Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

  1. #1

    Default A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." - Aristotle

    Introduction

    This treatise is designed to highlight the qualities a moderator should possess, whether Civitates or Staff are best suited to judge said traits and what effects voting upon the frontline moderator might incur.

    On Defining Traits a Moderator Should Possesses

    In order to choose a moderator, one must first understand what traits make a good frontline moderator and which ones can be ascertained a priori (before moderating) and which ones are established a posteriori (after moderating). As always with TWC, it is good to draw parallels with the Rome as we base much of our government on Roman values. Thusly, I submit to you the Via Romana transmogrified for our great Curia.

    Auctoritas "Respectful of Authority"

    A moderator should be deferential to superiors in matters of staff. For example, if a moderator does an action that his superiors ask him to discontinue; he should do so (with a presumption that the request is reasonable). This brings about stability within the staff and promotes other members to also demonstrate Auctoritas. This action is most often attributed a posteriori but occasionally is present a priori in forums such as the Consilium Publicum.

    Comitas "Ease of manner"

    Natural amiability is important for putting upset members at ease, lightening the mood of a conversation and dispelling anger directed at staff. It is an inherent trait that can be almost universally transmitted a priori and will rarely surface a posteriori. Even if it should demonstrate itself as such; it will most often be done so in a manner all Civitates can see.

    Clementia "Gentle"

    Gentleness refers to the likelihood of getting angry and issuing ad hominen attacks and it also deals with clemency, that of showing mercy to someone that has offended them or others they care about. This becomes an issue with moderating in that it prevents one from judging on personal bias and it ensures that justice not vengeance is carried out in punishments. This can be demonstrated both a priori and a posteriori but always the signs are present a priori to an insightful viewer.

    Dignitas "Sense of self-worth"

    High self-esteem is an important facet for moderating. It gives one confidence in their decision, a certain decisiveness of action and ensures that the possess a certain consistency when handling issues. This trait is always known a priori and can often be understood from the very first post.

    Firmitas "Tenacious"

    When one believes in something, they must fight for it and not waver even when others prevail against them. Standing firm against opposition is necessary when making important decisions and is especially important when making necessary but unpopular decisions.

    Gravitas "Responsible"


    Responsibility is a trait that due to the anonymity of the Internet is often discovered a posteriori. However, with positions such as Pro Curator, local moderators and in the creation of modifications for Total War. Possessing Gravitas is most important for the higher rungs of moderating and is of some import for frontline moderators as well.

    Honestas "Respectable"

    In order to command obedience, one must also command respect. Honestas is nearly universally transmitted a priori and is easily recognized. Rarely does someone without respectability gain it through moderation alone.

    Humanitas "Cultured"

    Refinement and intelligence define one who possesses Humanitas. Moderators represent the epitome of what TWC represents and as such must be held to the highest standard in regard to the content they present.

    Industria "Hard working"

    Like Firmitas, this one is most often demonstrated a posteriori except in cases again of Pro Curator and modifications.

    Pietas "Devotion"

    Devotion to the site. A moderator has a duty to the site and thus needs to possess a duty or commitment towards it. Length of time spent at the site, number of posts, the content of posts all can demonstrate Pietas. Again, this is usually and with good reason determined a priori.

    Prudentia "Common Sense"

    Prudence is necessary in order to ensure that all decisions one makes as a moderator have been thought out and are appropriate.

    Salubritas "Wholesomeness"

    Speaking without the censor bypass, being crass or rude are all aspects of Salubritas. A moderator sets the tone of the forum and that tone must be one of maturity.

    Severitas "Self-control"

    I would remind you to also never forget the words of the Delphi: "Meden Agan" (Nothing in Excess). Restraint prevents the other traits from being taken in excess and as such has to be judged in relation to every other trait. It isn't a priori or a posteriori but rather dependent on the individual trait being analyzed.

    On Choosing a First Time Moderator

    For the purpose of the frontline moderators; a posteriori traits can largely be dismissed save when the aspirant in question has previous moderating skills or possesses relevant experience such as being on a mod team. What then makes a member Senior Staff more capable of appointing a frontline moderator? Both have access to the same posts, so we can exclude that factor. Perhaps then it's on what traits a moderator must possess. However, these traits have existed for millennia yet they are still relevant and applicable today and require no moderatorship to determine. That leaves us with User Notes.

