-5

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know that I've just received an email that my nomination from https://workplace.stackexchange.com/election/7 has been withdrawn.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 moderators take the job too seriously, and prematurely close and remove questions that simply haven't had enough exposure to produce interesting and on-topic answers.

I am running on the platform against using the moderator powers to subvert the democratic process of handling site moderation through the regular voting procedures (e.g., the voting rules where a certain number of community votes automatically closes the question without any need to get any moderators involved, and same for re-opening). Moderators should only exercise their powers in exceptional circumstances. Every kid now wants to have their own social networking site so that they can ban anyone, and that's wrong. Reinstate Monica.


Here's the email I've received:

Hello,

We're writing in reference to your The Workplace Stack Exchange account:

https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/5597/cnst

I'm writing to inform you that your nomination for the The Workplace Moderator election has been withdrawn. While voicing complaints about the downfalling state of a community is a proper thing to be doing, the nomination space is not the place to be doing it.

Regards,
The Stack Exchange Community Management Team


Whilst I do disagree with this withdrawal, there doesn't appear to be any way to dispute it.

It is unclear whether this has anything to do with the parting words, "Reinstate Monica", which would indicate biased treatment and interference with the principles of free expression and free speech, or whether it's expected that moderators are supposed to work so much handling all the mundane flags as to burn out quickly (someone jokingly noted in the comments to my nomination that at least I'm unlikely to burn out).

As I posted in one of the comments to the nomination, the complaint about moderators abruptly closing the questions is not necessarily specific to Workplace, but perhaps to some specific sites on the network (as I'm active network-wide), where such one-moderator-only-vote closures are much more common.

I do not see any legitimate reason why my nomination had to be withdrawn, if not to curtail the discussion and establish the voting precedent on the issue. I disagree with the assessment that my nomination is "a complaint"; I insist it's a platform.

| |
  • 1
    What is your question? – guest Feb 23 at 14:28
10

Your nomination was not remove because of references to Monica. It was removed because you are essentially vowing to waste a diamond doing nothing, and we cannot take such a nomination seriously. If you want to fight for changes in site policy to get moderators to do less, that is a discussion to have on Meta.

Even if you consider your nomination to be a "platform" it is not a platform that makes any sense here and will only lead to an unconstructive election cycle. Moderators here on Stack Exchange are not hard limited in the number of slots. You cannot simply take up one of the seats and not do anything to prevent someone else from doing it.

All that would happen from you being elected on this premise is wasting a lot of people's time. The community's time for having an election to get no value whatsoever, the other moderators' time because they would not get the help they requested, and our time having to deal with probably removing you at a later time for not doing anything and putting in a new person in your place to aid the other moderators.

In the same vein as our reasoning for removing nominations of users with recent suspensions on record, we are not interested in having candidates that are not taking the moderatorship or the election seriously. All it does is stir up more drama in an already drama-filled process. We need serious candidates that want to help keep the site clean, not users who are only interested in complaining about how moderators participate on the site.

| |
  • 5
    Given the number of moderators who've gone "on strike" (or who spend years treating the diamond as a sinecure) doing nothing with a diamond doesn't seem to a major concern to the site. – Richard Feb 19 at 7:49
  • 4
    @Richard Regardless of reasons, if a moderation team loses active moderators, they request an election to bring that number up to ideal operating levels. As explained by amuson, what would happen is that we'd invite the runner-up to join the moderation team (or hold new elections) within a matter of weeks. SE's stance on inactive moderators has changed somewhat recently and we still do have a lot of moderators "grandfathered in" but I believe it's fair for the community to have some expectations of moderator candidates regarding their site activity if elected. – Lilienthal Feb 19 at 8:06
7

Let me read your nomination post one more time:

I nominate myself as a libertarian candidate. I believe a lot of moderators take the job too seriously, and prematurely close and remove questions that simply haven't had enough exposure to produce interesting and on-topic answers.

I am running on the platform against using the moderator powers to subvert the democratic process of handling site moderation through the regular voting procedures (e.g., the voting rules where a certain number of community votes automatically closes the question without any need to get any moderators involved, and same for re-opening). Moderators should only exercise their powers in exceptional circumstances. Every kid now wants to have their own social networking site so that they can ban anyone, and that's wrong. Reinstate Monica.

Ok, so I have re-read it, and here is what I take from it:

  1. How does one run as a libertarian candidate here? In what way do you see moderator's at TWP taking their job too seriously? I don't think that is a valid point at all and quite frankly you haven't participated here enough to know.
  2. Prematurely closing questions is a problem at TWP, and probably is on every other site too. Maybe you should talk about how you would address that issue.
  3. In regards to this point: using the moderator powers to subvert the democratic process of handling site moderation through the regular voting procedures, what evidence do you see of that occurring here at TWP and what would you do to fix it?
  4. "Every kid now wants to have their own social networking site so that they can ban anyone, and that's wrong." -- not sure what point your making here, sound more like a rant.
  5. "Reinstate Monica." -- you know that ship has sailed, you are able to read the Moderator posts. Monica and SE reached an agreement, and she has decided to move on. For the record I do not like how things went down, at all, but I have chosen to stick with the community I care about -- TWP.

So now that I have broken down the parts, and interpreted them to the best of my ability knowing also that you are a moderator on another site, I cannot help but think this was a bad attempt at trying to stick it to someone, SE maybe.

But, why make some sort of half baked statement here? We are attempting to carry on here at TWP after the debacle, and conduct a legit election, and you seem to be stuck in the past attempting to garner attention.

The only people impacted by an insincere attempt to earn another diamond are those of us here at TWP. You have a moderator candidate score of two (2), and your participation here is very much lacking for what I would consider a good candidate -- and I think you know it.

So, in closing, if you want to run then run. But do cut out the mumbo jumbo, and do it honestly and with good intent. That intent should be to make our community better and not just earn another diamond to sit on.

| |
5

Whilst I do disagree with this withdrawal, there doesn't appear to be any way to dispute it.

You are a moderator on Law. You should be perfectly aware of the ways in which you can dispute this:

  • create a meta post (you have)
  • respond to the mod message (you have)
  • renominate yourself (you are free to do so)

The fact that you are a moderator was a strong contributing factor in the Community Team's decision to withdraw your nomination. Like animuson has said, much better than I could, we are looking for people to contribute to this site by performing moderation activities. A list of what we do day-to-day is here on meta but as a moderator you should be aware that it can be a fair amount of work. Given that there is a "cnst is a new contributor" notice at the top of this answer post I assume you don't really know this site all too well, but while the number of questions posted is about the same for both sites, The Workplace gets 4 times the traffic Law does so that should give you some indication of the amount of flags we process.

Your own nomination post confirms you have no interest in actually performing the limited activities expected of the position, yet for some reason we should still consider it serious? Even if you insist we consider it a platform, I fail to see how it's a legitimate one given the expectations we have of moderators.

To me this all simply reads as soapboxing, stirring up drama and wasting everyone's time which fits my definition of trolling and we don't allow that in any form on this site, certainly not from a moderator.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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