We understand this is going to be a very contentious proposal. Many of you will have opinions in favor, or against, this change and it's not a proposal we have come to suggest lightly. This proposal has been drafted by the S1 2018 Administration team, and not the incoming admin team.
Over the past two years of running general staff elections, we have achieved a great deal of stability for YSFHQ. Only the very best and most trusted in the community were given the power to manage it. This is quite true... to a degree.
What I (Flake) personally feel has happened is we have silenced dissent by empowering the majority and squashing the opinions of the minority here at YSFHQ. The same candidates (roughly) keep getting elected, partially due to the respect and trust they carry, but also partially due to the syndicates and groups to which they align. There are cliques within the community that simply have more representation than others, and therefore a utility view of democracy "What is best for the many, for the sacrifice of the few" is not working. We need to have the input from the few so that we may have civil discussions on improving the community. We need to have the input from the few so that we may start new circles and grow the community. Our view of democratic representation needs to shift from one of "Utility" to one of "Justice" and "Equity" - that is "What is fair for everyone, on a principle of balance and fairness?"
We propose that we instead move to an appointment based system for chosing staff here are YSFHQ.
We would have essentially 4 layers of staff: Executive Staff, Core Staff, Administrators and Moderators.
- Our Moderators are responsible for cleaning and formatting of posts, moving them to the correct sections of the forum and providing general advice. They would be chosen by the Administration team, after careful consideration of potential within the community. Any one Administrator could recommend a general community member for a Moderation role, and provided that member is both trusted and capable, they would be appointed on merit, and not popularity.
- Our Administrators perform more advanced functions such as using the administration control panel on the forum. They would plan events, organise projects and be a point of reference for the Moderators to ask for help. They would recommend exceptional Moderators to become Administrators to the Core Staff. The Core Staff, though having the final say in the decision, will ultimately stand back and allow the Administration team to self-govern.
- Our Core Staff are tasked with essential site maintenence such as managing finances or the website functionality. They would be chosen by our Executive Staff, and they would be selected from the Administration team.
- Our Executive Staff are the strategic managers of YSFHQ community. They would help determine long term goals and ensure that everyone is doing their jobs fairly and efficiently. They are responsible for the ongoing longevity of the site. They would be appointed on recommendation from all current staff, on an as required basis.
There would be no limits on the amount of staff we have in each category - Staff would be chosen on whether or not they can do the job, not on how popular they are.
We understand that this decision can be somewhat contentious. Hence, we will leave this open to the community at large to vote on over the next two weeks.
Please read this thread carefully, understand what is proposed, and what that could mean for the future of YSFHQ, one way or the other.
When you are ready, please cast your vote, which you may change at any time, in the poll attached in this thread. You have two weeks to decide. If we move to the new system, that will be the end of Elections at YSFHQ. If we decide against it, then we will stick with what we have now.