[Request] For Consideration: Election Of Agents

Post by **Kajun** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 9:43 am

This is a fairly big issue and so we should deal with it separately from constitutional threads for the time being. For the uninitiated, there are two Generalissimos of the ixyl forums, Kajun and Hanohtep. They oversee changes to the structure and fabric of the forums, as well as user adminstration. They also serve as Agents, of which there are then three more at present: kenjafield, Blam, and Daknockman. Agents do much of the housekeeping - splitting and moving of threads, deleting duplicate or unsavoury posts, and act as overseers to their respective forums.

These Agents have been in place since the beginning of the forums in January (with one change: Jalapeno stood down and Hanohtep assumed his responsibilities), and so there has not yet been any procedure for electing new Agents. This is what we are to discuss.

There are two main sections to discuss: the nomination of candidates, and the voting process.

The Nomination Of Candidates

This can be done several ways.

keep it confined to The Kremlin and have the Agents each suggest a certain number of candidates per position. Advantage: quick and objective. Disadvantage: undemocratic.
have members make suggestions for candidates via private message, to one of the Generalissimos. Advantage: ensures a wide coverage of nominations. Disadvantage: candidates must then be approached to confirm their willingness to run for the position; potentially leading to no valid candidates.
have members nominate themselves for candidates via private message, to one of the Generalissimos. Advantage: ensures that candidates are willing to run. Disadvantage: some members may not feel confident in nominating themselves.
make all active members candidates for voting on. Advantage: very fair. Disadvantage: more difficult and may be unnecessary

(with any suggestion where private messages are involved, a receipt message would be returned to indicate that the nomination had been received, and this receipt would be valid evidence in any debate over the validity of the election)

The Voting Process

Again there are several avenues here:

Voting allowed for Agents and Generalissimos only.
Voting allowed for Agents only; Generalissimos to provide tie-break vote.
Voting allowed for all active members excluding Agents and Generals.
Voting allowed for all active members including Agents and Generals.
Voting allowed for all active members including Agents but excluding Generals (in case of tie-break)

In the case of only one nomination, should there be a fail safe device? (i.e. consensus among the Agents?) Should election nominations be published as received, in order to make the process more active and encourage more applications? And so on. Please discuss: this is a critical issue.

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 9:52 am

I think that all should vote in the process but Agents/Generals should be the people to decide who gets put forward to a vote (after the original process of nominations)

Post by **Kajun** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 9:58 am

While I see your point - Agents are perhaps best place to judge whether a candidate will be suitable or not - that could potentially lead to calls of discrimination against the Agents - if we (after a nomination process which has involved suggestions by the members) snip off a couple of members and let others through, there'd be outcry!

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 10:01 am

But shurely we are best placed atm to see who is suitable, i mean lets face it, everyone could put someone who is never online through, and we would have to take this person? there have to be some boundries agreed but the final say has to lie with us!

Post by **Kajun** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 10:03 am

In that case, should there be demonstrable criteria for even passing the nomination process? (i.e. must have shown consistent 'logging on'ness, must have posted productively in the relevant forum, must not have any warnings against their name...?)

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 10:06 am

yes, that would have to be in place for the prcoess to be productive, imo obviously

Post by **Kajun** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 10:09 am

In which case, do we wish to 'interview' candidates?

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 10:14 am

I think, as we have discussed over MSN, there should be a short question process as to why they think that they are suited!

Post by **Kajun** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:06 am

Comments from the members? If you leave this decision to the Agents, you know what'll happen....

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:36 am

aye they will moan about any decision we make even thought they were given an oportunity to contribute!

Hanohtep · Post by **Hanohtep** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:38 am

<to the masses>

Speak damn you! Speak!

</to the masses>

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:48 am

<to Hano>

WASTE OF TIME!!

</to hano>

Charmaka · Post by **Charmaka** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:48 am

I've always been of the opinion that since no-one forces you to visit a messageboard, there is no real reason why it should pretend to be democratic. We're here (most of us) because we like the way it's run (among other things), so any decisions on how it should be run in future should be made by the current management.

Hanohtep · Post by **Hanohtep** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:50 am

But then people complain when we do things you don't like - such as shut down H&S for a day or two.

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:50 am

Sense? Coming from CHarmaka?? <faints>

Post by **Kajun** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:55 am

Charmaka wrote:I've always been of the opinion that since no-one forces you to visit a messageboard, there is no real reason why it should pretend to be democratic. We're here (most of us) because we like the way it's run (among other things), so any decisions on how it should be run in future should be made by the current management.

Quick, bundle him up and send him to America before jonesc2ii sees him!

Anyway. Does that mean you wish to propose a referendum for dictatorship? Seriously: must the question be asked whether or not the members WANT to have a say in what is being done? From my point of view, it's interesting to do things democratically from the organisational perspective, but if it isn't being used then it seems pretty redundant, and the management may as well do whatever the hell it wants. Having seen difficulties caused there elsewhere though, it can be useful to at least have the pretence of referendums: even though nobody votes on them, they also have no mechanism for complaint.

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 11:02 am

Kajun wrote: Quick, bundle him up and send him to America before jonesc2ii sees him!

ROFLMFAO!

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 11:04 am

Seriously though, I agree, that this system seems to be ignored now, there was a big song and dance about the anti spam campaign and everyone wanted more of a say, now things have settled down members seem to have lost interest in the workings! Until of course they dont agree with something, then we will hear about it!

Charmaka · Post by **Charmaka** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:02 pm

I think people like the chance to have a say in the day to day running of things (such as renaming forums, pruning etc), but I don't think the management should have any binding responsibility to honour the opinions of the users per se. It's nice when they do, but if "the management" judge that the majority of the users in a vote are being silly they should retain the right to use their own judgement. As a result of this, I believe that the selection of Agents should be at the discretion of the management, as it's more beneficial to have a team which is not entirely approved of by the users than one that everyone is happy with but which is too divided to make decisions properly. The only way to please everyone is to ensure _everyone's_ viewpoint is represented by at least one agent, and if you do this then there's no difference between an Agents' vote and a users' vote. /ramble

Bat · Post by **Bat** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:24 pm

Blam wrote:Seriously though, I agree, that this system seems to be ignored now, there was a big song and dance about the anti spam campaign and everyone wanted more of a say, now things have settled down members seem to have lost interest in the workings! Until of course they dont agree with something, then we will hear about it!

Ah shut up! what are you talking about. That is crazy and I totally disagree!

Post by **Kajun** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:42 pm

Charmaka wrote:I think people like the chance to have a say in the day to day running of things (such as renaming forums, pruning etc), but I don't think the management should have any binding responsibility to honour the opinions of the users per se. It's nice when they do, but if "the management" judge that the majority of the users in a vote are being silly they should retain the right to use their own judgement.

Fair point, but the vote options should then be designed to avoid potential abuse. I don't know whether I'm happy having a right to veto the result of any referendum, since it simply demeans the importance of participating and will discourage people even more.

As a result of this, I believe that the selection of Agents should be at the discretion of the management, as it's more beneficial to have a team which is not entirely approved of by the users than one that everyone is happy with but which is too divided to make decisions properly.

I think I agree. Begs the question then, are people happy with the Agents?

Hanohtep · Post by **Hanohtep** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:05 am

Kajun wrote:I think I agree. Begs the question then, are people happy with the Agents?

Don't ask them that!

Blam · Post by **Blam** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 10:56 am

<pulls up socks and starts to suck up> Ah what lovely members we have.......

jonesc2ii · Post by **jonesc2ii** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 11:05 am

I agree with Charmaka, I actually think some members might be MORE inclined to vote if they knew it wasn't necessarily going to swing things one way or another. Keep the referendums, but have the right to veto. Almost invariably you will agree with the majority anyway.

Charmaka · Post by **Charmaka** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 6:04 pm

Apart from anything else, if you start setting things like majority vote in stone, it leaves open the potential for a (relatively small on current numbers) group of people to turn up (or even one person with a load of second accounts) and initiate a "hostile takeover", which is not a good thing, right?