    User notes are an oft cited reason for why a Civitates should not choose frontline moderators. Thus, I suggest that for the case of running in an election, that Candidates release their user notes for the purposes of evaluating. This would resolve the disparity between Staff and Civitates on the judging of whom best would serve as a frontline moderator. If this is deemed too sensitive then I suggest that the warnings be summarized with the number of warnings, the type of warning, the severity (as per the Handbook) and the dates be issued.

    On Voting

    When did the Civitates become incapable of anything more than voting based on popularity. These are not the Civitates I know. The Civitates I know possess many of the traits outlined above and care about this site. Sure, the occasional personal bias makes itself clear but Senior Staff is no less subject to personal bias. I submit that those who consider elections nothing more than a popularity contest should reevaluate your position towards your fellow Civitate. When I look at the Curia I see a meritocratic body of members who I would entrust with a both the choosing of moderators and the very providence of this site.

    Practical Application of the Outlined Principles

    Without historical precendence; it could be claimed that this treatise relies on the ideal and denies the practical. As such, I present to you the case of imb39. Prior to his appointment, he was well known for possessing the traits of Comitas, Clementia, Honestas, Humanitas, Prudentia and Salubritas. Though his time as Urbanis Legio was quite brief, he recieved nearly ninety percent of the vote and became Quaestor. A true example of the Curia being able to demonstrate the appropiate traits of Moderators. The recent results of the Most Helpful Staff award is further justification of this principle in practice.

    Conclusion


    I leave the conclusion, to my fellow man.
    Last edited by Mímirswell; April 05, 2006 at 03:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Claritas and Sanitas.

    An excellent treatise Mim, let me just add this: The degree of paranoid ideation many of us exhibited in the CVRIA, is founded upon the recent history of this site and an atavistic fear of authority. Don't forget that less then a week earlier a whole prank was based upon these specific attributes.

    As an experiment in direct democracy TWC fared much better then what many would expect or imagine. The deficiency inherited in this system is the absolute dependence on an external parameter (ON), which many treat as a reality check or even the true safeguard against anarchy.

    Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated that the suspension of this experiment is the only functional way to deal with a crisis. And this is something that people that are here for more then a year are not going to overcome, not in a casual manner anyway.

  3. #3
    Decemvir's Avatar vox veritas vita
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sunny California, USA
    Posts
    184

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Let me echo Garbarsardar's praise of your treastise Mimirswell. I was not an active member of this community during the hacker attacks and other events eluded to by Garb, and so I may be a bit idealistic in my hopes and aspirations for the TWC community in being allowed to contribute to the CVRIA. I firmly agree with your statement that the Civitates can (and do) exercise much thought in their votes. I would hope that the senior staff does not view the Civitates condescendingly or paternalistically on matters that concern the CVRIA or TWC in general. I do not frequent other web-boards and so I cannot comment on how different (or similar?) TWC is to other sites. What I can comment on is the degree of dignitas and gravitas (to borrow a couple of the traits that used in your post) exibihted on this site by the majority of the Civitates. The government of TWC can (and should) be open to all that are qualified. Again, great post.
    Under the Patronage of Soren

  4. #4

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    This treatise is designed to highlight the qualities a moderator should possess, whether Civitates or Staff are best suited to judge said traits and what effects voting upon the frontline moderator might incur.
    I would add it's an excellent idea, and I would not look at these as basing someone if he is "qualified" to to the job, but more like a guidance.

    For example.
    Evaluation of certain members/moderators and recommendation of which areas they need to improve or already improved in.

    What if we would make a monthly evaluation of moderators/staff/civitates...or whatever and the civis would evaluate someone based on these traits? Really nothing serious, (cannot base ostrakon or removal from ranks on these) but just recommendations from others what the individual should work on?

  5. #5
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer

    What if we would make a monthly evaluation of moderators/staff/civitates...or whatever and the civis would evaluate someone based on these traits? Really nothing serious, (cannot base ostrakon or removal from ranks on these) but just recommendations from others what the individual should work on?
    Yes!, and by including only positive traits we minimize the risk of revanchism and flaming...
    Could anyone write this up?

  6. #6
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Garbarsardar
    As an experiment in direct democracy TWC fared much better then what many would expect or imagine
    I know small countries (cough)Romania(cough) that are much worse run than this site here... Also I believe that our fear/untrust against authority/government keeps things going smooth. It is quite evident that with a good set of Senior Staff, like the one we have now, this fear goes down and we learn to listen/obey... It takes something like Crandarius returning to make us all like the youth in France (well, without the burning things part)...


