|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:08 pm
that doesn't keep trolls or unproductive members from gaining mod status. it only slows them down. I don't want them to have the opportunity. if that means that we only get mods through consencus decisions I'm just fine with that. we can even rotate them after a certain amount of time. but I'd rather not have people who don't post in this guild frequently or who are unproductive having mod powers inside this guild.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:24 pm
Next Dollar After that doesn't keep trolls or unproductive members from gaining mod status. it only slows them down. I don't want them to have the opportunity. if that means that we only get mods through consencus decisions I'm just fine with that. we can even rotate them after a certain amount of time. but I'd rather not have people who don't post in this guild frequently or who are unproductive having mod powers inside this guild. Point taken. I've stopped operating on gaia outside of a few guilds, and have done similarly on most of the forums I'm on, because of trolls. I don't think about them that much anymore. We do need a productivity quota if we aren't gonna have votes everytime we have a new person apply for modship, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:14 am
Next Dollar After couple questions(maybe the were already answered I just skimmed). 1. is there any restraints on how quickly a new member can become a mod? e.g. can someone who just joined and never posted put their name into the queue. and if they can should they be allowed to before showing themselves to be an active and productive member of the guild? 2. who is going to actually watch the time people have been mods and switch them out? 1. Well my proposal was that you must have been a member of the guild for 2-3 weeks. 2. I don't think we necessarily have to assign anyone to do this, we could make a forum, where one of the current mods could write down all the mods presiding over the guild for that period, and then put at the bottom "Serve Time", where they would put how long until a new mod is selected to fill the current mod positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:55 pm
CapitolAnarchy 1. Well my proposal was that you must have been a member of the guild for 2-3 weeks. But isn't the point to do more then just stall them? They'll be out of the cycle for at least a month if we have as few as 10 mods in the queue, and I think this guild can do that easy.Perhaps someone who applies for modship should start a topic in a subforum ('cording to the admins., guilds'll have these soon) titled mods, useing their user name as the subject. The moderation log we're supposed to hve, but I've never seen, could go there, too. Members will vote on wether the member enters the queue as per the rules for passing a proposal. Provided, of course, that our reasoning for this is to keep trolls out, cause otherwise, this is way to freaking a**l. CapitolAnarchy 2. I don't think we necessarily have to assign anyone to do this, we could make a forum, where one of the current mods could write down all the mods presiding over the guild for that period, and then put at the bottom "Serve Time", where they would put how long until a new mod is selected to fill the current mod positions. I'll drink to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:23 am
1. After the troubles that this guild has already gone through, I'd also prefer a consensus-style system. One with a waiting period, too. This weeds out the trolls and the more naive new members who shout "I want to be da mod!"
2. Since the mods haven't really done anything outside of admit applicants to the guild, and sticky the occasional topic here and there, no one ever bothered to create a log of those actions. To us, they're just tedious daily chores. If it's of such concern to the guild, such a log will be created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:10 pm
Should we re-write what we have as a proposal? this shouldn't stall like it is unless we're in the waiting for aproval period. I'll agree with the waiting waiting period+ consensus model. If there are no objections, I'll put it in as a proposal around 4 PM tommorow... er, today. I'm way to tired now.
Oh, and while I don't see a need for logs on stickies and guild acceptances, I do feel that, say edited posts should be logged(even if that is done on accident), as well as changes in modship (the only cases of which I can offhand think of happened before the proposal was passed, but I do think it's a valid place to start the record) and bans (which, to my knowledge, haven't been done at all, and which are actions I don't think fit in with most anarchistic thought (though don't take my word for it, prolly more the altruist in me speaking there).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:16 am
Go ahead and write it up, we'll work it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:26 pm
LOOK OUT!!! It's Propozilla!!! The bits in blue are the new/edited stuff.
--------------------------------------
heart All guild members wishing for a position as a moderator shall submit their name to the stickied "mod application" thread. They must have been a member of the guild for at least 3 weeks, and must recive a consensus ruling toward their modship, as per the model set forth for proposals. Nominations may also be submitted to the thread, but the nominee shall not be placed in the queue until they themselves respond.
sweatdrop Any wishing to vote against a proposed moderator should post their reason in the application thread.
domokun After a proposed moderator has passed, the next current mod to view the topic shall put the applicants name at the bottom of the first post in the thread. (Herein, this list shall be the queue.)
xp The applicants shall serve one month terms as moderators, 5 members at a time.(Herein, the terms shall be referred to as cycles.)
mrgreen After the current cycle has ended, the five members whose names appear below the name of the last serving moderator shall be given the status of moderator, while those serving in the previous cycle shall have their status revoked.
3nodding No more then 3 nominees with no experience as a moderator of the GULAG may serve in a given cycle. Any in excess of three will have their term posponed one cycle, and the next experienced moderator shall take their place.
arrow when the last name in the queue is reached, return to the name at the top, and start over.
stressed In the first post of the mod topic, above the queue, the names of those currently serving as moderators shall be posted, as well as the date on which their term ends.
pirate Members may ask for their names to be removed from the queue at any time by making a post stating such in the mod application thread.
ninja If someone currently serving as moderator wishes to, for any reason, step down before the end of the cycle, then the remainder of their term shall be handed of to the next expoerienced mod in the queue. The one who has the term handed off to them shall have the choice to serve in their normal cycle or not, in addition to the hand-off cycle. Stepping dow from a term DOES NOT remove a name from the queue.
whee In the event that GaiaGuilds are down for an extended period(Over two days, the serving moderators shall have the time that GaiaGuilds were down added on to their term.
-------------
did I miss anything? Add anything you don't like? Speak up, people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:47 am
I'd still like to see the transition process articulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:41 pm
Not entirly sure how to do that, but what the heck. I'll take a shot. All council members have access to the Anarchoadmin, correct? do we want this power to transfer? Tell me what yo think, and I'll write something up tommorow or friday(prolly friday, unless someone else writes something up).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 am
Yes, all of the original/current council members either have or had (in the case of someone who may have forgotten) access to the AnarchoAdmin account. Becky and Ben had it first, because I was going on a trip with my father and my step/half family for several days and I happened to know them the best. It was long before the guild even had the setup we have now. That was either in February or mid January; I forget. An interesting fact is that for the first several days ALL guild members had mod status. It was then confined to one publicly accessable account just prior to the hijacking of the AnarchoMod account (which we put into place before there was a council. A few weeks after the council was put into place, Obach got it because we occasionally chat on AIM and the idea occurred to me, and Aufheben got it several weeks after that because I bothered to get around to sending him a PM about it. Just some history for y'all out there.
There are a lot of people openly antagonistic toward the guild on gaia. One ED-P user went so far as to use a black flag with a circle and slash through it to show his vigil against Anarchy. Also, as Obach once mentioned before: anarchists tend to carry an irreverent "******** you" attitude. So those statist jerks who don't outright hate us for existing find their ranks swelled by people some of us may piss off.
If I were malicious enough, one month of pretending to be nice and friendly could easily get me to the point where I could completely dismantle the guild from the Captain account. After an innocent ten months we have come to a decision that every society and subculture is forced to make. How much liberty do we allow ourselves to give up for the feeling of safety and comfort? The difficulty could be mitigated if Vice-Captains didn't match the exact power of the Captains (to me at least) but I don't believe that's the case.
To be completely honest, I think of this guild in two contradictory ways. I feel that it's our guild, and that it is precisely what it is because of what all of us make it. Opposed to that is the feeling that this is my guild. It was my quest, my vision, and from the earliest shaped by my own designs. Feel free to call me a power monger, or sadly cluck your tongue at the influence of capitalism on my personality which instills a desire to hoard that I'm not actively stopping. Aufheben might say that I'm not doing my civic duties to the guild, but I can't disagree with any presentation minus that bias. I must actively refrain from that discussion completely except for the one premise that three or four weeks is not enough to make the judge of character to consense someone into the queue. Resolve how to handle this part, and I'll again actively make suggestions to the proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:41 am
Since nobody seems to want to address this anymore, can I move that this be tabled until everyone has had more time to think the issue over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:38 pm
while wanting a time limit on how long a person should be a member of the guild before trying to become a mod for the guild is a good thing. time shouldn't be the only thing factored in. How active they are in the guild, how much thought they put into a statement before posting what they think etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:21 pm
Trying to get this tabled again lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
