2016 Moderator Election. Meh

Question

By fiat or tradition or something, all candidates for moderator are self-nominated. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, first of all, there's the rampant Dunning Kruger syndrome, in which the skills of the sufferers are inversely proportional to their confidence in their illusory skill. This explains the survey results that show that 80% of people surveyed on a topic think they're in the top 20% of experts in that topic.

Let me hasten to add that this is a societal issue (at least in the US), and not one particular to ELU. And while I'm hastening to add things, let me also say that this isn't directed to anyone in particular in this year's list of hopefuls and that I include myself as possibly infected.

The second problem is that those striving to attain authority over others thereby offer prima facie evidence that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that authority. This applies to the police, the military, the political apparat, and moderators of online forums. Perhaps all will turn out for the best, but by my count more than half the self-nominees are card-carrying members of the CPVPV, and there's at least one I once regarded as a stalker.

There are other ways of selecting moderators, but I don't know of better ways given that the gentle con of the StackExchange business plan is based on convincing people to exchange their time, effort, and expertise for the nugatory.

Will the election results be streamed live this year? I, for one, can't wait to hear the stirring words "May I have the envelope, please."

~~~~~~~~

"... unclear what you're asking. Please edit your question." OK, I don't mind if I do. First, I call nonsense. Not least because this isn't Jeopardy. Many discussion topics do not appear as questions, especially when it comes to discussing the mechanics of keeping out the riff-raff. We've heard calls for forcing newcomers watch a video, requiring them to register, and making them post bond before they can post questions.

(OK, I made that last one up.)

But all of a sudden, when it comes to a discussion of the mechanics of moderator selection, things become so murky the "question" needs to be put on hold. At least in the opinion of one moderator, one candidate for moderator, and one other who seems eminently qualified for the position.

This is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about.

So is it clear yet?

Now maybe this is pointless to discuss because the procedure is set in stone system wide. And maybe it's fair to criticize me for not proposing alternatives. (Sorry, I don't have any. I've dealt with one other site in which the moderators groom high-rep users for an invitation to join their circle. I didn't think that worked any better.) But these are different considerations.

But thanks for making my point for me. Well played!

Answer 1

To answer your first question, there are problems with self-nomination, as you yourself have conveniently summarized.

I'm sure you will forgive me if I take umbrage to your claim that anyone who would self-nominate is unqualified for the post. You will recall that all eight of the current moderation team self-nominated for the position, including nohat (who was previously appointed as pro tem) and waiwai (who was appointed when Kosmonaut left). I think the moderation team is doing a good job. I haven't heard anything to the contrary recently.

In my view, the issue with self-nomination is that there are many community members out there who are diligent and kind and have good instincts for moderation -- but think that moderation isn't something they are qualified for. Let me tell you this: You don't have to be high-rep to be a good mod. You don't have to be an expert in English. You don't have to devote your entire day (or life) to moderation. Here's what you should look for in a moderator:

• patience
• an ability to de-escalate a heated situation
• equanimity
• an ability to see through different styles of communication to recognize what the core of the issue is -- that means letting people "berate" you or "snark at" you or use crappy punctuation and poor grammar.

That said, if we change the system to find other ways of nominating moderators, then the ones who are in it for the power trip or to win the game of internet points will just adjust their behavior to game the new system. That's a systemic problem and not one we're going to solve by clever coding.

For your next question, the results aren't streamed live but they are posted as immediately as it takes for the algorithm to run. Often, community members who frequent chat will wait in the election chat room for the results.

And for your last question ('is it clear yet?'), no, I don't think so, but I am interested to see how others will respond to it.

Answer 2

Well, first of all, there's the rampant Dunning Kruger syndrome,

Moderators aren't claiming exclusive domain over all the knowledge posted to this site, so your understanding of Dunning-Kruger seems rampantly misapplied.

The truth is that everyone on this site shares in the (small 'm') moderator responsibilities, so the tools to curate this content become increasing available based on your success in posting and managing that content. A few users volunteer their time for a few administrative duties that require a degree of "trust" to carry them out.

… those striving to attain authority over others thereby offer prima facie evidence that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that authority.

That's why it's an election and not a political coup.

You mention that there are other ways of selecting moderators, but don't actually mention them in this post; fair enough. But saying folks who choose to become police or join the military or the political apparat need not apply… that leaves birth right and compulsory enlistment through conscription. Since neither of those solutions seem likely, decrying that you don't like an election of appointees or volunteers does not seem terribly useful… or prescriptive.

Answer 3

I suppose I may not have anything to say that is useful or detailed enough to warrant a response-answer, but I did suggest re-opening the topic, so I feel quixotically obliged.

To respond to your last question first, because it's low-hanging fruit, your topic-question never seemed unclear to me. You included a topic paragraph and a topic question, by gum, so why should it be considered unclear? It's true the question was a bit overblown, but that blowsiness (the rhetorical "possibly") was amusing though cliched, and would have been easily overlooked even if I didn't find the humor sympathetic.

The clarity of the topic was further crystalized by the details you provided, details that outlined precisely what you suppose could and does go wrong with self-nomination systems. I hope you won't object if I summarize my understanding of your suppositions, although I will inevitably misrepresent (to those who only read the words and clauses they can understand without effort) your position.

1. Those who nominate themselves for the duties of moderator at ELU may or may not be up to the task, but will invariably be confident that they are.
2. Those who nominate etc., by so doing, offer superficial (prima facie) evidence they're unfit for the duties for reasons other than or in addition to their confidence etc., as mentioned in 1.

Before going on, I have to submit that neither of those points are limiting. The first succeeds when there is a happy correspondence between confidence and ability (however much that correspondence may be purely fortuitous); the second succeeds when the superficial evidence fails to reflect the factual case.

I should hasten to add (as long as we're hastening to add things), that you didn't in my interpretation rule out that self-nomination could succeed when it came to selecting moderators. You simply seemed to find it unlikely or at least chancy that good moderators would rise to the top using a self-nomination process, and suggested there might be a better way, unknown to you.

It's this last that inspires my response. I'm by no means an expert on political matters, having assiduously avoided them for most of my life, perhaps due to a primal awareness of my inaptitude and innate inability. However, I do have some crude opinions based on what little I know, and will risk my footing in the quagmire of sewage I must navigate to express those opinions.

The political landscape has been somewhat remodeled in the last 35 years or so by the advent of refined communications mechanisms (for example, the web). My knowledge, and so my opinions, have been hard-pressed to integrate the changes so wrought.

However, I've heard it suggested, and tend to agree, that the most viable known alternative to democratic systems, benevolent dictatorship, is indeed superior—but is neither sustainable nor predeterminable...that is, a benevolent dictatorship cannot be systematically installed, nor can it be systematically sustained once installed.

It may well be that the changes wrought by the refinement of communication mechanisms in recent years lend themselves to an effective hybridization of democratic and benevolent dictatorship systems. It might even be that the Stackexchange microcosm is such a hybrid.

Having wandered so far afield, and offered my tentative, ignorant suggestions, it has become obvious what a legitimate 'closure' of your 'question' would look like. You mentioned it yourself: the 'question' might be better suited to StackExchange meta (supposing it has not already been discussed there), or perhaps, acknowledging that the time is ripe now for the discussion here, on one or more of the meta politics or philosophy StackExchange sites.