Call For Impeachment Of All Moderators...

[Brendo]

Forgive me if I do not know exactly where to post this, as it is meant to be applied to all forums on Net-Benefits.

There has been an edit made to the NB Moderation Policy. The policy can be viewed here:
http://www.net-benefits.net/mod.html

The edit came about primarily because a moderator intervened in a post along the concerns of the platform he ran- and was subsequently elected- on. Question was raised as to if this action conflicted with existing moderation policy, and clarification was deemed necessary.

This impeachment proceeding is not over the issue of that moderator's action. Rather, it is important to realize that this edit occured only after our recent elections, and was enacted to clarify the purpose and mandate of those who so graciously serve us as moderators. As such, it has been suggested that it is only fair that the voting public of Net-Benefits be afforded the opportunity to hold new moderator elections with the newly clarified knowledge of what the office of moderator actually entails.

Because of this, I now formally call for the impeachment of all current moderators, Alan, Boredguy8, steinguitar, and syphonhail.

Please let it be known that I do this not because of any personal or direct attachment to the issues or the persons at hand. In fact, quiet the opposite is true. While I know personally and consider friends three of these moderators (and the one I don't really know I actually quite like), I have very little concern with how this site is moderated and have no history of involvement on almost any level with the moderation policy or its implications.

I merely believe that it would be best for all people involved in this site that new elections be held under the pretenses of full-disclosure of what the public will be voting for, and as governed by the rules of the site the only way to do this is via impeachment.

I personally thank each and every moderator for their service, and fervently hope that each one afford us the indulgence of seeing them run for their positions again, along with whomever else believes they would like to serve in the positions.

Please let myself count as the first user vote to impeach all current moderators, in the hope of resolving our current conflicts and bettering the site for all.

-Brendo (Brendan K. O'Grady)

[Intellectual Fugitive]

I am calling as well.

My concerns, like Brendan's, are due to the fact that the policy was edited and different rules now apply.

[Carl]

Frankly, the only one that needs to be impeached is the shamuel. Is it getting a little crowded in here? Yeah, that's his ego.


(FYI: If you attempt to censor this post, I will keep posting it until you relent)

Carl

[AhhAlegra]

To be clear: What needs to happen here is that 10 people have to post on this thread agreeing with the call for impeachment. After that, someone (I guess an admin) needs to preside over a site-wide vote for impeachment, in which there has to be a majority of yeses.

Highly doubt the thresholds are going to be met, but go nuts, parliamentarians.

[Brendo]

The only other option would be for all moderators to step down, and I thought it a bit presumptuous for lowly little old me to do that.

[steinguitar]

Note, I was elected to moderate on case, off case, and PoR - not here. As such, it's not within my power to moderate Carl's post.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Given that the post is about Ian, I doubt he wants it to be moderated.

Furthermore, Ian is not an administrator, not a moderator. He isn't subject to the same standards for impeachment as moderators are.

[Alan]

I'm gonna go ahead and second the call for my own impeachment as well as that of others.

I have nothing against anyone who ran and I think they would do a good job. But the policy has changed substantially, and I feel it's only right to allow a re-election in light of that.

Heck, I'm not even sure what my platform was other than "Oh yeah, what Dan did." Had I known my platform would be the basis for the policy, I'd have spent more time on it.

At any rate, I'm more than willing to step down and allow another election, just so the people know what they are voting for.

Alan

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Just for a quick check, we have 3 users agreeing to the impeachment with a total of 5,207 posts.

We still need 7 more.

[Mike_Cal'06]

So I think the procedure of this impeachment needs to be clarified. As I understand it:

1. 10 People with a total of 5000 posts must call for impeachment.

2. Some administrator must call for a vote on whether or not to impeach the group.

3. Some administrator must call for a replacement election.

Questions:

1. Do #2 and #3 happen simultaneously?

2. Does #2 have one vote or six- one on each moderator in each forum?

3. Can a moderator who was removed in #2 run again in #3?

Kinda should know what we are getting into.

Mike
Cal

[AhhAlegra]

What makes the most sense is NOT to do this California style with the "vote on the impeachment AND for the next moderators." What should happen is that if there are 10 people who want the impeachment, we have a one or two day vote where everyone votes yes or no on EACH moderator (so, six votes.) Then, if anyone gets impeached, we have replacement elections afterward. And people should probably be allowed to run again.

Anyone have problems with this?

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Yes. The majority of the posters on this thread are agreeing to the impeachment of ALL moderators and not targeting out individual moderators to be impeached. That makes it personal and that IS NOT what this is about.

I vote for a site-wide impeachment and hold new elections now that we know platforms are binding mechanisms of operation and the site policy itself has been revised.

Sorry to make things difficult and if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, please point me in the right direction

[Mike_Cal'06]

So it seems we need to do the following:

1. 10 People with a total of 5000 posts must call for impeachment. Once this happens, then:

2. Some administrator will set a date for a vote. The vote will be an up or down vote on whether or not to hold new elections. If this vote passes, then:

3. Some administrator will set another date for a new election. This election will be an open moderator election in which any eligible candidate may run, including recently impeached moderators. The winners of these elections will be the new moderators for one year or until a new election is called.

To me this sounds more like a vote of confidence procedure than an impeachment.

Mike
Cal

[Kissable Kate]

I'll vote for impeachment

KT

[Intellectual Fugitive]

I agree with Mike's interpretation.

But I don't want to call it a "vote of confidence" procedure. I know that may be the official title, but I have full confidence in our moderators. I am suggesting a new election because the platforms are binding policy and the site's entire moderating policy has changed.

