55
$\begingroup$

You should have at least 10.000 reputation, and be active for at least a year, otherwise the nominations get spoiled with kiddos like me that have no chance, and should not have a chance to become a moderator.

I mean look at this, users that are active for only 1.5 month, or 6 months are nominating... People with less than 500 reputation... Those people probably have yet to discover that there also exists a meta associated to MSE.

If you vote for me, which I don't recommend at all, I will do my utmost best to make sure next moderator elections only people that are active for at least a year and have at least 10000 reputation can nominate.


Edit: I agree Shog9, this is a better place for this. Personally I think any candidate with less than 3000 points, is less than a year active or has no meta activity should not be in the list. So if the system is not going to change this year, I would like to ask nominees to withdraw voluntarily if they don't meet any of those standards.

$\endgroup$
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ As this did not appear to be a serious nomination, I've withdrawn it from the election. As it did appear to be a serious plea for assistance, I've moved it here to Meta and posted a response. I hope this is acceptable to you - please let me know if I can do anything else to assist here. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 Dec 10 '14 at 19:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Shog: Did you add the [featured] tag? It doesn't appear on the revision history! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 10 '14 at 20:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Consider the phrase "moved it here to meta" to contain implications of a fair bit of slight of hand, @Asaf. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 Dec 10 '14 at 20:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila My translation: Shog9 copied the text of "nomination", created the post (with tags and all), and used his database access rights to assign the post ownership to Kasper. A "regular" Community Manager, like Grace Note, would not be able to do it. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 10 '14 at 20:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, GN would be able to do something like this, @Behaviour - this is one of the more obscure support tools we usually reserve for instances where the account system screws up somehow, but can be repurposed for edge-cases. Note that it probably also broke the functionality of the [featured] tag, so... Too clever by half. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 Dec 10 '14 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Shog9 Grace Note told me can't migrate it, no... so perhaps the tool is a little too obscure. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 10 '14 at 20:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Shog9 How about this one as well? $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 10 '14 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ Related discussion: How much experience should a potential moderator have? $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 11 '14 at 4:24
  • $\begingroup$ Why is this [featured] ?? $\endgroup$ – 6005 Dec 12 '14 at 3:10
  • $\begingroup$ Kasper, you should seriously nominate yourself, giving more than just these reasons. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 12 '14 at 7:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Behaviour I said I couldn't migrate it. This wasn't migration though, and is something I could pull off. $\endgroup$ – Grace Note Dec 12 '14 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ with over 250 members having 10K+ rep, I agree. For less active, lower rep boards, a lower number right apply. $\endgroup$ – JTP - Apologise to Monica Dec 12 '14 at 17:34
50
$\begingroup$

You're right - this election is looking a bit ridiculous right now. Not that I don't believe most of the candidates are sincere in their desire to help... But this site has over 4 years of history, nuanced policies have grown up, and expecting someone who hasn't spent a lot of time here to even know about them - much less uphold them - is kinda silly.

The current requirements for nomination made sense 4 years ago when Mathematics held its first election (IIRC, the first election in this format anywhere on Stack Exchange!) - but y'all have grown since then, and it's time the election requirements changed to reflect that.

Changing the rules after folks have already nominated in good faith is a bit sketchy. Such changes should be discussed at length and made known well before an election starts - so the most drastic alterations will have to wait for next year.

But there's one thing we can and should do: reduce the number of nomination slots available. Conscientious voters (or potential nominees) shouldn't have to wade through dozens of posts from folks who, realistically, aren't going to figure in the final election. So effective immediately, I've lowered it from 30 to 20.

What this change means

Immediately, nothing changes. No current nominations are being forcibly withdrawn. However...

  • The reputation threshold for nomination immediately becomes the lowest reputation of the current set of nominees.
  • For every new nomination, the candidate with the lowest reputation score is automatically withdrawn, and the new threshold for nomination becomes the reputation of the new lowest-reputation candidate.
  • Effectively, this puts the election into a mode whereby you - the eligible members of Mathematics - decide what the minimum allowable reputation should be for nominees. Want it higher? Convince higher-reputation users to post serious nominations.

I sincerely believe this will help reduce the strain on both candidates and voters, but we'll also be keeping a closer eye on how this election progresses to make sure future nominees are serious in their intentions - I know how much the selection of competent moderators matters to y'all, and pledge to do all I can to prevent this democratic process from being abused.

Finally, I want to apologize for not anticipating the need for more strict requirements sooner. Last time around, there was concern that there wouldn't even be enough candidates for a Primary phase - this time, y'all hit that threshold within a day. Which solved one problem, but brought others with it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Does the reduction to 20 nominees apply only to this site, or more widely? $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 10 '14 at 20:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So you can't nominate yourself for a moderator now? :\ $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 10 '14 at 21:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Go for it, @Asaf $\endgroup$ – Shog9 Dec 10 '14 at 21:36
  • 16
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: Watch out. Shog's clearly demonstrated a mastery of the tools. You might find yourself volunteered. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Dec 10 '14 at 22:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the fast response. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Dec 10 '14 at 22:28
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @Arthur: Then the game would be determined, and I will have no choice. Can you see why I'm sorta okay with that? :P $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 10 '14 at 22:29
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Arthur: Not to mention that I'd be forced to do it, which is also nice. And we can say that in the Church of SE, Shog9 is a large cardinal too. (Okay, that's just one set theory joke too many. I'll be quiet now.) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 10 '14 at 22:41
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Bobson: It’s entirely possible to be a moderator and make decisions on the basis of rules and customs that are contrary to one’s own views; I’ve been in a very similar situation elsewhere. One allows one’s own views to color one’s decision only in edge cases, and then only within limits. It is, however, important for a moderator to know what the group’s policies and customs are, and voters certainly have a right to know a candidate’s views on issues that are known to be contentious, and whether the candidate understands the need to subordinate those views to policy and accepted custom. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Dec 11 '14 at 7:37
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @dustin: As you're appearing on the candidate list you should be aware full well to what has been said here. Moderators rarely set policies, they enforce them. If you plan on setting policies yourself you will be a bad moderator, and you will be impeached. Even if in your own eyes the actions you took are for the good of the site. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 11 '14 at 8:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dustin: It is true, though. Unless, of course, you feel that there should be a big change. Of course, you don't have to be a moderator for leading such change. And again, we had a "diverse" moderators group before and nothing was done, and it ended up a catastrophe. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 12 '14 at 4:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: I think you should nominate yourself, if you've the time for the job that is. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 12 '14 at 7:32
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Everyone thinks Asaf should nominate himself --- except Asaf. Unfortunately, Asaf's vote on this outweighs those of the rest of m.se combined. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Dec 13 '14 at 5:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry, any chance of you running? I guess I will, but you might be more ... moderate :-) $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 13 '14 at 22:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Currently, the list of nominees includes 22 candidates. Could you please remove by hand the two with lowest score to avoid confusion? $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 14 '14 at 17:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndresCaicedo They are left in there by design: if someone withdraws, they again become eligible. The message at the very bottom of the page explains: there are 22 candidates but only 20 are eligible to participate in the primaries. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 14 '14 at 17:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .