Zebra Huddleâ„¢

Info Center => Zebra Huddle News => Topic started by: Major Wood on October 19, 2010, 01:27:10 pm

Title: Moderator candidates
Post by: Major Wood on October 19, 2010, 01:27:10 pm
Thank you to all of you who have expressed interest in becoming a moderator for Zebra Huddle!
I have narrowed it down to 3 people who I feel are qualified to do the job. I will list them below and allow them time to state why they are the right person for the position (or decide to go on merit alone) before putting it up for vote.

Your candidates (in alphabetical order):

Bishop
Cliquework
Professor Murder

Lets not clutter this thread with congratulations, or anything like that. However, feel free to ask questions about how this will run, or the way that each candidate may operate.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Cliquework on October 19, 2010, 07:41:45 pm
I believe Bishop, Murder, and myself all have the responsibility and sensitivity to perform the duties of Forum Moderator, from organization, fluency in forum capabilities, maintaining proper conduct within the forums while being examples ourselves,  confidentiality, and preserving open, yet structured communication.

In addition to that, my office hours permit me to maintain an active online presence throughout the week, day, and/or hour (http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?action=profile;u=176;sa=statPanel). My job is behind a computer. Should situations arise that requires moderator assistance, I will be accessible.

This same availability has permitted me to read every single thread contained within Zebra Huddle, both current and archived. This knowledge aids in searching relevant discussions. A librarian knows the library.

Thank you for your consideration.

(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w311/jbuente/Work2010sm.jpg) (http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w311/jbuente/Work2010.jpg)
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Professor Murder on October 19, 2010, 09:16:47 pm
I don't have fancy Photoshop skills, so no Colbertesque photos from me.

I do know roller derby, and I do know officiating.  I've been doing this since late 2005; what I've learned, and seen, over that time is more or less the foundation of my qualifications.  I have a thorough knowledge of the growth and changes the sport has seen over just a few short years.

I know full well about proper conduct, as an experienced official, as a representative of the WFTDA, and as someone who has a deep grasp of how discussions should and should not flow in online venues.  I look forward to keeping ZH as a place where discussions remain on topic, where discussions are respectful, and where extraneous discussion is limited (for instances when a satisfactory and thorough conclusion/answer has been reached).

I respect the backgrounds that both Bishop and Cliquework bring to ZH.  My experiences, and the extent of my experiences, both on and off the track, make me a more qualified candidate for the position.

I also have far more Playstation trophies than Cliquework.

Vote for someone who you want to be a moderator, quite frankly.  I would like to limit some conversations so we can all highlight the proper answer and move on, as consistent, knowledgeable officials.  More than anything else, I want Zebra Huddle as a place for officials to become right, rather than as a place for individuals to prove themselves right.  If you embrace that distinction, then you should support Murder.

Perhaps there's a better slogan than that.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Cliquework on October 19, 2010, 09:25:22 pm
I also have far more Playstation trophies than Cliquework.

Yeah, that "Hannah Montanna" one looks real good on the mantle. I was hoping to escape the typical political muslinging. Alas, there it is.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: FNZebra on October 19, 2010, 09:46:49 pm
So what quad wheels and bearings are best for dealing with the political mudslinging environment?
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Major Wood on October 19, 2010, 09:51:35 pm
Vote for someone who you want to be a moderator, quite frankly.

I do want to highlight this statement. When this is voted on, it will help shape the community you are all a part of. So please keep that in mind.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Eject You Later on October 19, 2010, 11:12:13 pm
I look forward to keeping ZH as a place where discussions remain on topic, where discussions are respectful, and where extraneous discussion is limited (for instances when a satisfactory and thorough conclusion/answer has been reached).

Fairly new here so I haven't had a lot of interaction with you (yet).  The posts of yours I've read I've concluded that they were well written, thoughtful, and knowledgeable.  With this in mind, I have a pair of questions about the above statement that you made, so that I can get a better feel of Murder the Mod.

First, when you say, "on topic," what is your intention?  Are you interested in shutting down occasional off topic banter that can shape an online community (either positively or negatively)?  Is there a line somewhere in your opinion that, prior to being crossed, allows some off topic-ness and, when crossed, needs to be shut down?  If so, can you elaborate on what and where that line is?  As well, what is your preferred method of dealing with said off topic-ness?  Warning/reprimands?  Splitting threads?  Deleting posts?

Second, and this is more important to me, what do you mean by: "where extraneous discussion is limited (for instances when a satisfactory and thorough conclusion/answer has been reached)."  I've read a number of threads on these boards where a topic appears to have been answered definitively, only to be reopened and rediscussed when new angles, thoughts, or reasoning are introduced.  So my question is, what determines that an answer is satisfactory?  And if this has been achieved what is your preferred method of dealing with the thread in question?  Locking it?  Splitting off any further discussion?  Warning/reprimanding users that "grave dig" a discussion that was deemed answered?