With that said, Mike, are you voting for the impeachment or no?

[Mike_Cal'06]

I have not decided what I want yet. I doubt you all will have trouble gathering 10 people to initiate the impeachment vote so I'm not really needed for this. I'll vote for or against impeachment when that vote is called.

Btw, once the 10 sponsors have come forward, then the issue should be posted on other forums. I used to never read Site Ideas and Feedback, so I expect that a lot of people don't.

Mike
Cal

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Mike brings up a valid point: very few people actually read this thread. It was just recently moved up on the forum board.

Is there any way I could get an administrator to copy this thread onto the other forums?

Thank you.

[patio11]

I oppose the impeachment. First time for everything, doncha know.

Patrick McKenzie

[patio11]

By the way, here is my reasoning for the rest of you guys: I don't have the actual ballot totals of the last election in front of me, but turnout was, like, two people. Most people honestly do not care about how this site is moderated, in the same way they don't care about disposal regulations for baby diapers. Any of the available options is pretty much OK-dokey for them. Supposing the unlikely, that there are 10 members of NB who are sufficiently interested in the mod policy to want to do the whole shebang again, the election results are likely to be all but identical on the question of "So are we going to be editing anonymous quotes?" Because, to the extent that people have any opinion on the mod policy, its "Yeah, moderation sounds like a good idea" (trust me here, I've been the no-moderation candidate three elections running and the margins keep getting bigger).

Plus, there is the Prolong the Drama DA. On an impact scale of 1 to 10, drama is spirit murder. The walls of our dramatic prison are cruel, inhuman, and totally stupid. The danger point of self-absorption is drawing ever more near. But we are not condemned to an inexorable fate. Brick by brick, stone by stone, you and I are urgently called to get on with our bloody lives. Two sentences have spawned over a hundred posts now. Let it die.

Patrick McKenzie

[AhhAlegra]

I don't think anyone is going to get super pissed about me "divulging" this information, since real elections do it, so: turnout for the last election was 23 people.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

Supposing the unlikely, that there are 10 members of NB who are sufficiently interested in the mod policy to want to do the whole shebang again

Maybe we could get those 10 people if you would copy this thread to the other 3 posts like I have asked you repeatedly to do. I understand that you have more things to do than the requests I ask, but I have PM'd you, IM'd you, and posted it publicly on this thread as well. I would like for others on this site to see this thread and realize that a major change to this site is being proposed.

Patrick, I do care about the way this site is moderated and the other members who frequent this site do as well. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a two page thread on this subject and there would be no concern over the actions taken. But the mere fact that we are having this discussion proves you wrong.

Once again, the impeachment should happen because the policy was basically re-written and the role of moderator has changed and we now know that the moderator platform of a candidate is the governing policy for the way they do business. In accordance with that, it is only logical to hold new elections.

The issue of "so are we moderating anonymous posts" is obviously a damn important one, seeing as how it spawned the discussions it has for the past 3 days.

And this is not the result of "2 sentences"; this is the result of an action that many feel was out of the bounds of moderating duties.

[Mike_Cal'06]

The role of moderators and administrators is to place threads where they belong. This thread is Ideas and Feedback, so it is where it belongs.

It is not the role of mods/admins to place things where they will get more or less visibility. I see this as something like a signiture campaign, and mods/admins moving the thread is like having the government pay signiture gatherers.

Mike
Cal

P. S. This does not mean that I oppose the impeachment. I have yet to decide, but I am in no hurry.

Edited for Spelling

[AhhAlegra]

You can always start a thread on each forum with a link to this thread, or that copies some of the posts here.

[patio11]

Crimety, Brandi, calm down. Its the middle of the workday for me and every once in a while I have to do things to justify my salary, like go to meetings away from the computer and whatnot. Its not like I can say "Pardon me, I understand the Typhoon Readiness Plan is kind of important but I have forum drama to avert -- but don't worry, maybe it won't rain this year".

When I signed up to be an admin, or more to the point was drafted, I mentioned I didn't want to get involved in any moving, splitting, editing, and whatnot. If the database suffers a hiccup or the quote list runneth over or the CSS gets borked, ring a little bell and I'll fix it. Otherwise, its none of my affair. If you want people to know there is a Issue of Grave Importance going on, you can post it yourself, and even include a link back to here if you'd like all the votes on the same thread (or use the quote tag and get all of Brendo's post in it, too -- go craaaazy!)

Patrick McKenzie

[Intellectual Fugitive]

I understand and I am sorry for the rant. I honestly didn;t know if I could copy it or not.

Thank you for responding, though.

[syphos]

Hahaha, you all are cute.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

You really are exaggerating this. A lot.

The legal claims have already been answered by Jed and no one is trying to "strip" moderation powers away. There just needs to be a check as to how much they can edit without having to answer to other users of this site.

[Intellectual Fugitive]

I am NOT spamming the forums. I am doing what I was told to do, Jason. Please do not start the pattern of attacking my posts unnecessarily.

Furthermore, anyone with moderate intelligence can count up votes. Get off my back.

If you want people to know there is a Issue of Grave Importance going on, you can post it yourself, and even include a link back to here if you'd like all the votes on the same thread

You can always start a thread on each forum with a link to this thread, or that copies some of the posts here.

[Euphrates]

Sorry if this is a dumb question; however, what are the procedures to amending the mod policy? I understand it was changed/amended, but according to what rule?

Maybe a better route would be to void the change to the mod policy, and then have a vote for/against the proposed change.

[boredguy8]

Jed gets divine fiat over *some* things, I would hope.