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  7. #7
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    This treatise I like, even if I have registered a few things with Mim (yeah... translations).

    Clear, concise, intelligent, and well-written. Good on you.

  8. #8
    imb39's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Patrician Citizen Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    20,872

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Nothing unsurprising here. Exceptionally well written. Excellent structure and an... interesting example.

  9. #9
    Tacticalwithdrawal's Avatar Ghost
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Stirling, Scotland
    Posts
    7,013

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Looks really good and I agree with it. I have never seen any reason why the Curia shouldn't elect the junior moderators, exactly for the reason you outline.

    My only proviso has always been that the Imperator should be able to appoint some people otherwise we risk having a bias in favour of CC people and away from TW people (who are by definition a lot less well known in the Curia).

    Mind you, personally I'm not sure where I fit. By vote one of the least helpfull staff but the 1st equal politician? Confused I am

    i do agree with Archer's point that this should be viewed as guidance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer
    What if we would make a monthly evaluation of moderators/staff/civitates...or whatever and the civis would evaluate someone based on these traits? Really nothing serious, (cannot base ostrakon or removal from ranks on these) but just recommendations from others what the individual should work on?
    I like that idea, constructive critisism is important in any job and I've introduced it in all the projects I have ever run.
    : - It's my smilie and I'll use it if I want to......
    ______________________________________________________________

    Ave Caesar, Morituri Nolumus Mori (in Glaswegian: gae **** yrsel big man)
    ______________________________________________________________
    Child of Seleukos, Patron of Rosacrux redux, Polemides, Marcus Scaurus, CaptainCernick, Spiff and Fatsheep

  10. #10
    Lusted's Avatar Look to the stars
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brighton, Sussex, England.
    Posts
    18,183

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    I also like Archers idea, and this is a brilliant treatise Mim, i commend you for it. Whilst i think the curia should elect the ULs, there is an advantage to having the Imperator appoint them as like tac said the TW section civs tend to be much less Curia active than the CC ones.
    Creator of:
    Lands to Conquer Gold for Medieval II: Kingdoms
    Terrae Expugnandae Gold Open Beta for RTW 1.5
    Proud ex-Moderator and ex-Administrator of TWC from Jan 06 to June 07
    Awarded the Rank of Opifex for outstanding contributions to the TW mod community.
    Awarded the Rank of Divus for oustanding work during my times as Administrator.

  11. #11
    Søren's Avatar ܁
    Patrician Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Library of Babel
    Posts
    8,993

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Firstly: a very well written and intresting treatise, Mimirswell. Nevertheless, I have some disagreement with it.




    Auctoritas "Respectful of Authority"

    A moderator should be deferential to superiors in matters of staff. For example, if a moderator does an action that his superiors ask him to discontinue; he should do so (with a presumption that the request is reasonable). This brings about stability within the staff and promotes other members to also demonstrate Auctoritas. This action is most often attributed a posteriori but occasionally is present a priori in forums such as the Consilium Publicum.
    This is, indeed a most important requirement for a moderator. Yet I would hold that it is best judged by those actually in authority in their dealings with the candidate - for after all, is it not true that the Civitates merely see an outward appearance, and have no knowledge of any private conversations staff members/moderators may have had with them.

    In this way, it seems merely common sense, to let staff judge on this.

    Comitas "Ease of manner"

    Natural amiability is important for putting upset members at ease, lightening the mood of a conversation and dispelling anger directed at staff. It is an inherent trait that can be almost universally transmitted a priori and will rarely surface a posteriori. Even if it should demonstrate itself as such; it will most often be done so in a manner all Civitates can see.
    This is certianly a trait which many of the civitates will be fit to judge on. Since the moderators are those who monitor the various threads, however, they would, I believe be more likely to notice it. This is, you are right, a trait in which Civitates are almost equal in judging of though.

    Clementia "Gentle"

    Gentleness refers to the likelihood of getting angry and issuing ad hominen attacks and it also deals with clemency, that of showing mercy to someone that has offended them or others they care about. This becomes an issue with moderating in that it prevents one from judging on personal bias and it ensures that justice not vengeance is carried out in punishments. This can be demonstrated both a priori and a posteriori but always the signs are present a priori to an insightful viewer.
    I would reiterate (sp?) my last comment, with paticular note to the moderators "monitoring".

