Hi! I'm writing in the spirit of Inzomnia's Open Letter. My sincere respect to her for her commitment to a better Sciforums. I'll be short. We all know that Sciforums ain't all right now. Something just doesn't fit, like oversized underpants or a thong too tight. It's uncomfortable and we look like a bunch of saggy breasts. It ain't cool, no it ain't! I think that some of the reasons are our current: choice of mods demotion of mods choice of supermods secrecy where there should be transparency banning of members lack of guidelines for moderation restrictions on fun lack of quality in science forums So I have in mind to write on these things in the following days or weeks as open suggestions to our administration. One suggestion per thread. This means that you, all members, are welcome to read them and discuss them, but according to ALPHA rules. That means, among other things, no off-topic. I have made some suggestions in the past, when I was a mod, but they were buried in other suggestions and no suggestions were implemented any way. I won't describe our current problems or system in more detail, it won't be pretty and who likes to look at those saggy breasts or to smell those dirty underpants? Phui! Instead I will provide fresh suggestions on their own merit. So here we go:  Choosing new moderators A few premises: [a] New moderators can't be chosen just by the old mods, because that may be a blind man leading a blind man. A faulty moderator taking part choosing another faulty moderator. New moderators can't be chosen just by the public, because we all know how ugly and unfair ellections get to be. There will be a lot of popularity seeking, etc. There's a saying that nobody, who is desperate to become a president, should ever be permitted to be one. Idea: 1. Someone who wishes to become a mod of a particular subforum has to get 6 recommendations to become one: 1) three recommendations from science subforum mods 2) two recommendation from a non-science subforum mod 3) one recommendation from an admin, after getting recommendations in 1) and 2). 2. After that he or she has the right to create a thread in open government. The thread has to be Alpha rules with a poll with two answers, like this: Should [username] be the moderator of [subforum]? Yes () No() 3. All members vote and discuss. There should be at least 50 votes total with at least 2/3 voting Yes. 4. If voted in, the member becomes a moderator of the particular subforum. There can be 2 mods per subforum. ------- 5. If a mod wishes to become a supermod he has to: 1) Get recommendations from 4/5 of moderators 2) Get recommendation from 2/3 of admins or other supermods 3) Has to be voted in with at least 4/5 of voters voting Yes. ------- Transitionary rules: Of course all our current moderators and admins (except for Plazma, because he owns the place) have to be re-elected. And Plazma is a nice enough guy, so I think it won't be a problem. He's fairly decent behind the scenes too, I assure you. So, the first 3 science and first 3 non-science mods have to get recommendations from two of our admins and then they continue at step 2. After first 12 mods are chosen, current admins and supermods (except Plazma and 2 disingaged owners zox/pseudo) step down. All current mods are free to stand for re-election after getting proper recommendations. All current mods (except admins and supermods) step down after Plazma announces the inforcement of this plan. And I repeat - the mods can immediately step up for re-ellection after getting recommendations. These transitionary rules should not be a problem to any mod, who puts our community before his own interests and ego. ==================================== Please discuss. Next threads will be about correct procedure of demoting mods and mechanisms of transparency.