It's already been said, but let me repeat it: the mod crew isn't all buddy-buddy and watching each others' backs all the time. We respect each other, but noone on the crew is afraid to go "wtf did you do that for?" in the mod forum if they think something was stupidly handled.
Right, but I think there is a problem with your useage of the word "mod crew". It sets it as a group dynamically seperate from the rest of the users. When, really, we're all just users of the forum here.
Getting rid of that whole "mod crew" mentality would be a good and healthy thing that would allow the mods to be just enforcers of the rules and not members of their cool little clique.
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
I think the idea of mod rotations is good for the same reason term limits are a good idea. And I think mods would be against the idea for a reason that the idea is supposed to fix: Clinging to their mod status as some sort of exalted title.
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
I think it is probably just human nature for people to cling to titles such as "mod" as some sort of commentary on their social value to the forum. And that's problematic. Having a rotating group of mods would solve that problem and instead allow mods to be enforcers of rules rather than "the cool kids" on the forum.
I agree on this and disagree.
Going to other popular forums there are some mods that stick to their mod title like glue because it allows them to get away with things a regular poster can't do. However I think for the most part the PA mods don't do this.
What I think SHOULD be instituted is some sort of system where the users can vote on whether or not they think a mod is doing a shitty job. I understand that fellow mods are hard on each other, but I see that as sort of a workplace situation, where you may think mod a is shitty, but you don't say anything for fear of your mod career.
DeaconKnowledge on
My NEW Wii code - 5227 1968 3982 4139. My Wii needs your Miis! Please give generously!
Animal Crossing - 3566 5318 4585/2492 7891 0383 Deacon/Akisha in Crayon
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
I think the idea of mod rotations is good for the same reason term limits are a good idea. And I think mods would be against the idea for a reason that the idea is supposed to fix: Clinging to their mod status as some sort of exalted title.
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
I think it is probably just human nature for people to cling to titles such as "mod" as some sort of commentary on their social value to the forum. And that's problematic. Having a rotating group of mods would solve that problem and instead allow mods to be enforcers of rules rather than "the cool kids" on the forum.
Uh
I've never seen a mod (at least in SE++) say "hey I am a mod so you can't sass me at all because I am superior to you"
Fuck, I (and pretty much everybody else) makes fun of Munkus for having no colon
people seem to be making some weird generalizations about moderators that I've never seen. If anything, I think they're doing it because they don't like the people in power. If they don't like the people in power, they should just leave.
Slungsolow on
fuck your forums, fuck your administrator and fuck dynagrip for getting away with the long troll.
It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
Acutally mod is short for moderator. The role isn't that of a policeman. We're here to moderate the forums. That includes setting policy and molding the character of the rules and the forums. That goes far beyond simple rules enforcement and it doesn't work when you have people in and out before they really know what they're doing and when you have so many people with so many differing points of view trying to do it one after the other. Especially since, as pointed out, it wouldn't be long before we ran out of qualified personnel.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
this would encourage cliquishness and division in the forums, which I just don't see as a good idea. Also, banning someone only from SE++ for shock imagry doesn;t help G&T much.
Between this, and Echo's observation about what happened when SE was split off, we have some really good social reasons not to do this, in addition to the technical problems it entails. Alpha can, in theory, block users from accessing specific forums at will, but it's permissions editing work and putting together a solution that moderators could access would take likely a significant amount of work, and giving moderators the ability to do it manually might not be possible with the permissions structure, and even if it is, it might open up a new way for us to fuck up the database and nobody really wants that.
My understanding was that mods are restricted to banning/jailing users only in the forums for which they were mods. If that is the case it doesn't make sense to only allow mods to enact forum justice in their areas but have the results of that enaction carry across the forums.
Or did I understand the "mods can only mod in their forums" rule?
Honestly, I see the merit in moving away from jailing and towards temp banning. I think it would be interesting to poll where forumers stood on the matter, as to which they felt better served the forums as a whole. I'm not saying that's what any decision on the matter would be based on, but I think it'd be an interesting and probably important point in any discussion related to such a decision.
Broken bbcode is just as annoying to the rest of us as it is to the offender.
I support scrapping it as long as it doesn't lead to a rash of bans for extremely minor offenses.
The inability to quote is also irritating to all involved and not just the punished person. As is the weird formatting imposed. I'd suggest just disabling certain tags (stuff like images and the like) if that's possible and leaving the default formatting, quotes, and spoilers be. Of course, I don't know how it's implemented so don't know if that'd require code-reworking or just deleting a couple of variables.
Wait, why should a punishment be more convenient?
Inconveient for other people to read and understand.
Then the poster can either tailor his posting while jailed for the options available, or people can acknowledge his posting as inconvenient and avoid it.
I prefer to assume that even punished people still may have valid opinions on things. Making their text strangely formatted and removing their ability to reference other posts is irritating to those who try to read it, not to the person writing it.
And this is a moot point anyway aside from noting that jailing people is more irritating to those around them than to the one jailed.
It's already been said, but let me repeat it: the mod crew isn't all buddy-buddy and watching each others' backs all the time. We respect each other, but noone on the crew is afraid to go "wtf did you do that for?" in the mod forum if they think something was stupidly handled.
Right, but I think there is a problem with your useage of the word "mod crew". It sets it as a group dynamically seperate from the rest of the users. When, really, we're all just users of the forum here.
Getting rid of that whole "mod crew" mentality would be a good and healthy thing that would allow the mods to be just enforcers of the rules and not members of their cool little clique.
Yes, I'm sure that when Echo says "mod crew" he means the mods that talk with him about you behind your back, and totally wasn't using it to signify "us, the mods, who have moderating powers, unlike the rest of the forum"
It's already been said, but let me repeat it: the mod crew isn't all buddy-buddy and watching each others' backs all the time. We respect each other, but noone on the crew is afraid to go "wtf did you do that for?" in the mod forum if they think something was stupidly handled.
I can think of one recently demodded fellow who may disagree with this, but I don't want to speak for him.
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
I think the idea of mod rotations is good for the same reason term limits are a good idea. And I think mods would be against the idea for a reason that the idea is supposed to fix: Clinging to their mod status as some sort of exalted title.
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
I think it is probably just human nature for people to cling to titles such as "mod" as some sort of commentary on their social value to the forum. And that's problematic. Having a rotating group of mods would solve that problem and instead allow mods to be enforcers of rules rather than "the cool kids" on the forum.
I agree on this and disagree.
Going to other popular forums there are some mods that stick to their mod title like glue because it allows them to get away with things a regular poster can't do. However I think for the most part the PA mods don't do this.
What I think SHOULD be instituted is some sort of system where the users can vote on whether or not they think a mod is doing a shitty job. I understand that fellow mods are hard on each other, but I see that as sort of a workplace situation, where you may think mod a is shitty, but you don't say anything for fear of your mod career.
No, I could quote some bits of the mod forum that would pretty much shoot this down with Whippy's okay. We're bigger dicks to each other than we are to you guys for the most part.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I really think ya'll suggesting 'roations' have no real grasp on any reasoning to support it.
Most positions of responsibility do not have a frequent turnover/rollover rate.
Honestly.
If we were to use terms, there are a good many of us that have been here for less than four years at any rate.
I think the idea of mod rotations is good for the same reason term limits are a good idea. And I think mods would be against the idea for a reason that the idea is supposed to fix: Clinging to their mod status as some sort of exalted title.
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
I think it is probably just human nature for people to cling to titles such as "mod" as some sort of commentary on their social value to the forum. And that's problematic. Having a rotating group of mods would solve that problem and instead allow mods to be enforcers of rules rather than "the cool kids" on the forum.
To use your politics analogy, consider this: Everyone in congress has years of political experience before attaining that lofty position. Most aspiring politicians start in thier younger years in out of the way positions where they can;t do any real harm. Places like being on a school board, or some commision where there are a bunch of others who have to come to a consensus before any action is taken.
By the time they reach any spot where they have any real individual power they have quite a lot of practice under thier belts.
We do not and cannot have the infrastructure like that here on the forums. the institution is much too new, and "Internet time" moves at a very inconsistant (but typically much faster) pace.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Right, but I think there is a problem with your useage of the word "mod crew". It sets it as a group dynamically seperate from the rest of the users. When, really, we're all just users of the forum here.
Getting rid of that whole "mod crew" mentality would be a good and healthy thing that would allow the mods to be just enforcers of the rules and not members of their cool little clique.
This seems a little petty.
Do you want them to be called "Users who can jail/ban people and delete posts"?
I think a rotation amid a pool of mods for a while would be a good idea to sort of shake things up and keep rule enforcement to a "by the books" approach rather than an "I'm a mod and I've been a mod for a while so what I say goes" approach. It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
You are confusing not having well-defined rules with arrogant moderating.
I personally have no problem with the moderating here, and I think they all do a good job, given how much of a bunch of dicks we all are.
There doesn't appear to be a rulebook as defined as you want, and so you can't moderate to it. If this rulebook did exist, then if someone did have a problem, then they could point to the rulebook and say "It wasn't in here, man, mod brutality!"
This would work, if it wasn't for the people who get themselves in trouble abusing such a thing, and then say "It wasn't specified in such a way that I understand, so it shouldn't have been a jailing/banning." When, for the majority of people, it was becasue you were being a dick. Then you get the sniping, bitching and bloody murder anyway.
It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
Acutally mod is short for moderator. The role isn't that of a policeman. We're here to moderate the forums. That includes setting policy and molding the character of the rules and the forums. That goes far beyond simple rules enforcement and it doesn't work when you have people in and out before they really know what they're doing and when you have so many people with so many differing points of view trying to do it one after the other. Especially since, as pointed out, it wouldn't be long before we ran out of qualified personnel.
So what do you think of term limits for the U.S. government?
I know we don't vote on mods. But it seems like term limits for moderators would be a good idea, if only to keep the status of "moderator" from going to their head.
And what's wrong with different points of view being expressed? I always thought that was a good thing. Isn't that the point of this thread? You talk as if fresh blood was somehow destroy the brotherhood of moderators...and that seems like a problematic view to maintain.
Honestly, I see the merit in moving away from jailing and towards temp banning. I think it would be interesting to poll where forumers stood on the matter, as to which they felt better served the forums as a whole. I'm not saying that's what any decision on the matter would be based on, but I think it'd be an interesting and probably important point in any discussion related to such a decision.
Broken bbcode is just as annoying to the rest of us as it is to the offender.
I support scrapping it as long as it doesn't lead to a rash of bans for extremely minor offenses.
The inability to quote is also irritating to all involved and not just the punished person. As is the weird formatting imposed. I'd suggest just disabling certain tags (stuff like images and the like) if that's possible and leaving the default formatting, quotes, and spoilers be. Of course, I don't know how it's implemented so don't know if that'd require code-reworking or just deleting a couple of variables.
Wait, why should a punishment be more convenient?
Inconveient for other people to read and understand.
Then the poster can either tailor his posting while jailed for the options available, or people can acknowledge his posting as inconvenient and avoid it.
I prefer to assume that even punished people still may have valid opinions on things. Making their text strangely formatted and removing their ability to reference other posts is irritating to those who try to read it, not to the person writing it.
And this is a moot point anyway aside from noting that jailing people is more irritating to those around them than to the one jailed.
maybe they should learn the lesson and follow the rules. if seeing jailed posts annoys you, then it's a good reason to ensure that you follow the rules so you don't annoy other posters..
Slungsolow on
fuck your forums, fuck your administrator and fuck dynagrip for getting away with the long troll.
Getting rid of that whole "mod crew" mentality would be a good and healthy thing that would allow the mods to be just enforcers of the rules and not members of their cool little clique.
Well, a mod badge makes you different. It comes with the job. Honestly, I don't like being cozied up to when I post in threads just because I have the badge. Sometimes I just want to be a regular forumer. Sometimes the Phantom walks on the streets as a regular man.
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
this would encourage cliquishness and division in the forums, which I just don't see as a good idea. Also, banning someone only from SE++ for shock imagry doesn;t help G&T much.
Between this, and Echo's observation about what happened when SE was split off, we have some really good social reasons not to do this, in addition to the technical problems it entails. Alpha can, in theory, block users from accessing specific forums at will, but it's permissions editing work and putting together a solution that moderators could access would take likely a significant amount of work, and giving moderators the ability to do it manually might not be possible with the permissions structure, and even if it is, it might open up a new way for us to fuck up the database and nobody really wants that.
My understanding was that mods are restricted to banning/jailing users only in the forums for which they were mods. If that is the case it doesn't make sense to only allow mods to enact forum justice in their areas but have the results of that enaction carry across the forums.
Or did I understand the "mods can only mod in their forums" rule?
We don't cross lines because we respect each others' forums. I was not modded to directly guide the D&D forum, so I don't go in there with my take on their rules and enforce them as I see fit. The people handed that task are the people thought best suited to do it for that forum specifically.
If there's a particularly obvious thing that needs handling (goatse spamming, for instance) then we'll usually do something about it, regardless of which forum we've been charged with.
When it comes to discussing in the mod forum what to do about X situation in Y forum, anyone with something to contribute joins in and contributes.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
What I think SHOULD be institued is some sort of system where the users can vote on whetherr or not they think a mod is doing a shitty job.
Hahahaha, no. This will fall back to vindictive forumers rallying a bunch of people to get mods that called them a mean name one day demodded
As with anything, common sense will rule the day here. I don't think anyone shy of the truly bitter will bother taking up a pitchfork unless they feel it's justified.
That said, Pheezer mentioned above that the mods are hard on each other, and since I can't view the mod forum I will take him at his word.
DeaconKnowledge on
My NEW Wii code - 5227 1968 3982 4139. My Wii needs your Miis! Please give generously!
Animal Crossing - 3566 5318 4585/2492 7891 0383 Deacon/Akisha in Crayon
I'd also like to see bans and jailings restricted to the forums in which the offense occured, but I assume that is a coding issue.
this would encourage cliquishness and division in the forums, which I just don't see as a good idea. Also, banning someone only from SE++ for shock imagry doesn;t help G&T much.
Between this, and Echo's observation about what happened when SE was split off, we have some really good social reasons not to do this, in addition to the technical problems it entails. Alpha can, in theory, block users from accessing specific forums at will, but it's permissions editing work and putting together a solution that moderators could access would take likely a significant amount of work, and giving moderators the ability to do it manually might not be possible with the permissions structure, and even if it is, it might open up a new way for us to fuck up the database and nobody really wants that.
My understanding was that mods are restricted to banning/jailing users only in the forums for which they were mods. If that is the case it doesn't make sense to only allow mods to enact forum justice in their areas but have the results of that enaction carry across the forums.
Or did I understand the "mods can only mod in their forums" rule?
My understanding was that mods are restricted to banning/jailing users only in the forums for which they were mods. If that is the case it doesn't make sense to only allow mods to enact forum justice in their areas but have the results of that enaction carry across the forums.
Or did I understand the "mods can only mod in their forums" rule?
Every full mod can temp-mod themselves in any subforum and get full mod powers there. That's what happens when you see a mod name outside of the "G&T Mods" in the moderator list on the front page.
Right now it happens a lot when there's a spam run and no "native" mod around to kill it.
maybe they should learn the lesson and follow the rules. if seeing jailed posts annoys you, then it's a good reason to ensure that you follow the rules so you don't annoy other posters..
As I've been mistakenly jailed once, jailed for a rule that didn't exist, jailed for a rule that was then overturned while I was still in jail, and banned for a rule that didn't exist, you'll forgive me if I don't share the view that all those that are punished are deserving of it.
Getting rid of that whole "mod crew" mentality would be a good and healthy thing that would allow the mods to be just enforcers of the rules and not members of their cool little clique.
Well, a mod badge makes you different. It comes with the job. Honestly, I don't like being cozied up to when I post in threads just because I have the badge. Sometimes I just want to be a regular forumer. Sometimes the Phantom walks on the streets as a regular man.
And that's understandable. I had a friend quit being a mod on the forums because he didn't like having the mod status.
But I think that's part of the problem. The us and them mentality. I'm not saying that everyone needs their chance at being a mod, or even that everyone is qualified to be a mod. But as we have yet to create a perfect forum does it really make sense to keep people as mods for multiple years in a row? Wouldn't it be good to get new ideas and new people into the mix?
Fresh ideas are a good thing. Ruts are a bad thing.
And it's not any mod specifically. The mods do a good job. But I think the nature of the institution itself is aided by some sort of rotation, a constant renewal of people and ideas. We don't need the same 2 or 3 people to be the mods of D&D or G&T for multiple years in a row. That just seems silly.
That's just my opinion, though.
_J_ on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
Acutally mod is short for moderator. The role isn't that of a policeman. We're here to moderate the forums. That includes setting policy and molding the character of the rules and the forums. That goes far beyond simple rules enforcement and it doesn't work when you have people in and out before they really know what they're doing and when you have so many people with so many differing points of view trying to do it one after the other. Especially since, as pointed out, it wouldn't be long before we ran out of qualified personnel.
So what do you think of term limits for the U.S. government?
I know we don't vote on mods. But it seems like term limits for moderators would be a good idea, if only to keep the status of "moderator" from going to their head.
And what's wrong with different points of view being expressed? I always thought that was a good thing. Isn't that the point of this thread? You talk as if fresh blood was somehow destroy the brotherhood of moderators...and that seems like a problematic view to maintain.
The system in place here is very different than the system in place for the United States. Most of the moderators that would be rotated in would have no experience moderating, unlike most politicians being elected to most government positions. Most of their term would involve them actually learning how to moderate, and when they finally do they'll be thrown out and the next set of moderators will be rotated in. It's inefficient and weakens the capabilities of the moderating team.
Also, if you have moderators being rotated in, and everyone has a different point of view from the old moderators, policy will change. Policy will end up changing every time new moderators are rotated in.
I don't think we need any more subforums, but it'd be cool if there was some way we could save the old Phalla threads. The narration is always really cool.
I also think that there should never be a mod rotation because that just sets things up for drama and popularity contests.
My understanding was that mods are restricted to banning/jailing users only in the forums for which they were mods. If that is the case it doesn't make sense to only allow mods to enact forum justice in their areas but have the results of that enaction carry across the forums.
Or did I understand the "mods can only mod in their forums" rule?
Every full mod can temp-mod themselves in any subforum and get full mod powers there. That's what happens when you see a mod name outside of the "G&T Mods" in the moderator list on the front page.
Right now it happens a lot when there's a spam run and no "native" mod around to kill it.
When entering a ban in the bantron you also get a text box where you can enter a reason, on the same page as the button you have to click to submit the ban. That gives you more reason to write something meaningful about the reasons for the ban.
Jailing? That's two clicks, and then the jailee gets an automated mail anyway. Done. Nothing further to add.
Echo on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
Acutally mod is short for moderator. The role isn't that of a policeman. We're here to moderate the forums. That includes setting policy and molding the character of the rules and the forums. That goes far beyond simple rules enforcement and it doesn't work when you have people in and out before they really know what they're doing and when you have so many people with so many differing points of view trying to do it one after the other. Especially since, as pointed out, it wouldn't be long before we ran out of qualified personnel.
So what do you think of term limits for the U.S. government?
I know we don't vote on mods. But it seems like term limits for moderators would be a good idea, if only to keep the status of "moderator" from going to their head.
And what's wrong with different points of view being expressed? I always thought that was a good thing. Isn't that the point of this thread? You talk as if fresh blood was somehow destroy the brotherhood of moderators...and that seems like a problematic view to maintain.
The system in place here is very different than the system in place for the United States. Most of the moderators that would be rotated in would have no experience moderating, unlike most politicians being elected to most government positions. Most of their term would involve them actually learning how to moderate, and when they finally do they'll be thrown out and the next set of moderators will be rotated in. It's inefficient and weakens the capabilities of the moderating team.
Also, if you have moderators being rotated in, and everyone has a different point of view from the old moderators, policy will change. Policy will end up changing every time new moderators are rotated in.
Why is policy change a bad thing?
Didn't there use to be a system of meta-mods that could only jail people and lock topics? I seem to remember that. Couldn't there be some sort of mod training program?
I mean, if people are serious about the forums then it would seem sensible to have a system in place to train new mods. And if people aren't serious about the system why are we having this discussion?
maybe they should learn the lesson and follow the rules. if seeing jailed posts annoys you, then it's a good reason to ensure that you follow the rules so you don't annoy other posters..
As I've been mistakenly jailed once, jailed for a rule that didn't exist, jailed for a rule that was then overturned while I was still in jail, and banned for a rule that didn't exist, you'll forgive me if I don't share the view that all those that are punished are deserving of it.
Hey, this sounds like the start of a country song! Or maybe a really bad summer action flick.
Oh, oh, maybe you can call 60 Minutes!
EDIT - I still think we should have modded Riotcow and demodded everybody else.
It would keep the role of mod as something it is supposed to be: an enforcer of the rules.
Acutally mod is short for moderator. The role isn't that of a policeman. We're here to moderate the forums. That includes setting policy and molding the character of the rules and the forums. That goes far beyond simple rules enforcement and it doesn't work when you have people in and out before they really know what they're doing and when you have so many people with so many differing points of view trying to do it one after the other. Especially since, as pointed out, it wouldn't be long before we ran out of qualified personnel.
So what do you think of term limits for the U.S. government?
I know we don't vote on mods. But it seems like term limits for moderators would be a good idea, if only to keep the status of "moderator" from going to their head.
And what's wrong with different points of view being expressed? I always thought that was a good thing. Isn't that the point of this thread? You talk as if fresh blood was somehow destroy the brotherhood of moderators...and that seems like a problematic view to maintain.
The system in place here is very different than the system in place for the United States. Most of the moderators that would be rotated in would have no experience moderating, unlike most politicians being elected to most government positions. Most of their term would involve them actually learning how to moderate, and when they finally do they'll be thrown out and the next set of moderators will be rotated in. It's inefficient and weakens the capabilities of the moderating team.
Also, if you have moderators being rotated in, and everyone has a different point of view from the old moderators, policy will change. Policy will end up changing every time new moderators are rotated in.
Why is policy change a bad thing?
Didn't there use to be a system of meta-mods that could only jail people and lock topics? I seem to remember that. Couldn't there be some sort of mod training program?
I mean, if people are serious about the forums then it would seem sensible to have a system in place to train new mods. And if people aren't serious about the system why are we having this discussion?
We don't need a mod training system, because it's usually the reliable and steady posters that are made mods, so they know how it works. It's not as though we're just modding random posters and they need VIGOROUS TRAINING.
Why exactly do we need to "train" moderators? People who get the position should really know the rules and I can't imagine that the tools are all that hard to figure out.
Ten bucks says that someone already beat me to saying pretty much the same exact thing.
When entering a ban in the bantron you also get a text box where you can enter a reason, on the same page as the button you have to click to submit the ban. That gives you more reason to write something meaningful about the reasons for the ban.
Jailing? That's two clicks, and then the jailee gets an automated mail anyway. Done. Nothing further to add.
My ban message was body-swap BDSM Archie fanfiction
maybe they should learn the lesson and follow the rules. if seeing jailed posts annoys you, then it's a good reason to ensure that you follow the rules so you don't annoy other posters..
As I've been mistakenly jailed once, jailed for a rule that didn't exist, jailed for a rule that was then overturned while I was still in jail, and banned for a rule that didn't exist, you'll forgive me if I don't share the view that all those that are punished are deserving of it.
There doesn't have to be a rule for you to get jailed. Someone very well could have be trolling, which in itself is loosely defined. I don't know the reasons behind your punishment, so I won't make assumptions on whether it was just.
Slungsolow on
fuck your forums, fuck your administrator and fuck dynagrip for getting away with the long troll.
We don't need a mod training system, because it's usually the reliable and steady posters that are made mods, so they know how it works. It's not as though we're just modding random posters and they need VIGOROUS TRAINING.
And we don't have a large enough pool of reliable and steady posters to start a mod rotation?
Posts
Right, but I think there is a problem with your useage of the word "mod crew". It sets it as a group dynamically seperate from the rest of the users. When, really, we're all just users of the forum here.
Getting rid of that whole "mod crew" mentality would be a good and healthy thing that would allow the mods to be just enforcers of the rules and not members of their cool little clique.
I agree on this and disagree.
Going to other popular forums there are some mods that stick to their mod title like glue because it allows them to get away with things a regular poster can't do. However I think for the most part the PA mods don't do this.
What I think SHOULD be instituted is some sort of system where the users can vote on whether or not they think a mod is doing a shitty job. I understand that fellow mods are hard on each other, but I see that as sort of a workplace situation, where you may think mod a is shitty, but you don't say anything for fear of your mod career.
Animal Crossing - 3566 5318 4585/2492 7891 0383 Deacon/Akisha in Crayon
people seem to be making some weird generalizations about moderators that I've never seen. If anything, I think they're doing it because they don't like the people in power. If they don't like the people in power, they should just leave.
Acutally mod is short for moderator. The role isn't that of a policeman. We're here to moderate the forums. That includes setting policy and molding the character of the rules and the forums. That goes far beyond simple rules enforcement and it doesn't work when you have people in and out before they really know what they're doing and when you have so many people with so many differing points of view trying to do it one after the other. Especially since, as pointed out, it wouldn't be long before we ran out of qualified personnel.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
My understanding was that mods are restricted to banning/jailing users only in the forums for which they were mods. If that is the case it doesn't make sense to only allow mods to enact forum justice in their areas but have the results of that enaction carry across the forums.
Or did I understand the "mods can only mod in their forums" rule?
I prefer to assume that even punished people still may have valid opinions on things. Making their text strangely formatted and removing their ability to reference other posts is irritating to those who try to read it, not to the person writing it.
And this is a moot point anyway aside from noting that jailing people is more irritating to those around them than to the one jailed.
No, I could quote some bits of the mod forum that would pretty much shoot this down with Whippy's okay. We're bigger dicks to each other than we are to you guys for the most part.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
To use your politics analogy, consider this: Everyone in congress has years of political experience before attaining that lofty position. Most aspiring politicians start in thier younger years in out of the way positions where they can;t do any real harm. Places like being on a school board, or some commision where there are a bunch of others who have to come to a consensus before any action is taken.
By the time they reach any spot where they have any real individual power they have quite a lot of practice under thier belts.
We do not and cannot have the infrastructure like that here on the forums. the institution is much too new, and "Internet time" moves at a very inconsistant (but typically much faster) pace.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Do you want them to be called "Users who can jail/ban people and delete posts"?
You are confusing not having well-defined rules with arrogant moderating.
I personally have no problem with the moderating here, and I think they all do a good job, given how much of a bunch of dicks we all are.
There doesn't appear to be a rulebook as defined as you want, and so you can't moderate to it. If this rulebook did exist, then if someone did have a problem, then they could point to the rulebook and say "It wasn't in here, man, mod brutality!"
This would work, if it wasn't for the people who get themselves in trouble abusing such a thing, and then say "It wasn't specified in such a way that I understand, so it shouldn't have been a jailing/banning." When, for the majority of people, it was becasue you were being a dick. Then you get the sniping, bitching and bloody murder anyway.
You're fooling yourself.
So what do you think of term limits for the U.S. government?
I know we don't vote on mods. But it seems like term limits for moderators would be a good idea, if only to keep the status of "moderator" from going to their head.
And what's wrong with different points of view being expressed? I always thought that was a good thing. Isn't that the point of this thread? You talk as if fresh blood was somehow destroy the brotherhood of moderators...and that seems like a problematic view to maintain.
maybe they should learn the lesson and follow the rules. if seeing jailed posts annoys you, then it's a good reason to ensure that you follow the rules so you don't annoy other posters..
Well, a mod badge makes you different. It comes with the job. Honestly, I don't like being cozied up to when I post in threads just because I have the badge. Sometimes I just want to be a regular forumer. Sometimes the Phantom walks on the streets as a regular man.
Personally I like a mod to be a dick, be able to hold a discussion, have a repor with the forum they're modding and have sound judgement.
We don't cross lines because we respect each others' forums. I was not modded to directly guide the D&D forum, so I don't go in there with my take on their rules and enforce them as I see fit. The people handed that task are the people thought best suited to do it for that forum specifically.
If there's a particularly obvious thing that needs handling (goatse spamming, for instance) then we'll usually do something about it, regardless of which forum we've been charged with.
When it comes to discussing in the mod forum what to do about X situation in Y forum, anyone with something to contribute joins in and contributes.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
As with anything, common sense will rule the day here. I don't think anyone shy of the truly bitter will bother taking up a pitchfork unless they feel it's justified.
That said, Pheezer mentioned above that the mods are hard on each other, and since I can't view the mod forum I will take him at his word.
Animal Crossing - 3566 5318 4585/2492 7891 0383 Deacon/Akisha in Crayon
Every full mod can temp-mod themselves in any subforum and get full mod powers there. That's what happens when you see a mod name outside of the "G&T Mods" in the moderator list on the front page.
Right now it happens a lot when there's a spam run and no "native" mod around to kill it.
on top of that, again posting here is a privilege, and the moderators are chosen by those who run this joint. if you don't like it, leave.
As I've been mistakenly jailed once, jailed for a rule that didn't exist, jailed for a rule that was then overturned while I was still in jail, and banned for a rule that didn't exist, you'll forgive me if I don't share the view that all those that are punished are deserving of it.
And that's understandable. I had a friend quit being a mod on the forums because he didn't like having the mod status.
But I think that's part of the problem. The us and them mentality. I'm not saying that everyone needs their chance at being a mod, or even that everyone is qualified to be a mod. But as we have yet to create a perfect forum does it really make sense to keep people as mods for multiple years in a row? Wouldn't it be good to get new ideas and new people into the mix?
Fresh ideas are a good thing. Ruts are a bad thing.
And it's not any mod specifically. The mods do a good job. But I think the nature of the institution itself is aided by some sort of rotation, a constant renewal of people and ideas. We don't need the same 2 or 3 people to be the mods of D&D or G&T for multiple years in a row. That just seems silly.
That's just my opinion, though.
The system in place here is very different than the system in place for the United States. Most of the moderators that would be rotated in would have no experience moderating, unlike most politicians being elected to most government positions. Most of their term would involve them actually learning how to moderate, and when they finally do they'll be thrown out and the next set of moderators will be rotated in. It's inefficient and weakens the capabilities of the moderating team.
Also, if you have moderators being rotated in, and everyone has a different point of view from the old moderators, policy will change. Policy will end up changing every time new moderators are rotated in.
I also think that there should never be a mod rotation because that just sets things up for drama and popularity contests.
Also, demod Thanatos. Fuck that guy.
That explains the Doc thing. Pretty interesting.
Jailing? That's two clicks, and then the jailee gets an automated mail anyway. Done. Nothing further to add.
It's like highschool all over again
The fat chick is weeping because she goes unloved in the polls.
The funny kid wins and does not understand that he needs a budget for the prom
Why is policy change a bad thing?
Didn't there use to be a system of meta-mods that could only jail people and lock topics? I seem to remember that. Couldn't there be some sort of mod training program?
I mean, if people are serious about the forums then it would seem sensible to have a system in place to train new mods. And if people aren't serious about the system why are we having this discussion?
Hey, this sounds like the start of a country song! Or maybe a really bad summer action flick.
Oh, oh, maybe you can call 60 Minutes!
EDIT - I still think we should have modded Riotcow and demodded everybody else.
We don't need a mod training system, because it's usually the reliable and steady posters that are made mods, so they know how it works. It's not as though we're just modding random posters and they need VIGOROUS TRAINING.
Ten bucks says that someone already beat me to saying pretty much the same exact thing.
Pretty accurate!
There doesn't have to be a rule for you to get jailed. Someone very well could have be trolling, which in itself is loosely defined. I don't know the reasons behind your punishment, so I won't make assumptions on whether it was just.
And we don't have a large enough pool of reliable and steady posters to start a mod rotation?