    Dignitas "Sense of self-worth"

    High self-esteem is an important facet for moderating. It gives one confidence in their decision, a certain decisiveness of action and ensures that the possess a certain consistency when handling issues. This trait is always known a priori and can often be understood from the very first post.
    It should, of course, be noticed that in excesses this characteristic can be extremly dangerous. However, it is, again, a trait which can be judged equally by Civitates and Staff alike.

    Firmitas "Tenacious"

    When one believes in something, they must fight for it and not waver even when others prevail against them. Standing firm against opposition is necessary when making important decisions and is especially important when making necessary but unpopular decisions.


    This can be judged by both.

    Gravitas "Responsible"

    Responsibility is a trait that due to the anonymity of the Internet is often discovered a posteriori. However, with positions such as Pro Curator, local moderators and in the creation of modifications for Total War. Possessing Gravitas is most important for the higher rungs of moderating and is of some import for frontline moderators as well.
    Actually, it is extremly important in all levels of moderation, for obvious reasons.

    As concerning local moderators - the staff (and paticular the senior levels who have access to all moderation logs), will have a considerable advantage in this as they are aware of actions taken by the LM's.

    Honestas "Respectable"

    In order to command obedience, one must also command respect. Honestas is nearly universally transmitted a priori and is easily recognized. Rarely does someone without respectability gain it through moderation alone.
    Staff and Civitates can individually judge this equally. However, considering that civitates vote en masse it is true they have some advantage in this.

    Humanitas "Cultured"

    Refinement and intelligence define one who possesses Humanitas. Moderators represent the epitome of what TWC represents and as such must be held to the highest standard in regard to the content they present.
    Equally judged.

    Industria "Hard working"

    Like Firmitas, this one is most often demonstrated a posteriori except in cases again of Pro Curator and modifications.
    Equally judged - and as you say, it is almost always a posteriori so is irrelevent in most cases.

    Pietas "Devotion"

    Devotion to the site. A moderator has a duty to the site and thus needs to possess a duty or commitment towards it. Length of time spent at the site, number of posts, the content of posts all can demonstrate Pietas. Again, this is usually and with good reason determined a priori.
    Perhaps this is better judged by the moderators who scrutanize the posts?

    Prudentia "Common Sense"

    Prudence is necessary in order to ensure that all decisions one makes as a moderator have been thought out and are appropriate.
    Equally judged.

    Salubritas "Wholesomeness"

    Speaking without the censor bypass, being crass or rude are all aspects of Salubritas. A moderator sets the tone of the forum and that tone must be one of maturity.
    See my answer to Pietas

    Severitas "Self-control"

    I would remind you to also never forget the words of the Delphi: "Meden Agan" (Nothing in Excess). Restraint prevents the other traits from being taken in excess and as such has to be judged in relation to every other trait. It isn't a priori or a posteriori but rather dependent on the individual trait being analyzed.

    Yet another equally judged trait.

    On Choosing a First Time Moderator

    As we have seen, the areas in which Civitates have the advantage over the staff are few. By contrast - the staff have an advantage in many areas (as I believe I have done something to show) - due to their constant watch for such behavioural patterns which are all but likely to go un-noticed by non-moderators.

    So far I have seen little or no case for Civitates to choose over staff, and indeed; I belive that the very points you mention demonstrate how the staff are sutiable to judge.

    On Voting

    When did the Civitates become incapable of anything more than voting based on popularity. These are not the Civitates I know. The Civitates I know possess many of the traits outlined above and care about this site. Sure, the occasional personal bias makes itself clear but Senior Staff is no less subject to personal bias. I submit that those who consider elections nothing more than a popularity contest should reevaluate your position towards your fellow Civitate. When I look at the Curia I see a meritocratic body of members who I would entrust with a both the choosing of moderators and the very providence of this site.
    The staff are those who will have to work well with the candidates. As such, it is only proper that they will be able to work efficently and get on well with the prospective moderators. In this way, it may be said to serve some purpose.

    Practical Application of the Outlined Principles

    Without historical precendence; it could be claimed that this treatise relies on the ideal and denies the practical. As such, I present to you the case of imb39. Prior to his appointment, he was well known for possessing the traits of Comitas, Clementia, Honestas, Humanitas, Prudentia and Salubritas. Though his time as Urbanis Legio was quite brief, he recieved nearly ninety percent of the vote and became Quaestor. A true example of the Curia being able to demonstrate the appropiate traits of Moderators. The recent results of the Most Helpful Staff award is further justification of this principle in practice.


