Tribounos Term Proposal

[Kaweh]

Here is my proposal for elected moderators having terms of office:

Proposer: Kaweh K.
Supporters: Muizer, Publius

Tribounos (Quaestor) - Magistrate

The Basileus has full powers to hire or fire Tribounos at will and decides how many there are and where they should moderate but, while retaining these powers, has delegated the elections of them to the Curia. Tribounos are voted into their position by the Curia (see Tribounos Elections below). The Tribounos have a term of office of x calendar months from the day of their election. A Tribounos can hold as many consecutive terms as the Curia sees fit.

Addendum I: All current Tribounos’ will begin their term on the passing of this amendment.
Addendum II: A secondary poll shall be opened on the passing of this bill, to decide how long the 'term of office' (x) for a Tribounos should be. The options shall be 3 or 4 months. The vote shall last for 106 hours.

The benefits of this would be:

• The Tribounous will do their very best, to be re-elected, which will raise the quality of their work.
• If a Tribounous does a bad job, it will be easier to remove them from their office and replace him.
• More people with the qualities to be Tribounous will actually have the chance to be a Tribunous.
• Staff/Curia will have a larger pool of experienced candidates to choose from when there is a need for more moderators

K.K

[Belisarius]

I dont support, I dont want a moderator having to go because of a time limit. No way.

[Perikles]

I dont support, I dont want a moderator having to go because of a time limit. No way.

I believe that it says:

A Tribounos can hold as many consecutive terms as the Curia sees fit.

Meaning that the moderator won't have to go after a time limit...

[Reidy]

But the outgong tribounos could be included in the vote.

[Justinian]

Essentially the same proposal was brought up and resoundingly shot down a few months ago, if I remember correctly.

[gigagaia]

Here is my proposal for elected moderators having terms of office:

Proposer: Kaweh K.
Supporters:





The benefits of this would be:

• The Tribounous will do their very best, to be re-elected, which will raise the quality of their work.
• If a Tribounous does a bad job, it will be easier to remove them from their office and replace him.
• More people with the qualities to be Tribounous will actually have the chance to be a Tribunous.
• Staff/Curia will have a larger pool of experienced candidates to choose from when there is a need for more moderators

K.K

How would you ensure that moderators then base their decisions on what is right, rather than what is popular?

[Kaweh]

How would you ensure that moderators then base their decisions on what is right, rather than what is popular?

How do we ensure RIGHT NOW that they do what is right? :wink:

K.K

[Perikles]

How would you ensure that moderators then base their decisions on what is right, rather than what is popular?

And what exactly is a popular decision, surely pople can spot a good moderator when they see one and generally and moderator who makes good decisions will be a popular one. A moderator who keeps the forums tidy and stops flaming will be recoqnised as a good one...

[gigagaia]

And what exactly is a popular decision, surely pople can spot a good moderator when they see one and generally and moderator who makes good decisions will be a popular one. A moderator who keeps the forums tidy and stops flaming will be recoqnised as a good one...

The problem with that is, if a moderator is a particularly effective one, many civitates may get hurt.
Compound that with house politics that "don't" exist in the curia, and you may end up having a moderator which bases his decisions in staff and on the field based on what will get him or her reelected.

[Belisarius]

jp.

We dont want moderators being scared to moderate incase they upset the Curia and not get elected again, we want mods to have no external pressure. Wasnt this vetod last time?

[Perikles]

jp.

We dont want moderators being scared to moderate incase they upset the Curia and not get elected again, we want mods to have no external pressure. Wasnt this vetod last time?

No, it wasn't vetoed. I forgot to ask for it to be moved to a vote, and then today KK approached me and a few others with a proposal almost identical to the one i had supported a few months ago...

The mods would be under 'external pressure', the pressure to keep the forums spam, troll and flame free...

[Reidy]

A moderator should not be scared of being voted out of office. If s/he is good, its our loss, if they were bad, they have nothing to complain about. The staff should trust the curia to vote in the most capable moderator.

[Kaweh]

A moderator should not be scared of being voted out of office. If s/he is good, its our loss, if they were bad, they have nothing to complain about. The staff should trust the curia to vote in the most capable moderator.

Exactly. This would improve the work of our moderators. And it would make the system more flexible. :wink:

K.K

[gigagaia]

Exactly. This would improve the work of our moderators. And it would make the system more flexible. :wink:

K.K

The problem is, that we non-staff think we are capable of judging what is a good moderator and a bad moderator. But in reality, we are likely far poorer judges of that fact.
I think we can be good judges of character for potential moderators, but judging what a good moderator is is rather difficult.

Consider this.
A moderator is also a member of staff. Thus part of his or her work takes place in staff forums which are off limits for even civitates.
What happens inside is covered by staff non-disclosure policy.

Given that we only see 50% of what goes on in a moderators job, how can we reasonably judge what kind of job they are doing?

[Kscott]

How would you ensure that moderators then base their decisions on what is right, rather than what is popular?

Erm, this is not ethics class. The point of the forum is to provide discussion. It is the duty of those running the forum to make the discussion as pleasurable to the target audience as possible. So in this case, what is popular, is generally what is right. Its not like this is a beauty contest. It is a shame to shoot down a potentially very helpful procedure simply because something could go wrong.

[gigagaia]

Erm, this is not ethics class. The point of the forum is to provide discussion. It is the duty of those running the forum to make the discussion as pleasurable to the target audience as possible.

Good moderators can make mistakes as well, and should not be punished out of office for being human in such a manner.
However further, my point is that if some popular members get in trouble for rule infractions, that can quite easily harm the moderator's chances of reelection, but also harm the moderator's reputation and the thought of taking on that situation and losing reputation and chances of reelection could very well easily influence the mdoerator's decision to act. A mdoerator should be free from outside influence to enforce the rules of the forum without prejudice, which is something that this would do;
Moderators, Kscott, also police non-civitates as well, and if you make moderators face only civtitates for re-election, are you telling me they won't favour them when it comes time to lay down the law?

So in this case, what is popular, is generally what is right.

I need only to point you in the direction of both tGS who made unpopular decisions, but ultimately were upheld by the senior staff as the correct decisions. What is popular is not always considered right

Its not like this is a beauty contest. It is a shame to shoot down a potentially very helpful procedure simply because something could go wrong.

Tt's not a very helpful because it is something that will hamper the moderator's ability to properly enforce the rules in an equal and efficient manner. Don't give them more reasons to feel pressure from anyone else other than their superiors.
And no, it isn't a beauty contest and so it shouldn't be a recurring popularity contest either.
Finally, we do make decisions based on what could go wrong all the time. It's called risk analysis, and is the very basis for making decisions. Every person does it every time they make a decision. Oftentimes, the risk is seen as too great than will be mitigated by the benefits, which in this case, is likely.

[imb39]

Its not like this is a beauty contest.

Thank God for that...

[Muizer]

Here is my proposal for elected moderators having terms of office:

Proposer: Kaweh K.
Supporters:





The benefits of this would be:

• The Tribounous will do their very best, to be re-elected, which will raise the quality of their work.
• If a Tribounous does a bad job, it will be easier to remove them from their office and replace him.
• More people with the qualities to be Tribounous will actually have the chance to be a Tribunous.
• Staff/Curia will have a larger pool of experienced candidates to choose from when there is a need for more moderators

K.K

Has my support.

[Publius]

I think that this proposal will breed an unprecendented level of activity in our moderators and overall increase site efficiency. Such a thing has been long needed in my opinion, and would serve both the intents and purposes of not only the people of the site, but the future of the site as well. With the upcoming M2 bombardment of new members, and an even increasing level of said members, how could it hurt to have such motivation?
I support

[imb39]

Umm no - The curia has no -power over this. the Chief Admin ALLOWS the Curia to vote on new Tribunous. This is not only against the spirit of the current Syntagma and totally worthless. It cannot be implemented without Archer's consent. This is a dud Bill, as a result.