Polling booth

[legend]

Afternoon guys, we have now reached 100 members and we will be appointing 2 new assistant mangers on the site. Once we have the nominations, all the members will have one week to vote and to make it a little easier to follow I have added a polling booth messageboard. Now you wont have to go back through the whole messageboard to find out what's happening, just click on the Polling Booth link on the sidebar and you can track the progress of the upcoming election.

We will have the four nominees out shortly.

 

[legend]

I keep forgetting to place a link on the actual thread itself. Sorry.

Polling Booth

 

[TheSaint]

Is it nessisary to have more Managers at this present time? To date, the need hasn't been there.

Why the WORL Community needs the 20 or so Assistant Mangers is more to do with the size and the way in whichthe various sections opperate. At Present, I just read from the All Topics and start threads in the appropriate area. At the moment, I don't think people are steering away from club specific sections because they don't want to read 1000 in depth responces to what the St George Ilawarra Merger means or how Canterbury have the team that can take the title this year.

Legend, how would I be able to vote to defer the apointment of more managers until a time where it may be needed. A good variety of Clubs and oppinions are curently represented by the managers so I see no need to change.At present,apointing more managers would only really increase the amount of people who can abuse that power. I think we should stick to four.

 

[Willow]

I think you've just raised a very interesting point, Saint.
Apart from voting for a new assistant manager, people should also be aware that they can indicate a 'non-vote'. That is, theysay they are against having any new assistant managers at all.

 

[Dog]

This may seem a little off beat but I believe this should be the case:

0-99: 1 manager; 3 asst managers
100-249: 1 manager; 5 asst managers
250-499: 1 manager; 6 asst managers
500+: 1 manager; 8 asst managers

Once we get that big I believe we won't need more thannine to control. As it stands WORL had 29 asst managers to 3500 members - but that goes by the way cuz the place is a disaster to begin with.

Dog

 

[G@v]

Dog, we already have 4 managers.......are you suggesting that 3 of us should be downgraded? If that's what the majority wish I have no problem.

On the numbers thing! I take the view that most of our 100 members are still active, once you get up to 300 or more, about a quarter will have moved on. WORL might have 3,500 to it's name, but I would guess thatmore thanhalf of that numberare no longer posting on that site.

By creating two new assistant managers now, we can go through to 200 members and then evaluate the status of this community and wether or not we need another vote for more moderators. This is probably the closest you'll get to a democracy.

 

[legend]

The four current managers will stay as they are. Each has a different role and two are in different countries and timezones. That way we have a manager on the site virtually around the clock. Gav has done almost all the graphics on the front page and he can change that when he sees fit. A lot of the new members we are getting now seem to be coming from places other than WORL so it's always nice to have someone on hand to give them a greeting. Ozbash is fairly busy on the farm at the moment and I am busy at work with tax time and once the website production is in full swing(soon I hope) I will be around a little less which only leaves Willow on his own for the majority of the time, hence the need for two ass managers. I don't think that is excessive at all and I am hoping the two new ass managers can help the site grow as well.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

For what its worth I agree with TheSaint. The forumis working well as it is andas membersseem to be an amiable bunch there doesn't appear to be a need for any more chiefs.The current managers are doing a great job and rather thanpick more just forthe sake of it why not leave it to them to notify usif and when they need any extra help.

I vote leave it as it is. Besides, its always easier to lay blame when there's only 4 to choose from

 

[legend]

I can see your point of view fellas. I am starting a web design course next month which will really limit my time on the site. I am interested in your thoughts guys. At what stage would you appoint two assistant managers?

 

[imported_Rasputin]

when the guys who are doing it now think they actually need some help, why do it on some trumped up numbers, do it on a needs basis. JMO.

 

[legend]

You actually make a lot of sense in what you say Rasputin. I'd like to hear from more of the members as to what they think.

When i'm not posting here and in between work, I am scouring all the sites I can to get all the sports news here as quick as I can so this site can always be on top of things. To give someone that extra responsibilty would be a good thing in terms of promotion of the site. If you appoint an ass manager people will feel they have a vested interest in helping the site run and the promotion of it.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

You actually make a lot of sense in what you say Rasputin.
Oh, thats a worry, might have to rethink it then

 

[Willow]

Rasputin:
I think the easiest solution is to cast your vote accordingly. That is, if you don't want there to be any new appointments, just say 'no new moderators'. If that's the general view then we'll have to have a re-think.

But I think Legend has already indicated that he wants some assistance.
Even though we have 4 managers,we are in 3 different time zones.
We can't always be online so that's the reason why we need 2 more assistant managers.
Despite the figure '100' being given, I don't think this move has anythingdo withany 'trumped up numbers'. It's more to with a 'needs basis'.

Saint: While I can see what your saying about WORL, I think it's different here. Both forums have unique qualities and both are moving in different directions.

One more point guys. You'd be surprised how big my nominee list was. There are so many quality posters here that I've actually had a hard time making up my mind.
However, I can tell youthat we're pretty close to getting this thing rolling.

 

[BlueAnGold]

scuse the ignorance but can someone tell me whats with these managers. who are they and what do they do.

 

[imported_Rasputin]

Willow:
Fair enough point.
By "trumped up" I only meant the use ofmagical numbers, like 14 for example, wasn't implying anything else.

 

[Willow]

Rasputin, Yeah I knew you were ok on that. I was just using both of your terms to make the point.

Blue & Gold. The managers are Legend, Ozbash, GavBT and myself.
I guess the main job of a manager / assistant manager is to help to develop the site. Make it more appealing and improve the membership.
We're also supposed to watch out for things that may have legal ramifications or may destroy the purpose of the site. I'm talking about 'moderating'. We can delete threads and ban members. Very rare stuff.
The culture of this site is to do everything openly. If a member has a query, it will be given a full hearing. IMO, members have as much say in this site as the managers.
We also have certain buttons at our disposal where we can change things on the site. For example, Legend started this new section called 'Polling Booth' in the side bar.
But currently, the best part about being a site manager involves welcoming new members.

 

[BlueAnGold]

best stay outta that then. too much like work

 

[Dog]

Any idea of when this list will be presented for voting so I can prepare a time to be online to cast my vote?

And just for the record I reckon the four nominees will be:

bronco, MFC, tigger and dare I say myself (but I severely doubt it)

That's JMO though. Good luck to all nominated.

Personally I've had a swing and will probably vote "no new managers."


Dog

 

[TheSaint]

There is something about the Managers choosing the nominees which I see as, well, Communist. I'm not to keen on the idea of voting for the people put forward by those in Power.

A better system would be for the members to nominate potential Assistant Mangers. Those nominated would then be screened by the Moderators, requireing 3 of the four not having any objections to the idea that that particular person could become an Assistantmanager. The nominees would then be ellected by the members of the group.

No matter who the nominees are, what will be the way in which they will be ellected. Wil it be a prefferential system such as in Australia, a first past the post or what?

 

[Willow]

Saint:
Currently, the only voting system we've got is none at all.
What we're proposing is an improvement on what we had before.
IMO, there's a fine line between a 'fair' system and a downright complicated system.
The 4 current managers will name one nominee each. The members will vote for two out of the 4 selected. It's simple.
I think you'll agree that we're breaking new ground here by trying to get away from the old system where the members had no say whatsoever.
BUT that doesn't mean the new system is without flaws.
Any system can be improved upon but currently, we're just trying to take it step by step.

Dog: You will have one week to cast your vote. You're more than welcomed to say 'no new managers' but keep in mind, Legend in particular has already stated that he wants additional assistance. IMO, that's the bottom line.
Remember, we could just appoint whoever we want but we're trying to give others a say.

Just to give you an update: Both Ozbash and myself have made up our minds.
This afternoon, Gav and Legendwere still thinking about it.
I think you'll see that the choices are good ones (and a little surprising

)... watch this space...