The Mod's Advanced Clause

[Catterjune]

Was thinking of just posting this in News, but decided to get feedback on it first.

 

Effective immediately and going onwards, any topics locked should also include a post stating why the topic is being locked. Deleting/hiding spambot posts goes on as usual and does not need a post.

Secondly, if using "other" as warn reason, there should be a reason filled out for other mods to read (which I think everyone does, but it's still worth noting)

Any mod found not doing this OH LET'S SAY 3 times within a 30 day span will no longer be a member of the staff.


"But that's not fair!"

Fuck you. You're a mod. You're held to a higher standard than other members.

"Then I'll just not mod shit!"

Great! Hand in your mod badge and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

"But what if some other mod closes all my topics in my section before I get to post in them?"

There's logs of all this. If some mod is being a lazy bastard or trying to get you into trouble, it'll be looked into.

"This just adds an unnecessary step and makes modding taking longer!"

Yeah probably. But it makes the experience better for the members. You know, the people you're supposed to be looking out for.

"Why are you doing this?"

1: Accountability
2: Transparency

"How will this be handled?"

Case by case, as the information comes up. I'm not gonna actively click on every single locked topic in every single section and make sure it has a post in it. That'd just be silly. If 3 situations are brought up and you don't have an explanation, it'll be bad news bears.

"Mina, you're just being a micromanaging shrew getting in the way of real work being done!"

Yeah maybe. Though accountability and transparency are a main concern the alternatives are limiting powers of the mods to just their own section and getting rid of super mods, which nobody wants and doesn't even solve the problem when you think about it.

 
 

So feedback time! Questions? Comments? Concerns?

[Legend Zero]

Meh, do this anyway 99% of the time.

[Smear]

The mod in bold is definitely Yankee.

OT: I think it's great. Did you get this idea from that Status Update that was talking about the 'Divine' thread?

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Something tells me that my incident with Koko played a part in this, but whatever. It's about time something like this was done.

[Althemia]

Something tells me that my incident with Koko played a part in this, but whatever. It's about time something like this was done.

Nah, nothing to do with that. This doesn't even have anything relevant to what happened, dumbass~

Although I try to do this whenever I can, unless it's so blatantly obvious that... you know, I shouldn't need to state it.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

[quote name="Dictator / Koko" post="6167916" timestamp="1364143374"]Nah, nothing to do with that. This doesn't even have anything relevant to what happened, dumbass~[/quote] Oh Koko, I was refering to the "other" reason, but okay~

[Volcanism]

This is something I've always thought was necessary on any forum. Great job!

[Catterjune]

Blatantly obvious in what way? I believe you lock cards that are found to be super broken. It may be blatantly obvious to you that the card is super broken, but... it's probably not to the person posting it, otherwise they wouldn't have posted it (unless they acknowledge it or whatever).

It's also not just to keep the members informed of why there topic was locked but also accountability.

In any case, you can feel free to not do it. Just remember you'll be removed from staff if it happens excessively.


On an unrelated note, let's keep this discussion up until... let's say Wednesday before it becomes official policy.

[Volcanism]

I think people wouldn't post threads if they knew it was going to get locked so even though its blatantly obvious for you, it isn't to them. It's like how you can see a bad 60 card deck right away but the user will think its great.

[Legend Zero]

The only thing I'm concerned with is the auto de-modding. It should at most go to a review of modship, not immediate stripping of powers.

[evilfusion]

Seems logical for mods to make it clear why a topic is being locked. I usually do something along the lines, either a line of commentary when it's a flagrant issue, or justify the more ambiguous parts. If lazier, I do just lock it without saying anything, but those are rare incidents that are usually obvious when skimming the topic anyway.

 

I have no real issue other than the same as Legend Zero's.

[Lt. Colonel Remo]

Pic is very related, its me right now

 

It always feels good to have to watch other people work harder for you

[TheComposer]

You mean that mods actually have to, *gasp*, do their JOB? Why this is just LUDICROUS!

 

In all honesty I like it as long as the person doing the de-modding looks over every incident shown to them instead of acting before investigating. The only way people are going to learn from their mistakes is if they know what the mistakes were in the first place.

[Zelfore]

Would this also be applied to topics requested to be locked, or multiple topics of the same thing made by accident? 'Cause if so, that would be excessive.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

support! With you all the way!

 

edit: I also think that double/triple thread posting shouldn't need a report if it was done my computer error (you know what I mean by that right?), but intentional multi posting should. The different should be obvious just by looking at the time of posting and/or the content. If this is too hard to do, then don't worry about it.

[Volcanism]

Zelfore: making exceptions to the rule complicates it. It's better to just let a mid take the three seconds and say "locked by request" or "locked because its a duplicate".

[Just Crouton]

Support. People should know how to give the "why" for their actions. Nobody can read minds.

[Althemia]

support! With you all the way!
 
edit: I also think that double/triple thread posting shouldn't need a report if it was done my computer error (you know what I mean by that right?), but intentional multi posting should. The different should be obvious just by looking at the time of posting and/or the content. If this is too hard to do, then don't worry about it.

No, you report it but we don't punish you for it. We just take care of it for you.

[Catterjune]

The only thing I'm concerned with is the auto de-modding. It should at most go to a review of modship, not immediate stripping of powers.

I have no real issue other than the same as Legend Zero's.

I've recognized your concerns and if you all think being demoted at three is excessive, I'll concede the point. What do you take greatest offense to though? The 3 strikes part or the unstaffing part? I wouldn't wanna just say "Oh hey, please do something" and then not have a follow through if and when it doesn't happen.
 

Would this also be applied to topics requested to be locked, or multiple topics of the same thing made by accident? 'Cause if so, that would be excessive.

Again, it would be done on a case-by-case basis. We're not robots looking for a reason to demote each other or something. We're regular people just trying to make this shithole site not so shitty and I personally think this would be a step in the right direction.
 

 

edit: I also think that double/triple thread posting shouldn't need a report if it was done my computer error (you know what I mean by that right?), but intentional multi posting should. The different should be obvious just by looking at the time of posting and/or the content. If this is too hard to do, then don't worry about it.

What Koko said. Just report your own post if you noticed it's up 2 or 3 times. You're not gonna get penalized or anything.

[Legend Zero]

I've recognized your concerns and if you all think being demoted at three is excessive, I'll concede the point. What do you take greatest offense to though? The 3 strikes part or the unstaffing part? I wouldn't wanna just say "Oh hey, please do something" and then not have a follow through if and when it doesn't happen.

Personally, my problem is with the immediate de-modding. The rule makes sense and considering most (if not all) mods do it most of the time. I don't see a problem with it in the future. However, instead of "3 strikes and you're out" it should be "3 strikes and we ask if you are dedicated enough for your job". By that, I mean we make a thread in mod forum and discuss with the offending mod why they are not keeping up to standards.

[Night]

I don't think we'll have any cases in which the resolve would be de-modding, however I'd agree with Lz.

 

Honestly, the process should have been done this way regardless of this threads creation. The more pressing concern is the consideration of de-modding one another for what one person believes is not up to par. 

[Cin]

Now that we've decided not to swear like Pika seems to be doing alot lately....

 

I admit sometimes I will lock without posting a reason, but to those that have caused the reason it is locked or to posters it can be pretty obvious why. Like in Introductions I warned two members for having a conversation that didn't involve the OP. If a member wants an explanation for why a topic of their's has been locked I'm more than happy to give one.

 

As for stripping a mod immediately, I'd agree with LZ. But I feel there may still be mod dead weight around.

[Catterjune]

Effective immediately and going onwards, any topics locked by a moderator should also include a post stating why the topic is being locked. Deleting/hiding spambot posts goes on as usual and does not need a post.

Self-locked posts or posts requesting a lock also don't need a post, but one could still be provided if the mod chooses so. Again, this is not mandatory.

Locking necrobumped topics also don't need a post either, because obviously posting in a dead topic is a necrobump in and of itself.

As a minor note, when using "other" as warn reason, there should be a reason filled out for other mods to read (which I think everyone does, but it's still worth noting)

Any mod found not doing this 3 times within a 30 day span starting from here on out will have to [sit in the time out corner while we discuss why they're not keeping up to standards].

As a reminder to all staff, there's logs of everything which you'll all be given access to right after I finish this post.

Good with everyone? If so, consider it official policy tomorrow whenever I get back from work. e_e

[Legend Zero]

Sure, looks fine to me.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Why do I get the feeling the discussion will turn into a slap on the wrist for the mod-in-question? Maybe it could be probation for first offense where the mod-in-question has to answer to another mod for say 2 weeks?