Draft of site rules

[COBOLdinosaur]

Initially we are going to be looking at those people with a history of helping, with the skills to help; who are willing to do the job.  Once, we get by the startup phase then it is covered in the Mentor's Charter:

Mentor:Mentor rank may bestowed in any of the following ways:


    * The member initiates a new forum and provides support for the topics opened in it.
    * A member with high level credentials or experience is recruited as a Mentor by an Admin, and the appointment is approved by a majority vote of the Governing Council.
    * By recommendation of the Site Administrator or three Mentors and a 2/3 majority vote by th Governing Council.
    * Election by a Majority of the Mentors certified for a category

The initial group of Mentors really falls under the first condition.  Whether or not we allow a member to start a new forum will really be a judgment call.  If coreybryant walks in and want to support a Front page topic it is a no brainer; we set it up.  If Joe Nobody, wants to set one up we are probably going to want to see some performance before we set it up.

Right now we know the history of the people involved.  It gets tougher down the road, but by the time we are dealing with unknowns we will have established the core Mentor's group who will be able to make the kind of evaluations necessary.

[Huntress]

Not to be a jackass (well, actually I take that back :wink:)....but how are we going to choose which people should be Mentors then?

They'll have to show proof of past experience?  2 or more References?

[COBOLdinosaur]

It is relatively easy to examine someone working boards on the 'net.  IF they say I have been answering Qs on xxxboard; we just look at their threads there.

[coral1]

2 or more References?

      :sign5:
Sorry, but I just thought that was really really funny.

[Huntress]

Sorry, but I just thought that was really really funny.

I'm glad someone got the joke.   :D

[coral1]

I am still chuckling.

[nicholassolutions]

Yay, I'm back and I can start some more trouble! Seriously, though, I think you missed my point (I'm not sayin you'e stupid -- maybe it was intentional :wink:). If you're going to be looking at people's past performance, then presumably you're comparing that to some predefined, abstract standard (i.e. what qualities those who hold the position of Mentor should exhibit).

Look at it this way: what if we accidentally appoint a Mentor with mediocre technical abilities, who over time develops a habit of abondoning users, treating them harshly, and possibly even offering poor advice (hey, it could definitely happen; maybe the guy sarted out good and just lost it). As far as what he has to offer the site, this guy is no longer special, even if he was when he started. All the other Mentors think he's a joke, and the Council is considering whether they should just take away his position or give him a giant kick in the ass.

And along comes $0 Tommy, who's just a little brighter than $10 Timmy, and he gets into a flame with our declining Mentor. It's not really clear who started it or whose fault it is. What do you do? If the Mentor was one of the regular, 'special' ones, it'd be easy: ban Tommy. What about now?

I say you still ban Tommy: otherwise your rules are a joke, and the site has failed to back up a Mentor. The fact that the Mentor has developed a habit of providing awful support has nothing to do with whether Tommy can  flame him; as my mom use to tell each of us when my brother and I got into fights and blamed the other one, "we're talking about you now." You can't talk to someone with "Mentor" next to their name like that, whether they're special or not.

The personal qualities of each Mentor will establish respect for the people who hold the job,  and by extension, over time, the job itself. But the reason it should be in the rules from the start is that the position demands it, and it demands respect on this site, according to our rules and our priorities. Whether the people are likeable or respectable is secondary. The trick is, unlike TOS, we need to make sure that the people who hold such positions are likeable and respectable so that people don't get fed up and walk away.

[Huntress]

Very well said Matt, and I couldn't agree more.  There will have to be a system of checks and balances for eventualities like this that come into play.  Some people can handle stress and even thrive on it while others can only take so much before they lose it.  That's one of the reasons I'll be watching all the forums here so I can watch for signs of burnout.  Sometimes a day or three off helps, if caught early enough and we can waylay any troubles before they happen.

[COBOLdinosaur]

There are some checks and balances.

First there is peer review.  Mentors are not isolated, and there is none who is the only source of knowledge for a given category.  The first line of defence is the other Mentors.  They can speak as equals to each other.  They can do it in private by PM or in public if necessary.

Failing that is the second line of defence.  That would be ME.  As site admin the Charter gives me the authority to suspend a Mentor for a day and ask the Governing Council to review the situation. I also have the role of mediator in disputes between Mentors;  so it one Mentor is creating a problem I will be aware of it.  

The final line of defence is the Governing Council who have the authority to remove the Mentor.  Thre will almost certainly be situations where the rules we have in place don't handle it very well.  That is when the Governing Council has to change the rules; make new rules or get rid of rules that do not work well.

Whether  Mentors are special or the position carries privilege the problem of the wrong person being a Mentor is the same.  It has to be handled carefully.  Whether it is the person or the position we are protecting, we have to remember that one "bad news" Mentor reflects on all of us and so it ma come to pass that we have to take action we would rather not have to take.  It should not be easy for us to do that; but we need a clear path on what steps to take, and I think we have that.

[keneso]

I haven't read the whole thread, I apologize for redundanct, if the case.

I already said in another occasion that the tone sometimes is too aggressive, but overall it's pretty much straightforward.

I would however give a little more assurance that before the ban, due to abuse of mentor and such, there will be a sort of investigation.
Double standard is fine, but fairness is a must, and it has to be emphasized the same.

In any dispute between a Mentor or another member, the Mentor is assumed to be in the right unless clear proof of wrongdoing is presented.

I believe it is intended between a mentor and another member.

There is a double standard because Mentors are special people.

I would eliminate the last sentence, it is redundant, and having a negative meaning it's better not to use it to end the page.

[COBOLdinosaur]

The revisions and typo fixes should get done tonight if I don't fall asleep at the keyboard.  Look for a new version to be up tomorrow.

Then we will need to move to a vote unless there is some glaring problem after the revisions.

[COBOLdinosaur]

Okay take another look.  Typos and grammar fixed.  A change in the opening.  A softening of the expression of some penalties. A change in the end that leaves the question of whether the people or the title are special open.

Can we start the vote on this Friday?  We are start to get tight on time.

[nicholassolutions]

Very nice. Inviting, yet firm, and in incorperates everything that both of us were discussing above. It'll get my vote  :thumbup:

[COBOLdinosaur]

Anybody who followed this has have pick up some understanding of why democracy works.  We ended up something better than any of us started out with; because we wanted something that could get broad support.   :cheers:

2006 is going to be a great year. :thumbup:

[coral1]

Poll is ready. I will double check it, and open late Thursday/early Friday.