What do you think of Familiar? Moderator Approval Poll

[Web Janitor]

Resulting Approval Rate: 67.143%

Of the people who voted in this approval poll, 23 had issues with Familiar. 11 had either no views or had no interactions with him out of the 81 voters. That leaves 47/70 votes, or in other words, 67.143 percent approval among those offering a viewpoint.

This poll is noted for being highly politicized, and at the time of writing 11:53 PM 21/03/2011, it had garnered the highest number of individual voters since record keeping began in this form. It was also noted for the large amount of voter fraud and for the extreme length of time it took to tabulate the results and remove the false votes.


_____________________________
Familiar recently joined the staff as a trial Global Moderator. As a Global, you have had a few weeks to evaluate how well she performs in that role. Like all staff members, trial staff are given a poll to determine how well they are performing.

Do you believe she is doing a good job?

Please vote accordingly.

[Xachariah]

The vote options that are not yes or no are both neutral. So, yes and no are the options that make the decision. Seems simple enough.

If somebody's got more 'no' than 'yes' votes, then of course they're not going to be a moderator, but that hasn't happened yet because the people who go on as trial mods either happen to work out or don't make it to the voting, I think. I certainly recall at least one trial mod who I've not seen a voting thread for, though it's been a few months, and /whoising their last known name comes up with the "This user is not registered" response. A similar name, that I think they're currently using, is identified as a User at the bottom of the profile, as well.

Thus, the point: If you don't think the trial mod is doing a good job, vote no. If you do think they're doing a good job, vote yes. If you can't decide or don't have an opinion, well, there's options for those, too. Feel free to state your case and it might influence later voters.

[Inquisitor]

Is simple majority all it takes to go from temp to permanent mod?

I've never seen anyone on trail basis lose it, and glancing back at Moondog's. His approval rating was 66% by the "If they didn't vote yes or not, your vote doesn't count" system. (which I think it's ridiculous to ignore those that abstain outright.)

Franky... what's the point of doing these?

The third option is "I have no experience with the matter" and the 4th is "I abstain". Sure, I think both of the last two options could be combined into a simple "I abstain" but it's a rather trite point, don't you think?

[Moondog]

Famillama is doing very well, I think. =>

[Vivi]

They're PROBABLY in. Who knows there might be complaints that hadn't reached the ears of those that would axe them before now.

Would you rather have little chance to have your voice count or none? Because it seems like you're advocating it might as well be none.

[Inquisitor]

The general mass will always vote in favor of approving a moderator if the polls here are any trend. However, you're incorrect in assuming an abstained vote should also be counted as a negative; it's a refusal to vote, for whatever reason. Your two choices are still the same: "Yes", "No", or "I'm not voting."

[Vivi]

I don't terribly have a better idea to try to get the community involved in this. If you do I'd be interested to hear it, not that I influence how this is done but I think it'd be a topic woth discussing nonetheless.

[Inquisitor]

It should be counted asa  no in terms of approval rating. 10 people vote, 5 of them approve, 4 of them disapprove, and 1 abstains. The over all approval rating is 50%... the one that abstains doesn't just cease to exist.

And frankly speaking, I'd rather that "no chance". This is a popularity contest, not a real vote. All these really do is to serve to show that you aren't friends with the right people.


P.S. On another note. These forums are awesome... I make a post, and it's like "2 posts have been made while your slow ass was typing" Or "A post was made as you clicked reply.

I like that... I like that alot.

If 10 vote, 5 approve, 4 disapprove, and 1 abstains, yes you only have a 50% approval rate, and 40% are against it. No matter how you look at it, the abstained vote is discarded, and the "Yes" beats the "No". Abstaining votes ARE thrown out for all intents and purposes, because they aren't a vote in either direction.

Your options are to vote yes/no, or not at all. I'm not sure what there is to gain by arguing the semantics of it, because there's no way the abstained votes should count as negatives (considering they are also not positives). If there were 5 approves, 4 disapproves, and 3 abstained, guess which still wins out?

[Familiar]

This poll is part of a thread where people can bring forth their issues/reasons behind the votes that can also be taken into consideration, as well as improved upon. I ask people to just be honest with their feelings and appreciate the opportunity I was given as a trial at least.

[1337]

This poll is part of a thread where people can bring forth their issues/reasons behind the votes that can also be taken into consideration, as well as improved upon. I ask people to just be honest with their feelings and appreciate the opportunity I was given as a trial at least.

...what a surprise tK forums. You've lost sight of the point of the thread, immediately. ^^^^ -- This thread is about Familiar's performance as a trial moderator. Not about what you derps think the voting system means.

[Inquisitor]

Actually, with Draco's last post I understand what he was getting at more clearly. I still don't think an abstaining vote matters in the yes/no situation we're provided, but it isn't explicitly stated anywhere what type of majority is required for the moderator in the poll to officially gain the "approval" of the voters, so to speak.

But all that requires is a clarification from Webby or another. I believe the poll is operating under the pretense that 51% or higher means you're in.

[1337]

Then make a new thread.


As much as I do love watching people jack threads to talk about something semi-related that they just wan to argue about. -- Either that or they just post nonsensical pony-spam or something of the like.

Friggin' Piranhas you folk....

[Brielle]

...what a surprise tK forums. You've lost sight of the point of the thread, immediately. ^^^^ -- This thread is about Familiar's performance as a trial moderator. Not about what you derps think the voting system means.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but good point, five.

[CaptainRobin]

It's been what, a week or a few and Familiar already has a thread about cracking down on, you know, things stated in the AUP.

If I could vote Yes more than once, I would.

(I support moving the unrelated topics to their own threads for clarity's sake.)

[1337]

"What do you think of Familiar? Moderator Approval Poll"
"I tink t3h pollz r st00pid, /arguefor100posts"

- - - -

But anyway. Not to get suckered into their obnoxious self absorbed babble. -- I haven't seem Familiar mod so I abstained from voting yes or no. However from what little i've seen from Familiar on the forums/in the chat, she seems to have a good head on her shoulders. Especially from what I saw in Kade's "OOC in the arena" thread. This leads me to believe that she's capable of handling moderation responsibilities.

[Inquisitor]

No matter how stupid you are 1337, Draco does raise a fair enough point.

[1337]

No matter how stupid you are 1337, Draco does raise a fair enough point.

I didn't say he didn't have a point. I said he's discussing it in the wrong place. ~fin~

[Kade]

Draco's point is not off topic.

Furthermore, the entire forum is becoming so hostile/one-sided that many users feel it is pointless to even register and post on them.

I've heard three people so far say (in so many words)  "I would vote, but it's just a popularity contest. She'll be approved."

Might be relevant. Or you can just troll me for my counter status-quo views. Both work.
I'm going to continue to post stuff you guys tend to dislike.
Also, waaaaaaaaah I'm a victim.

I voted no for obvious reasons. She's heavilly biased in favor of her friends, levying lighter "judgements" against them (if she bothers to take action against them at all) while deliberately mod-hazing people she (or her friends) dislike under pretenses of "legitimacy." Furthermore, she's desolated the Arena.

I also won't vote "yes" for any mod that takes their job too seriously. Mods are not actual cops. You guys weild the power to kick/ban on a RP website where the problems, from any perspective not sitting at a keyboard, are not very serious. Being a mod, in my opinion, requires the ability to recognize the AUP is fucked. Fucked to the point that perfect enforcement of the AUP would decimate TK. Familiar doesn't have this ability. She's "selectively strict."

PITCH would have been a better candidate. Put her up for a vote.

Edit: Didn't realize my post was repeated itself. Probably a c/p mistake. Sorry.

[Inquisitor]

Furthermore, she's desolated the Arena.

I'd bet money that this is the user's faults.

[Atheism]

[...] Furthermore, she's desolated the Arena. [...]

< Beginning of Atheism's contribution to this thread... >

I'd rather have the Arena be desolate, than a putrid cesspool.

< ...End of Atheism's contribution to this thread. >

[Inquisitor]

[...] Furthermore, she's desolated the Arena. [...]

< Beginning of Atheism's contribution to this thread... >

I'd rather have the Arena be desolate, than a putrid cesspool.

< ...End of Atheism's contribution to this thread. >

I think it'd be better if it was used for it's intended purpose.

(Roleplaying)

[Eibon]

I've heard three people so far say (in so many words)  "I would vote, but it's just a popularity contest. She'll be approved."

Fact: Not voting "no"/not voting at all is the best way to make a statement about how easy it is to win in these mod elections.

...while deliberately mod-hazing people she (or her friends) dislike...

Also, waaaaaaaaah I'm a victim.

She's heavilly biased in favor of her friends, levying lighter "judgements" against them (if she bothers to take action against them at all)

Also, waaaaaaaaah I'm a victim.

I think you're mad you're not her friend.  I also think you're mad her friends aren't ridiculous enough to think they can get away with excessively OOCing in the arena when she's said 5 times to stfu.

I also won't vote "yes" for any mod that takes their job too seriously. Mods are not actual cops. You guys weild the power to kick/ban on a RP website where the problems, from any perspective not sitting at a keyboard, are not very serious.

In my humble opinion, I like mods that actually give a damn.  Maybe I'm crazy --that just might be the case-- because I like mods that care, but I've never heard of someone arguing against mods that try to do their jobs properly.  You're a confusing hombre, Kade.

I think it'd be better if it was used for it's intended purpose.

(Roleplaying)

Amen.


Lastly,

Also, waaaaaaaaah I'm a victim.

Honestly, am I the only one who thinks that this was an excellent point?

[Inquisitor]

The constant ad hominem attacks are pretty lame and don't really do much for everyone's arguments.

[Eibon]

True, but they at least add color.

[Auvic]

I only have one question for Kade:

Why was it so damn important to repeat your post twice inside your own post? I mean, honestly. I got to the second half, felt it sounded familiar, and then realized why. Rrrgh.