    And of course, note that the staff had at that point already chosen imb39 as a moderator.

    Such an instance proves nothing, however, in the past, perhaps not quite so good candidates have won due to mere popularity, as evidenced by many replies to the polls. Out of respect, I will not name any names. (I am not reffering to anyone in paticular anyway)

    Conclusion

    I leave the conclusion, to my fellow man.
    As do I
    Last edited by Søren; April 05, 2006 at 05:23 AM. Reason: typos

  12. #12

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    To everyone who responded, I thank you for your comments, they have all been quite kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bavarian Noble
    As we have seen, the areas in which Civitates have the advantage over the staff are few. By contrast - the staff have an advantage in many areas (as I believe I have done something to show) - due to their constant watch for such behavioural patterns which are all but likely to go un-noticed by non-moderators.

    So far I have seen little or no case for Civitates to choose over staff, and indeed; I belive that the very points you mention demonstrate how the staff are sutiable to judge.
    All the areas where staff knows best are areas where either a veto could be applied (such as those lacking auctoritas) or transparency of government be utilized (releasing of moderation logs for example.) Staff already form roughly 30% of election results (figures based on 20 members of staff and an average election of 65-70 Civitates total). Combined that is a sufficient balance of powers already inherent in our election process.

    Also, this treatise is regarding the election of frontline moderators. Obviously all a posteriori traits will be better judged by Staff once a member joins due to the additional forms and moderation logs etc that are kept from the Civitates. However, that's a reason to not appoint Quaestor as the exist currently and a reason to appoint the Quaestors in the Bill currently in debate in the Prothalamos and thus my treatise.

    And of course, note that the staff had at that point already chosen imb39 as a moderator.
    I grant you that but it was a very brief period of time and thus was worthy of noting as the closest practical example availible since I joined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacticalwithdrawal
    My only proviso has always been that the Imperator should be able to appoint some people otherwise we risk having a bias in favour of CC people and away from TW people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire
    So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
    The Curia are not "sleeping men". If we specify the section that needs moderation when the thread is opened the Curia will elect someone that visits that section. If not then my entire premise regarding the Meritocracy of the Curia are incorrect but time shall be my ally and vindicate me. If not, then we can modify this accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer
    What if we would make a monthly evaluation of moderators/staff/civitates...or whatever and the civis would evaluate someone based on these traits? Really nothing serious, (cannot base ostrakon or removal from ranks on these) but just recommendations from others what the individual should work on?
    Sounds like a decent idea.

  13. #13

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Well done Mim, excellent work. A model moderator.....

  14. #14
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimirswell
    Sounds like a decent idea.
    Then maybe you or he could explain to me what he means. I don't understand it, myself.

  15. #15
    Søren's Avatar ܁
    Patrician Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Library of Babel
    Posts
    8,993

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    Then maybe you or he could explain to me what he means. I don't understand it, myself.
    I guess we would start a thread for each staff member and then the Civitates could comment on them....

    I'd find it intresting personally, although perhaps I might delete the divine Q's analysis of myself :sign_lol:

  16. #16

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bavarian Noble
    I guess we would start a thread for each staff member and then the Civitates could comment on them....

    I'd find it intresting personally, although perhaps I might delete the divine Q's analysis :sign_lol:
    That would be very interesting indeed.

    Review of Staff April 2006 so far...

    Pulled Big April's fools on the members, members were in revolt.....
    Server went down next day, members thought they had been banned.....

    What an interesting beginning to the month!

    :wink:

  17. #17
    Omnipotent-Q's Avatar All Powerful Q
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Oxford, United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,828

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    I mostly agree with what the Bavarian Noble. A good piece, but I disagree with parts of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mimirswell
    Honestas "Respectable"

    In order to command obedience, one must also command respect. Honestas is nearly universally transmitted a priori and is easily recognized. Rarely does someone without respectability gain it through moderation alone.
    As Caligula would often say, "Let them hate, so long as they fear": Respect is not a prerequisite of cooperation. You don't need to be a big and important figure in the community to be a decent moderator.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mimirswell
    I submit that those who consider elections nothing more than a popularity contest should reevaluate your position towards your fellow Civitate.
    No. People will vote for friends and people they like. Out of the choice of someone they don't like and someone they do, they will always go for the latter...this is because it is too difficult for the majority of civitates in most situations, to determine if x person would be a better moderator than y person, because they haven't performed as moderators in front of said civitates. In all essence it turns into a popularity contest. It is inevitable.

    I mean you insinuated this yourself, with this quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirmirswell
    The Civitates I know possess many of the traits outlined above and care about this site.
    So how do you logically suggest that civitates choose between people who have similar "traits", when many of them apparently possess them anyway? The only logical conclusion is that they vote on popularity.
    Auctoritas "Respectful of Authority"
    A must have, I agree......but no civitate could possibly know whether someone will have this trait before they become a moderator.
    Clementia "Gentle"
    I don't fully agree with this one. Being gentle with some people just doesn't work. I mean if you very ungentle over troll comments, people will always think twice about breaking a rule again and they will learn to fear and perhaps respect the Iron Fist.

    On your last point of Practical Application.....there are various examples of people hired by the Curia who perhaps weren't the best choice. Also, these elections take time. In some instances, time is not something on side, and so it leads to numerous unfilled moderator positions or inactive staff (As was the case in a period very near to the hack). This is why moderators need to be appointed at some level. To prevent inactivity, which had happened before and to prevent bad moderators being elected, which had happened before.......just look at people like Crandar, who was supported by the Curia despite blatant trolling. I'll use the great Bgreman as an example. A great moderator, but all he had to do to get a second run as a moderator was to say "I'm back to be more active" and the Curia lapped it up. An administrator would probably require more assurances than that, and this would have avoided a second run, which he obviously didn't have the time to do as he was pretty inactive again as soon as he was elected.

    I could use numerous other examples. Things are never as rigid as this. People see a name and go "wow I like his posts" and vote for him. I know. I do it myself most of the time; I don't have the time to benchmark against a list of qualities when most have it anyway. What the difference is, that if some people don't have a particular quality of a moderator, staff are more likely to spot this than a voting body who have consistently shown to vote on popularity. This is why there should be an appointable moderation position.

    Under the patronage of the Legendary Urbanis Legio - Mr Necrobrit of the Great House of Wild Bill Kelso. Honoured to have sponsored these great warriors for Citizenship - Joffrey Baratheon, General Brittanicus, SonOfOdin, Hobbes., Lionheartx10, Mangerman, Gen. Chris and PikeStance.

  18. #18
    vizi's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Misery's the River of the World
    Posts
    11,337

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    I enjoyed the treatise, it was well written and prety accurate.

    But I do believe you forgot one thing, the strength to weild the massive Banhammer

  19. #19

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Honestas "Respectable"

    In order to command obedience, one must also command respect. Honestas is nearly universally transmitted a priori and is easily recognized. Rarely does someone without respectability gain it through moderation alone.
    As Caligula would often say, "Let them hate, so long as they fear": Respect is not a prerequisite of cooperation. You don't need to be a big and important figure in the community to be a decent moderator.
    Ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Respectability and Importance are correlated but there are plenty of respected Civitates that are not important (and even non Civs). Furthermore there are plenty of important people on this forum not respected. There is a common cause but it is remote.


    I submit that those who consider elections nothing more than a popularity contest should reevaluate your position towards your fellow Civitate.
    No. People will vote for friends and people they like. Out of the choice of someone they don't like and someone they do, they will always go for the latter...this is because it is too difficult for the majority of civitates in most situations, to determine if x person would be a better moderator than y person, because they haven't performed as moderators in front of said civitates. In all essence it turns into a popularity contest. It is inevitable.

    So how do you logically suggest that civitates choose between people who have similar "traits", when many of them apparently possess them anyway? The only logical conclusion is that they vote on popularity.
    If all Civitates have the appropiate traits than any mechanism that chooses them would be sufficient. However, while Civs share many of these traits, only a few have enough of the requisite traits AND the desire to be on staff. Since a priori traits come to the fore in such a manner; democracy is just as viable (and in many ways more viable - though not in all ways) methodology of choosing.

    Auctoritas "Respectful of Authority"
    A must have, I agree......but no civitate could possibly know whether someone will have this trait before they become a moderator.
    It's actually present but as I said; it's rare to be a priori.

