As it stands, a fair chunk of business is going on outside of this site in my local community that I wish to tie up with. Metaphorically speaking, you are all going to need to accept at this stage that clunk and I are going to be the parents while you're all our children. One of us is the stricter parent and the other is the lenient one. A divorce may be on the cards but not at this stage.

Sorry clunk but I did enjoy that metaphoric expression.

You and Clunk ehh

Don't take it personally.

This thread made me lol. In fact, most of the people who voted yes made me lol. I have to admit that this place is good for at least one thing, and that's making me giggle now and then.

This isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship. Roll out the tanks and crush these rebels.

Akimbo Assassin wrote:

oznerfnerd wrote:I got myself banned for a week recently by posting in the pictures forum, but it was my fault (I was drunk, sorry).

Drunk? You just received a vote of no confidence from me.

Anyway I find the current mods are doing pretty decent job, especially Clunk who has been very mature in his approach (though he sometimes could get a bit too business-oriented)

Steady on,

I don't mean rat arsed, falling over my own toes drunk.

I mean sipping away at a few delicious beverages while surfing. "drink surfing".

Having read a few posts, I would say the idea of year long members with more than a hundred post voting would be a suitable check and balance.

I would not be eligable for this by the way, as I've been on less than a year.

Unknown wrote:I voted yes, even if we never use it, why not have it? Seriously, there is no reason to say no.

Uhh... because it's useless?

Do you seriously think a million "yes" votes here will make a difference, even if the founders, mods and admins aren't keen on stepping down?

I'm just gonna say that I agree with SS in terms of the "it's expected from time to time that these pressures build up and thus need to be relieved."

But hot damn, it was a lot worse 6-12 months ago. Maybe it wasn't for you because you were lackeys of previous powers-that-be.

2120 is right. Although hostility gotta stop. Who gives a crap, really? Lol.

yeah, pretty much, if you don't like our admins go to nerfhaven

abowden wrote:yeah, pretty much, if you don't like our admins go to nerfhaven

I have a certain feeling they won't be much of an improvement.

abowden wrote:yeah, pretty much, if you don't like our admins go to nerfhaven

And in one fell swoop, he has defeated all of our arguments

Although as I said earlier, these are the best admins/mods this place has had in a long, long time, and I have no wish for any of them to step down. I'd just like this as insurance, but it's not entirely necessary as long as we don't wind up with any bad mods.

@Silent Scope: You... and Clunk? Seriously?

No wonder all your 'kids' are so badly traumatised

@reaper Exactly.
I personally trust our current admins to choose their successors well, and if an admin is being a prick, I think we can rely on other admins to stop him/her.

All I can say is, just leave each other alone. We got two communities? So what, Nerf can still develop. I know there are plenty of 'communities'. Such as The Assassin's Guild (T.A.G) who is a small Brisbane community who Nerf with stock blasters.

westnerf, AustralianNerf, are two seperate forums. So what? Nerf is still developing.

HvZ / Canberra Wars, a really big one in NSW. End of the day, each community will develop anyway.

Yeh... I'm older, so I get to be the Dad... Always have had a thing for younger women... lol

But, seriously, if I'm too business-oriented, it's probably because that's all I know. Owner/operator of a couple businesses, managed a few - sometimes it's hard to change from what you're familiar with. Hell, I even run my commission's on a semi-business level.

Anyway, I'm trying to work on that. As for being the more lenient one, that's probably spot-on. Having my own child has taught me that you need to give and take, yet be firm. I try the same approach on here. DW though, my daughter still gets a smack when she needs it, as may some of my "digital kids" if required....

Cheers,

CLUNK PLEASE ADOPT ME IRL!!

:p

We are all your children?

I don't think Mods should be 'superior' to us members. I think we should all be equal, and that people on these forums should be mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong. If they do wrong, they suffer the consequences.

If mods are exploiting their powers, I believe they should be demoted immediately when solid evidence is presented.

If only everyone thought like that...

There will never be complete peace unfortunately.

Also, if all admins share the power, then only a founder can really do anything about a power hungry admin and our founders are, for the most part, long gone.

mister_elliott wrote:CLUNK PLEASE ADOPT ME IRL!!

:p

HAHA - I've heard you don't mind the odd smack on the ass every now and again....

Cheers,

sigged.

My Opinion

Mods and Admins are necessary to keep the site in order.

There should be a vote, but a different vote. A vote where there is 1-2 Mods/Admins per state and they are to be voted by the community of people who have been here for over a year (i think i got 10 months or so) and over 100 post to ensure there are no random "funny" votes.

Even though this mightn't be looked into, Maybe the people who want to apply for admin/mod make a speach.

Democratic enough?

-James

This site will always be a dictatorship

But melbnerf's idea isn't bad too

@Reaper, I dissagree about having to have over 100 posts to vote. Becuase some people are post-whores and just post crap to get their post count up. Plus other people have been members for over a year and have witnessed what is going on but may have not posted as much as someone else.

@Winterstrike, why yo' hatin' on ON?

False wrote:@Reaper, I dissagree about having to have over 100 posts to vote. Becuase some people are post-whores and just post crap to get their post count up. Plus other people have been members for over a year and have witnessed what is going on but may have not posted as much as someone else.

You mean melbnerf619?