How Should We Elect Staff?

[NoMoreFaith]

So, the premise of your argument is that the staff could keep a member on whose behavior is bad simply because another staff member has a personal relationship with said person. Well, it could happen, but it won't, so it is irrelevant.

Well, we are skeptics, its not unreasonable for us to not accept a blanket statement "It just won't happen, it just won't happen" as a factual statement.
Are you asking me to take a statement on faith alone? This of all forums should know that won't wash

You're seriously missing the bigger picture here. If you really think that all members of this site would be interested enough to vote, you haven't been paying attention. We wouldn't need two-thirds of the people on this site to vote poorly, we only need two-thirds of those who bothered to vote to vote poorly. Those with an agenda are more likely to vote than those who are here for discussion, not petty politics.

I agree, I stated this quite clearly two posts ago, that statisticians know fine well about weighting to take into account factors of those inclined to vote. I personally believe 2/3rds is reasonable.

I think you do yourself an injustice, there are plenty, myself included who would actively vote against an obviously petty complaint and defend our staff against idiots.
If you recall the shill accounts, the forum united against a suggestion to vote out Tiberius. Even those who had notable explosive arguments with him, were first in line to shoot down petty complaints.

I have been privy to threads where the only ones who participated were those who were mad at one person, with everyone else staying out of it.

That would not correlate with an active poll, as mentioned, petty suggestions of that sort have been roundly crushed by the members who support you.

I think you should have more faith in your membership.

I think you should realize that I was disagreeing with you, not raising an army of the undead to smite you for saying something I disagree with. I don't care how you voted. I'm not disagreeing with how you voted or I would have mentioned that. I am disagreeing with your suggestion. Is that not allowed?

I think there are more polite ways to state your case to be honest, but I do find your objections lacking in substance.

In summary;

Have faith we would not let nepotism rule over membership
I have anecdotes about members being angry and petty.

[quote]You should consider dealing realistically rather than hypothetically and idealistically. So, there.

If it remains within the realms of possibility, the hypothetical is always realistic to consider, and dangerous to ignore.

[quote='Shell B' pid='279863' dateline='1335920783']
Oh, I am bearing that in mind, as I'm sure you have been. I said I would do it because I was interested in the fact that there was a popularity contest going on and I was interested in seeing how far certain individuals would take it. The staff did not agree to it. In fact, Tiberius was quite irritated at the suggestion and told me and others in the thread flat out that he would not adhere to such a vote.

Tiberius was the one who made the suggestion to put himself to the vote, not the members. He was roundly shouted down that nobody wanted anyone to step down. In effect, he got the rightfully received vote of confidence in that respect.

[quote='Shell B' pid='279863' dateline='1335920783']We are transparent.

I agree, Tiberius is very open about how he does things, and one of the areas I have massive amounts of respect for.

In fact, new members are completely unaware of said "relationships" and would have no reason to suggest nepotism,

I hate to disagree, I'm still technically a newish member, and I recognised the fact within minutes of joining the forum. It's stated openly (and why shouldn't it be).

[quote='Shell B' pid='279863' dateline='1335920783']
Yes, we are disagreeing on the minor suggestion, nothing else. Therefore, you do actually disagree with me. My efforts are my concern, but thanks.

I refer to the fact that we both agree that the forum staffing should not be a popularity contest (unless I have that wrong).

I simply suggest that a meaningful method of impeachment which takes into account member views is not a bad thing. Supported by prominent members, initiated by staff in response, and subject to weighting in favour of the staff to minimise the "inclined to vote" effect.

You do yourself and your fellow staff a gross injustice if you think minor irritation could oust a member of staff, most of the members would leap to your defence. Hell, I might not see eye to eye with yourself on political and philosophical issues, but I would defend your staff position to the death (okay, maybe mild injury).