    Clementia "Gentle"
    I don't fully agree with this one. Being gentle with some people just doesn't work. I mean if you very ungentle over troll comments, people will always think twice about breaking a rule again and they will learn to fear and perhaps respect the Iron Fist.
    Remember Severitas:
    Severitas "Self Control"
    I would remind you to also never forget the words of the Delphi: "Meden Agan" (Nothing in Excess). Restraint prevents the other traits from being taken in excess and as such has to be judged in relation to every other trait. It isn't a priori or a posteriori but rather dependent on the individual trait being analyzed.
    All traits are bad in excess including Clementia.

    In some instances, time is not something on side, and so it leads to numerous unfilled moderator positions or inactive staff (As was the case in a period very near to the hack). This is why moderators need to be appointed at some level.
    I recommend the use of a interim appointee until the election process finishes in such cases.

    I'll use the great Bgreman as an example. A great moderator, but all he had to do to get a second run as a moderator was to say "I'm back to be more active" and the Curia lapped it up. An administrator would probably require more assurances than that, and this would have avoided a second run, which he obviously didn't have the time to do as he was pretty inactive again as soon as he was elected.
    That's no ones fault. For example; Kscott retired from Quaestor and then decided he wanted to be staff again and the Admins appointed him. A short time after, for reasons of his own, he retired again. I fail to see how elections or appointments make any difference in this regard. Sometimes real life intervenes twice in a row, sometimes conflicts occur in staff that were unforeseen. Staff is no better than Civitates at reading the future and both make the occasional mistake.

    What the difference is, that if some people don't have a particular quality of a moderator, staff are more likely to spot this than a voting body who have consistently shown to vote on popularity.
    This is a classical use of the Straw Man fallacy backed up with anecdotal evidence. Appealing to popularity is just as often a means of saying; I thought someone else should win. Because that person didn't; it must be that they are more popular and not that they better fit the qualities the Civitates were looking for or that the other person was lacking in some area.
    Last edited by Mímirswell; April 05, 2006 at 08:05 PM.

  20. #20
    Simetrical's Avatar Former Chief Technician
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    θ = π/0.6293, φ = π/1.293, ρ = 6,360 km
    Posts
    20,154

    Default Re: A Treatise in the Defense of Elections

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimirswell
    On Voting

    When did the Civitates become incapable of anything more than voting based on popularity. These are not the Civitates I know. The Civitates I know possess many of the traits outlined above and care about this site. Sure, the occasional personal bias makes itself clear but Senior Staff is no less subject to personal bias. I submit that those who consider elections nothing more than a popularity contest should reevaluate your position towards your fellow Civitate. When I look at the Curia I see a meritocratic body of members who I would entrust with a both the choosing of moderators and the very providence of this site.
    But on the other hand, the probability of knowing a member increases with the amount of time you spend on the site, and that is undoubtedly correlated with being a moderator. Furthermore, while release of additional information (such as public viewability of user notes and moderation forums) would be a way to increase Civitates awareness of user infractions, a) all staff would have viewed the threads in the moderation forums, whereas many Civitates likely would not; and b) the prerequisite may be non-negotiable if Ogre's Net refuses to permit it, which possibly they may at least if consulted.

    Finally, and I think most importantly, there's a fundamental difference between seven people deciding whether to promote someone and seventy people deciding. That difference is discussion. Senior staff do not "vote" on whom to promote to staff. They discuss, and Archer decides whom to appoint based on the consensus result of the discussion. The critical thing here is that if a few staff members say they don't approve of someone but don't say why, and another staff member gives cogent reasons for supporting them, the more cogent could easily outweigh the more numerous.

    It's not just a matter of opinion being informed, it's a matter of it being both informed and discussed. Most voting Civitates do not discuss elections, particularly since the candidate can read what they say. Staff are able to criticize candidates without fear of upsetting them. Civitates are much more reluctant to point out flaws in a candidate lest they be seen as a jerk.

    So in summary, there are three basic reasons for staff and not Civitates to select moderators. One, smaller numbers of people can and will more fully carry on discussions (thorough discussion is O(n²), and I'm guessing that isn't gibberish to you); two, the anonymity provided by the staff forums (and not easily duplicable in the Curia) provides staff more freedom to fully discuss the candidates; and three, multiple factors that would contribute to better familiarity with the candidates likely correlate to some degree with being in staff.
    MediaWiki developer, TWC Chief Technician
    NetHack player (nao info)


    Risen from Prey

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •