@motosubatsu When I was a kid, I loved tennis. My knees and legs don't let me love it now. So Pickleball fills the void. Of course I'm still getting used to being beat by 80 year olds. Oh well.
@Magisch No. I'm in Maine. It's an indoor sport in the winter. Not sure why it was cancelled today.
@JoeStrazzere One of them appears to be making a political statement versus having a genuine interest in being a Moderator. Also, this person has virtually not participation here.
@MisterPositive not the first time. But it should remain civil. If the person is, in fact running with impure motives, then any lack of civility plays right into said person's hands.
@MisterPositive True. But that doesn't negate the fact that this candidate has done everything necessary to self-nominate. There are indeed 4 Candidates. We all get to decide which ones are worthy of our votes and which are not.
@MisterPositive so ignore it. If it is political, then the purpose is to generate a reaction, if it is not, then you're attacking someone for no reason.
Either way, that person becomes either a victim, or martyr
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica I think I will handle things the way I think is best. That may not line up with what your thoughts are. But I do respect your opinion.
@MisterPositive While I have matured past trolling, I used to do it, and know full well how to do it effectively. If someone were to want to generate (more) controversy here, there would be no better way than to run, and get oneself kicked out, that way, one could claim that SE is getting even more draconian.
my 2c is if this is an attempt to stir drama the best way to counter it is to treat him as a legitimate candidate and just note vote for him. If this is a legitimate candidacy, then the same
@JoeStrazzere Four candidates on paper yes. I know what you're getting at but I remain perfectly comfortable calling this a joke candidacy. Moderation is still about taking that extra step in supporting a site where you're an active member of the community. I see no need to entertain the candidacy of someone who doesn't meet that rather low bar.
We by no means require someone to be at the top of the reputation list nor are there strict requirements on the "candidate score". Those remain useful metrics to gauge a candidate's level of participation but that doesn't automatically mean more is better.
@Lilienthal I wouldn't be comfortable judging someone's candidacy that way, as long as they follow the rules as stated. Even if we get a Boaty McBoatFace candidate, it's up to the voters to decide who is a "real" candidate, and who is just in it for the yuks.
Maybe I should clarify. I am personally judging this candidate in that way. As Mister Positive said: anyone who meets the criteria can run. And the established processes will give each candidate exactly the same platform.
But speaking personally I don't feel the need to count him amount the list of viable candidates.
I don't believe the CT needs to act on "obvious" joke candidacies by undoing a candidacy. That's a slippery slope and there's just no point.
@Lilienthal - When I'm asked "How many candidates are there?" I will always go by the official count. If asked "How many candidates do you personally feel are viable", I may give a different answer.
@Lilienthal I don't want to be overly harsh here. But I'd like to ask Moderators (and would-be Moderators) to rise above the fray, and just go with the official count when asked.
I was just taking a tongue-in-cheek stab at the count, not trying to pretend there aren't 4 people actually running. Again, I know what you mean but I think you may be reading too much into one line in the chat here. :)
That aside, I hope you figure out whether or not you want to throw your hat (/baseball cap) in the ring as well Joe. Not to pressure you: if you think it won't be for you then that's all that matters. I think the site is lucky to have you with or without a diamond. :)
@Lilienthal I believe moderating is not for me. There is only one opening, and we already have a good batch of candidates with perhaps others willing to join in. I will not get involved in an us-against-the-corporation fight. I just want to help people. Right now, I think I still have a few answers left in me, although I have to honestly say that I get bummed out when I read questions that come across as whining. Not sure how much longer I'll be able to contribute without becoming too snarky.
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica - I'm not a Mountain Dew drinker. What is the new flavor?
@JoeStrazzere Fair points. Personally speaking I would prefer someone focusing on this site as well rather than the broader meta. I know it can be argued both ways but the reason we want to reinforce the team is to handle with the activities on this site. We're not organising a rebellion against the corporate overlords.
But if you believe you're better able to help people by writing answers rather than dealing with the admin side, I can't argue with that. :)
Truth be told there is a fair amount of whining that will come your way due to flags. Certainly more than you'll typically be exposed to while browsing the site. :)
@Lilienthal - I know I'll be looking at the candidates with an eye toward what they are after. I'd prefer a candidate that emphasizes helping people here rather than "taking it to the man".
Until further notice I believe we are still electing people to take on a complicated role within this site, not to go and "fight the good fight" elsewhere.
@JoeStrazzere My stance is pretty close to yours. I am not really interested in the Stack as a whole, but our little corner of it as they say. I do expect individuals to conduct themselves appropriately and not turn a legitimate need into an opportunity to sling political mud at the man, as you put it.
I even have higher expectations if said person is a moderator on another site here on SE. That is the last I will speak of this situation. When asked how many candidates there are the answer is 4 currently. How many VIABLE candidates is a different number in my view.
@JoeStrazzere Mountain Dew put out a "name our new flavor" stunt on the web. 4Chan got the number 1 response to be "[German dictator during WWII] Did nothing wrong"
@MisterPositive I'm slowly deleting all of my other SE accounts, and am staying here only to help people. I am of the same opinion as Joe. THIS stack is worth saving.
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica I have one on SE, Meta, and TWP. All my other accounts are gone. I did that for a lot of reasons, but mainly to help me manage how much time I spend here on SE. ;-}
@MisterPositive the attitude at TWP is very.... positive :D Which I like, and TWP has largely avoided the nonsense of SE as a whole. You are no small part of why I am staying, at least for now.
@DarkCygnus Hi!
Still reeling from the St Valentines day Massacre, and, more good news is coming.... YAY!
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica Ah, that was a long time ago. I would have voted for "Diabeetus" in that what-the-heck-were-they-thinking internet contest.
If a hypothetical protest candidate were to run, and get a significant number of votes, it would be a good general indicator of dissatisfaction with the site.
I honestly don't think a protest candidate would get much.
Since we were on the subject just earlier and people are bound to notice: the Community Team was contacted about cnst's nomination and they have decided to forcibly withdraw that nomination. Key reason being that the nomination space is not the place to protest issues facing the community, no matter how valid they may or may not be.
The user in question was contacted privately on this. If anyone believes this was an overreach, please consider starting a meta thread instead of / in addition to discussing it here.
Personally, while I stand by my statement earlier that it ultimately could have been left alone, I support this action considering the nomination was in the view of most clearly not an earnest one. @MisterPositive and I discussed the potential of the broader community situation affecting our election with the Community Team beforehand and agreed that any actions that are clearly only using the election as a soap box would be addressed.
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica I don't agree with you in this case. A site Moderator should not be allowed to troll another sites elections IMO.
Which is what happened. I am glad that the CM's reacted this way. This is not about "bring back Monica" this is about moving forward with the community we have.
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica That's pretty much how all internet marketing works these days. People are willing to do all sorts of things for internet "fame" and "gamification".
well, if the reasoning of the community team in forcibly withdrawing the nomination is that nominations should not be used to protest issues, mine clearly does that as well
4
does mine get to stay because I have a high candidate score? If not, what exactly allows mine to stay and not cnst's?
@JoeStrazzere And that was the right thing to do. This person did not contribute in any tangible way to our community. This person was not interested in doing anything but making a polititcal statement, and was a moderator on another site so that person should definitely no better than to do that in an election.
@MisterPositive "In the nomination phase, any community member in good standing with more than 300 reputation may nominate themselves to be a community moderator."
@MisterPositive Objectively, that's true. But if you view it from an outsider's perspective, it does look like the company drawing a line in how much criticism of it is allowed. I'm not saying that I personally believe the election is illegitimate because of it (the nominee had no chance in my asessment) but I think in the eyes of onlookers it will affect the perceived legitimacy more negatively then it would have to let the nomination be.
@Magisch perhaps, but I don't think so. I think if you allow a moderator of another site to use an election for "not good" reasons that set's a bad precedent. As a moderator you will be expected to behave a step above so to speak.
@Magisch Not at all. These aren't absolutes and the agenda this nomination was pushing ultimately wasn't relevant. It's the point that the nomination served only to push a point combined with the fact that it's someone essentially unknown to the community. The fact that they moderate another site is arguably the final push.
@MisterPositive when you go toe to toe with an entity that has effectively limitless resources, one must take what victories one can get. It's called "cutting your losses", and it is a forced action, not a choice.
The only choice is how much damage to you want to take.
Is there a rule against moderating more than one site? If so, it should go into the "In the nomination phase, any community member in good standing with more than 300 reputation may nominate themselves to be a community moderator." statement, right?
IIRC the main section of the nomination was about bypassing community moderation entirely. The "reinstate Monica" was tacked on at the end I believe? Even without it I believe it would be beyond the pale.
@MisterPositive she originally wanted to be reinstated. Despite pleading, outrage and even repeated questioning by aaron hall when he had a talk with the CEO face to face they refused to grant her that and instead wanted her to go through the black box reinstatement process
her leaving in the end wasn't so much a choice as a consequence of being denied that dignity by SE
2
@JoeStrazzere there's not. Some people have 5 diamonds on different sites
@JoeStrazzere The fact that it's a moderator matters because like mentioned above they should lead by example and are held to a higher standard. I don't believe anyone here is actually disputing the fact that this was essentially a troll nomination?
Just like people with 10k+ reputation should also know better. IIRC we had a few longshot candidates in the previous election with candidate scores below 5. They rightly got comments questioning their site commitment, but no one removed their nominations.
Look, I don't disagree that it was a clearly unserious nomination. I just think removing it did more damage then letting it be ignored like it would have been
or does anyone think cnst had a realistic chance of winning?
@Magisch Again the point is that this person, who was clearly trolling, was a moderator and should know better that to use our election as their mud slinging platform.
no disagreement there. I also found that to be super unbecoming
I just disagree the response ultimately chosen served to minimize harm. Removing that nomination didn't hurt cnst or caused them any grief. If anything it gives them more to complain about to anyone who will listen
I understand why this could cause concern. There's reason I mentioned it's potentially a slippery slope. And the optics are not great. But I share the sentiment of the community team and Mister Positive on this that this is a very clear situation where the behaviour was far enough beyond the pale to warrant removal to reduce the noise it would carry into the election. That's still a chief task for moderators.
I believe we were heading in that direction yes. :) I'm with you in that we're just discussing it on chat. Main reason I'm being rather verbose about is that this is an area where we have somewhat of an obligation to explain our rationale.
I think it's important for mods to be transparent and engage with community members regarding their reasoning, especially when the situation is potentially contentious
But really, we can expect about 500 votes this election. Perhaps 15 people have been looped into this discussion now and while I'm not sure we've accomplished much with it, I think it's fair to say we understand the pros/cons at both sides. And as a result a good 400+ people will not be looped into the trolling.
For the sake of transparency, I wanted to let people know that I've just received an email that my nomination from https://workplace.stackexchange.com/election/7 has been withdrawn.
Here's the text of my nomination:
I nominate myself as a libertarian candidate. I believe a lot of moderato...
@Magisch yep. Who could have guessed? SE needs to take a page from Seinfeld: Whatever their first gut instinct is, do the opposite, and that's the right decision.
@RichardSaysReinstateMonica Honestly, I'm less annoyed at the censorship and more annoyed at the incompetence. Nuking their nomination is going to be far more galvanising that just leaving it up would have been.
@Lilienthal I think it was civil, and in keeping with "assume good intentions" and the fact that this is an election and so inherently political it should have been allowed to stand and (I hope) been appropriately repudiated by the site's users in an election.
@Kaz yep. And that's trolling 101: Get banned/kicked out/censored quickly, and you will always have people rallying under your flag
Especially since the person went out of their way to call out the censorious nature of SE who responds by.... censoring. Talk about walking right into it
If they felt the final sentence was straying a bit Off-Topic I could understand that, but the vast majority of the nomination was laying out a clear position on how moderation ought to be done in relation to the community and why.
IMHO, raising concerns to the "appropriate people" was a mistake. Then, deleting the nomination was an even bigger mistake. It would have been far better to edit out the "political" reference and leave the nomination in place. Now we have "Deep State" conspiracy evidence for all to see. Oh well, it's done. Time to move on.
For the sake of transparency, I wanted to let people know that I've just received an email that my nomination from https://workplace.stackexchange.com/election/7 has been withdrawn.
Here's the text of my nomination:
I nominate myself as a libertarian candidate. I believe a lot of moderato...
The Water Cooler
The Water Cooler