Thank you :)
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: JoeXCore on October 19, 2010, 11:13:55 pm
I would like to see more splitting of threads.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: howie~swerve on October 19, 2010, 11:38:04 pm
Quote
Is there a line somewhere in your opinion that, prior to being crossed, allows some off topic-ness and, when crossed, needs to be shut down?  If so, can you elaborate on what and where that line is?


actually, it'd be nice if all three could take a swing at this one.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: All-Nate-Long on October 20, 2010, 12:29:53 am
It would be awesome to have someone on  the Wftda referee committee as a moderator...  :o
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: FNZebra on October 20, 2010, 01:15:12 am
It would be awesome to have someone on  the Wftda referee committee as a moderator...  :o

Please finish your sentence, All-Nate-Long.

How do you think that would benefit this community?
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: All-Nate-Long on October 20, 2010, 02:18:52 am
Having someone from  the referee  board as a ZH  moderator would give a  definitive up to date  answer  to most ongoing discussions....
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Noah Tall on October 20, 2010, 02:50:22 am
There are many of us here who are on the WFTDA Ref Committee.  However, because of that, it actually limits what we may say.  There may be a pertinent discussion to whatever is happening on the ZH playing out on the WFTDA boards, but we can not share that until we are allowed.  In contrast, oftentimes items will arise on ZH that will cause a discussion on the WFTDA boards and will lead to official clarifications.

In any case, I don't know that limiting a moderator position to one who is on the Ref Committee is necessary, as there are many people here who already fill that role.  But, that is just my opinion, and you, of course, are entitled to yours.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: FNZebra on October 20, 2010, 03:03:10 am
Having someone from  the referee  board as a ZH  moderator would give a  definitive up to date  answer  to most ongoing discussions....

Ahh, gotcha.

There are more than a few folks hereabouts who are on the WFTDA ref forum, including the moderator candidates. The deafening silence often heard is because of the NDA, or because there is yet no official answer.

It is my semi-informed opinion that electing any one of these candidates would neither speed nor hinder the arrival of definitive, up-to-date answers.

So we'll have to make our choices based on other criteria.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Professor Murder on October 20, 2010, 03:03:45 am
First, when you say, "on topic," what is your intention?  Are you interested in shutting down occasional off topic banter that can shape an online community (either positively or negatively)?  Is there a line somewhere in your opinion that, prior to being crossed, allows some off topic-ness and, when crossed, needs to be shut down?  If so, can you elaborate on what and where that line is?  As well, what is your preferred method of dealing with said off topic-ness?  Warning/reprimands?  Splitting threads?  Deleting posts?

I intend on keeping discussion on the topic of the original post(s).  Banter is well and good, but it can't dominate threads.  Related topics won't be shunned, but I'd like to see people think if their post is related to the topic before actually posting.  If it's related and relevant, but deemed slightly off topic, start a new thread.  I'm not advocating me being a censor, but encouraging that members here be active participants in keeping this forum organized.

I think I have fewer posts than the other two candidates, but I'm logged onto ZH pretty frequently.  I read threads and often don't post if I have nothing to contribute (i.e., if what I'm thinking has already been said).  Personally, I contribute nothing but clutter if I offer little more than a "here, here" and little else.

Quote
Second, and this is more important to me, what do you mean by: "where extraneous discussion is limited (for instances when a satisfactory and thorough conclusion/answer has been reached)."  I've read a number of threads on these boards where a topic appears to have been answered definitively, only to be reopened and rediscussed when new angles, thoughts, or reasoning are introduced.  So my question is, what determines that an answer is satisfactory?  And if this has been achieved what is your preferred method of dealing with the thread in question?  Locking it?  Splitting off any further discussion?  Warning/reprimanding users that "grave dig" a discussion that was deemed answered?

To use policing terms, I prefer a "community-based" style to a "lawman" style.  In short, moving discussion where it's pertinent.  Take the thread on mistakes, for instance:
http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?topic=7.285

The last page is on understanding jammer cover tranfers.  While a good discussion to have, it deserves its own topic in my view.  The discussion started out because someone made a pertinent post about a 'mistake,' but morphed into the broader rules discussion you see on page 20.  That's well and good, but the net effect is that it makes the general thread (about mistakes) unweildly and, over time, less effective as a resource to look back on.  I wouldn't quash the discussion, but I would split it.

On the other hand, take the topic on WFTDA's release of hand signals:
http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?topic=1258.0

The OP's question is this:
Does anyone know if the new referee hand signals for the new rules (May 2010 update) are posted or described anywhere? Bout this weekend and need to know new hand signals.

But the discussion quickly deviates from that.  Frankly, the banter in that thread detracts from the point of the thread.  I'd probably delete a number of posts about who does which hand signals best, or which hand signals we really enjoy.  There's a secondary conversation about performing quality hand signals, which is something I wholly endorse as deserving of its own topic.  That should be split off.  Lost in the morass are responses that dictate what some hand signals currently in use are, in WFTDA Sanctioned play, that are not in the current Hand Signals document.  Since that's the point of the thread, it's unfortunate that there is so much to wade through to find those answers.

Lastly:

Having someone from  the referee  board as a ZH  moderator would give a  definitive up to date  answer  to most ongoing discussions....

I want to be perfectly clear in what I, nor anyone else, can be: a conduit to the inner workings of the WFTDA.  If the organization were discussing, say, mandating toestops for all skaters (not a real discussion), none of us could discuss that on ZH.  We can provide information, we can be useful as resources, but we can not violate codes of conduct or confidentiality agreements.  So if Rules didn't answer your Q&A, or if there's vigorous discussion on the boards about it, that's not something we can bring here.  

As a member of a WFTDA Member League, you have access to your skater and ref reps who can and should inform you of those doings (since you've ostensibly signed those documents too).  But if it's not public, we can't discuss it.  Rules discussions on Q&A, even if they come from the Rules committee, aren't binding unless publicly posted or included in the Rules document.  The locations of the Big 7 Tournaments (oops!  kidding!) in 2011 are not public information.  www.wftda.com and its subsites are your resources.  We can help understand documents, answer questions, etc.  But we are not, and are prohibited from, being liaisons to things we are unable to discuss.  I use "we" here instead of "I" because that goes for myself and the other two candidates, as well as anyone else here who has access to the WFTDA forums.  If you have other interests in a liaison here, however, that's another discussion entirely.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: All-Nate-Long on October 20, 2010, 03:37:55 am
Do you feel that a referee who is more involved with the overall circulation of information and ref occurrences inside Wftda would be in a more advantageous  position to be a moderator on ZH  ? ?
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Professor Murder on October 20, 2010, 04:09:37 am
That's an interesting question.  I think the goals of a moderator are to facilitate and keep conversation going on ZH.  It would be erroneous to place a person in the role of a moderator as a greater authority on a certain issue unless their specific credentials speak to that.

A moderator is, in my view, separate from a person who speaks as an expert on the matter.

So when I said earlier to vote for the person who would be the best moderator, vote on what you want a moderator to be.  Any of us would do a solid job, I'm certain.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: noidd on October 20, 2010, 05:33:24 am
It would be erroneous to place a person in the role of a moderator as a greater authority on a certain issue unless their specific credentials speak to that.

As someone who has received unofficial guidance on a "star pass issue" from two wftda committee members which were complete opposites of each other I wonder if anyone has any authority to actually answer questions authoritatively.  That's actually a serious question.  Anyone?

From the number of "I speak only for myself not the wftda" disclaimers I see I'm thinking not - but then again I get "corrected" because "some people are more correct than others" and I'm meant to know who.

From out here - it's hard to tell who.

What I would like to see from a moderator:

I do respect the need to keep threads on topic but I would rather see a moderator who would split threads verses suppressing discussion.  Like Murder said, the "mistakes" pivot question I posted spawned two other very interesting questions.  I would have liked to have seen them spawned.

We're all sensible, respectful folks 99% of the time (and that 1% is usually misunderstanding).  I see a moderators role on this website as being more about facilitating than control.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Stegoscorus on October 20, 2010, 06:14:54 am
Murder is one of my favorite dudes, and has a lot of responsibility within WFTDA.  He's very visible to refs both in and out of the organization, through his work on Certification Committee, his reffing of tournaments, and his participation in online forums.

In general, when a position like this opens up, I like to see it go to someone who hasn't yet had such opportunities.  I think both Clique and Bishop are qualified, and should have the chance to hold a position within our community, and prove themselves as leaders.  Both of these guys are classy gentlemen with cute accents, they both wear their passion for reffing on their sleeves, and have both been very active members of Zebra Huddle for a long time. 

Clique and Bishop, jump in here and tell me who should get my vote!
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: FNZebra on October 20, 2010, 05:06:10 pm
As someone who has received unofficial guidance on a "star pass issue" from two wftda committee members which were complete opposites of each other I wonder if anyone has any authority to actually answer questions authoritatively.  That's actually a serious question.  Anyone?

From the number of "I speak only for myself not the wftda" disclaimers I see I'm thinking not - but then again I get "corrected" because "some people are more correct than others" and I'm meant to know who.

From out here - it's hard to tell who.

noidd,

On some things, some people are indeed more correct. On other topics, maybe not so much. And that's with the exact same participants.

It is often hard to tell from within the other side of the gated community, too.  >:(
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Cliquework on October 20, 2010, 05:29:50 pm
In general, when a position like this opens up, I like to see it go to someone who hasn't yet had such opportunities.  I think both Clique and Bishop are qualified, and should have the chance to hold a position within our community, and prove themselves as leaders. 

....cute accents.... 
Interesting point. Murder’s experience certainly exceeds my own in the sport itself, the added responsibilities of being League Head Ref, and in understanding proper online conduct. What to say, what not to say, and when to say it. He’s a smart man. Fabulous grammar and "The Price Is Right" Playstation Platinum trophy winner. Moderator or not, I will continue to be a student of that experience. On a strict “best person for the job” criteria with no other variables, he’s the stronger candidate. Yet, I can assure you that I will learn. I will not waste opportunity to do a job to the best of my ability. And then we’ll have yet another capable and experienced person out there.

Quote
Is there a line somewhere in your opinion that, prior to being crossed, allows some off topic-ness and, when crossed, needs to be shut down?  If so, can you elaborate on what and where that line is?


actually, it'd be nice if all three could take a swing at this one.

Foremost it needs to fall within the Zebra Huddle policies (http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?topic=81.0), which immediately leaves out anything inappropriate. Beyond that, I don’t believe it’s a hard edge line. A rough gauge would be “does the off topic post(s) actually detract from the information provided in any way?” Does brief banter preserve the community aspect while still remaining on topic? Is a joke a humorous end to a concise topic? Or does a joke continue at length for pages, thus hiding actual content and making for a difficult search.

It’s situational. As with all things discretionary, we all have a different range, but at some point we all know for sure. At some point we’ll all agree that “maybe” has become “yes”.  A concern might be “is this moderator’s range acceptable”. Judging by his examples, I believe mine approaches Murder’s, what makes sense. It’s all an effort to make this place work efficiently.  The “heavy lifting” portion of this job will be keeping things flowing, organized, and properly cross-referenced, not policing or deletion of content.

And in truth, how much real policing has there ever been? Has there been much of a need? Yes, to my memory there have been situations that required action here. Those that did went beyond reasonable. On the whole we’re responsible adults here.  We wouldn’t be here (specifically) if we weren’t trying to learn and sculpt ourselves to be better. To share that knowledge help others become better as well.  That’s usually accompanied by a certain level of respect and professionalism.

Also, do not forget there is more than one moderator. Should a situation go beyond organizational issues and into something requiring judgment or “police actions”, that decision will be made by committee and with the best interest of this forum in mind.

I’ve never felt real discussion of the topic at hand has been squashed by moderation here. Perhaps there’s a need for splitting and/or focusing them at times, but do not forget  you are the community. This falls on you as well.  Should you feel something requires moderation, be it a split or otherwise, you are within your rights to request it and help shape/organize this forum. As Murder said, we should be active stewards ourselves, helping preserve what this site set out to be. Moderators simply aid in this. We are the stewards that you have trusted with the keys.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Bishop on October 22, 2010, 06:28:41 am
When I requested that my name be added to the mix of candidates, I wasn't sure that there would be any really qualified applicants.  I am pleased to see that I was wrong about that.

In the traditional sense of qualifications, I am the least qualified candidate.  I have the least amount of experience in terms of length of service than the other candidates.  I'm not certified and I'm not from a WFTDA member league.  The vast majority of my officiating experience falls squarely into the "backwater" derby catergory.  My online presence and decorum, as is well documented by this site, is a work in progress.  That being said, I think all of those qualificaitons save the online decorum, are irrelevant for the position.
       
As one of Zebra Huddle's most active members, I do have opinions about what I think is important for the Moderator position.  I think more thread splitting is necessary for users to be able to locate specific topics quickly.  I think that care needs to be taken when locking a thread as it can be viewed as a way to suppress dissenting dialogue.  I think it's important to remember that most users on here are learning so off-topic discussions are naturally going to crop up.  Therefore, I think a light touch is in order and that posters should be given the benefit of the doubt. 

However, more than any of this, I think that the WFTDA officiating community at large would benefit from having more leaders and more potential voices of influence.  Basically, I agree with Stego in that the position should go to someone who is not already part of the establishment.  In fact, I think a lot of referees think that way too.  Unfortunately, two of the candidates fall into that catergory.  Rather than dilute that pool, I'd like to respectfully request that my name be removed from the list of candidates.     
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Major Wood on October 22, 2010, 01:09:55 pm
With that, I'm going to go ahead and start the voting. I will start a new thread momentarily, which will contain the poll.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Major Wood on October 22, 2010, 01:21:13 pm
Please go to the voting thread (http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?topic=1477.0) to place your vote. Thank you.
Title: Re: Moderator candidates
Post by: Professor Murder on October 22, 2010, 07:00:37 pm
Vote for Cliquework! 

That Hannah Montana trophy scandal turned out to be true, even if, like Rand Paul, I don't recall it happening.