A Suggestion for Moderation Restructure

[Agro]

I didn't say Striker was troublesome.

 

I said that Striker being a mod was causing trouble.

 

U guise need 2 lrn 2 read

[Legend Zero]

Like I said, as long a mod does there job properly it doesn't matter how others personally feel about him/her. Him being mod could cause trouble, but the blame and action will be against those who cause trouble. Just like anyone else, if they cause trouble by abusing their powers it will be them who receives action.

Saying, "this mod causes extra work by being a mod" doesn't really bother me or the rest of the staff.

[evilfusion]

I didn't say Striker was troublesome.

 

I said that Striker being a mod was causing trouble.

 

U guise need 2 lrn 2 read

 

LZ's response works regardless of which interpretation of that sentence you use.

 

"Striker is troublesome" - Just because people don't like someone doesn't mean they're doing a bad job.

 

"Striker being a mod causes trouble" - Just because people don't like someone doesn't mean they're doing a bad job.

 

Actually, LZ's response works better for the latter one. Hmmm.

[Goose]

I could have sworn LZ's post was asking for proof of Striker's trouble.

 

edit: nvm it was that other mod person whoever they are

[Agro]

they're doing a bad job.

 

they're doing a bad job.

See but I said

 

 

Well, I mean, like, having Striker as a mod has been fairly troublesome. Whether its his own fault or not. :'D

Referring to the fact that people really don't like Striker and they cause trouble because of it.

 

Gawd, you people jumping to conclusions.

[Catterjune]

I didn't say Striker was troublesome.
 
I said that Striker being a mod was causing trouble.

Trouble in what way? Could you be more specific?

[evilfusion]

Are we somehow having a lapse in communication?

 

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm using only material that other people have said. Specifically what LZ said in response to what you said. Which I said in response to what you said about what LZ said about what you said.

 

Yes...I'm doing THAT on purpose.

 

You originally said that having Striker as a mod has been troublesome. This is technically true due to the recent incident. However, LZ noted that this stems from people who dislike Striker for reasons other than how he acts as a moderator, and that this ALONE is not enough to consider Striker a bad mod.

 

If Striker is not a bad mod, then there's no real reason for the staff to consider removing him, superfluous or not.

[Agro]

Referring to the fact that people really don't like Striker and they cause trouble because of it.

no seriously what's with the lack of reading comprehension? :\

[Goose]

I think Striker has his benefits and issues.  As a mod, I don't like him or how he's handling his sections.  HOWEVER he is stimulating activity in other parts of the site which is great.

[J-Max]

Striker has over 9 Million Points! Power Abuse!!!!!

 

I am joking (But is it still classed as it?)

 

Also I would like to bring up the whole cause trouble thing. The only "Trouble" I noticed was a member being denied Image Posting privilages for posting a Image of a Potato and refering to it as Striker. Then rightly so, the member in question stood up for themselves saying that Striker was wrong. But of course, Mods can never do stupid things can they? :/

 

Then the subject was broght up in the Status feed and maybe it did go a little out of control, but members defended against the Image Privilages and agreed that what Striker did was wrong.  

 

Sorry if I am flogging a dead horse here but Mods are not immune from making mistakes.

[evilfusion]

no seriously what's with the lack of reading comprehension? :\

 

At this point, I'm not sure if we're genuinely not comprehending you, or if you genuinely aren't comprehending that we DO comprehend you, but that the responses still boil down to the same: Other people having a problem with Striker is a problem they have to overcome, because unless Striker is unfit for his position, nothing is really going to change on that front.

 

Also I would like to bring up the whole cause trouble thing. The only "Trouble" I noticed was a member being denied Image Posting privilages for posting a Image of a Potato and refering to it as Striker. Then rightly so, the member in question stood up for themselves saying that Striker was wrong. But of course, Mods can never do stupid things can they? :/

 

Then the subject was broght up in the Status feed and maybe it did go a little out of control, but members defended against the Image Privilages and agreed that what Striker did was wrong.  

 

Image privileges is not a thing.

 

Seriously, mods are not able to disable image posting, only posting itself.

[Agro]

At this point, I'm not sure if we're genuinely not comprehending you, or if you genuinely aren't comprehending that we DO comprehend you, but that the responses still boil down to the same: Other people having a problem with Striker is a problem they have to overcome, because unless Striker is unfit for his position, nothing is really going to change on that.

Someone stated striker wasn't being problematic. I made a joke that nah he totally was LOL LOOK AT ALL THE PROBLEMS FOLKS ARE CAUSING.

Idk where you guys went after that

[Catterjune]

no seriously what's with the lack of reading comprehension? :\

If you feel everyone isn't comprehending what you're trying to say, do you think maybe the problem isn't a lack of reading comprehension but rather poor communication on your end?

[Agro]

If you feel everyone isn't comprehending what you're trying to say, do you think maybe the problem isn't a lack of reading comprehension but rather poor communication on your end?

never

[evilfusion]

Someone stated striker wasn't being problematic. I made a joke that nah he totally was LOL LOOK AT ALL THE PROBLEMS FOLKS ARE CAUSING.

Idk where you guys went after that

 

I'm annoyed now that your explanation made your message more ambiguous rather than clearer.

 

For the love of Prime Photon Dragon, repeat your message with absolutely no unclear statements.

[Agro]

I'm annoyed now that your explanation made your message more ambiguous rather than clearer.

For the love of Prime Photon Dragon, repeat your message with absolutely no unclear statements.

> people said that striker being a mod doesn't cause issues
> agro plays with meaning of order of words to make a joke that people are causing issues because striker is a mod
> because people are causing issues because striker is a mod, technically striker being a mod is causing issues
> adds stupid smiley face to emphasize that agro is joking

[evilfusion]

> people said that striker being a mod doesn't cause issues
> agro plays with meaning of order of words to make a joke that people are causing issues because striker is a mod
> because people are causing issues because striker is a mod, technically striker being a mod is causing issues
> adds stupid smiley face to emphasize that agro is joking

 

Thank you.

 

I think I did catch the joke the first time, but your responses afterwards were so serious I forgot.

[Cin]

At the end of the day if someone has a problem with a mod the pm function is there for a reason, not openly outing the mod instead they had a problem with, without allowing the mod a chance to fix the problem or allowing another mod (such as a super) a chance to fix the problem. The fact that some members decided to jump on the bandwagon is a bit of immaturity, if its caused by an old grudge or not.  The mod team are still dealing with the backlash.

 

Basically next time, if anyone has a problem with a mod, pm them or a super. Problem solved.

If you're not happy with a mod in general the same suggestion applies. You need to have evidence if you're accusing a mod of power abuse.

Using the status bar to vent frustrations if you've bothered to do things properly are always going to make a mole hill a mountain.

 

I think we should finish sorting the results of the issue, then draw a line under it.

 

As for the suggestions, I work 5 days a week mostly at times when the forum is most active. (Usually 2-8/5-12) So I can't be as active as before my hours when up.

[Agro]

Tbh i don't know if anyone necessarily has a problem with how striker has modded, but that he never really deserved the position in the first place.

Like I don't even mind the dude and I thought it was an april fools prank or something like when Raine became mod for a day.

[Cin]

It wasn't April though. The mod team don't just promote people for the fun of it, it's a full discussion.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Like I said, as long a mod does there job properly it doesn't matter how others personally feel about him/her. Him being mod could cause trouble, but the blame and action will be against those who cause trouble. Just like anyone else, if they cause trouble by abusing their powers it will be them who receives action.

Saying, "this mod causes extra work by being a mod" doesn't really bother me or the rest of the staff.

 

It wasn't April though. The mod team don't just promote people for the fun of it, it's a full discussion.

Shouldn't full discussions involve the community? The community isn't be all end all, but mod picking shouldn't just be done among mods. 
Hell, the community really should be a large part of the decision. They're the reason this site even has any remote activity. 

I would also think checking out a member's past would be relevant in giving them a job, much like jobs in real life. 

It's not like the mod team has done an awful job picking mods so far, at least while I've been here. Heck, 3/4 members I've seen become mods looked to have a valid reason or soon proved they were worthy of the job.

Giving someone a job just because they can do it is awful, and if that's how we're going to do it make me a mod. Why not?

I think that the moderator team as a whole should be required to at least explain the reasons behind making members mods instead of saying "too bad shut up he's a mod" which is basically what some of you are doing.

Night's first post has been noted, however.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Image privileges is not a thing.

 

Seriously, mods are not able to disable image posting, only posting itself.

 

This seems to have been not brought up until or after now. It seems very important. Because the status drama was started when a member said that Striker took away their image posting ability because of a joke aimed at Striker.

If this is not possible to do for a mod, a big part of that entire drama is null. So could you explain what you mean here? I think it would be very important for people to understand.

[Catterjune]

I think that the moderator team as a whole should be required to at least explain the reasons behind making members mods instead of saying "too bad shut up he's a mod" which is basically what some of you are doing.

This. I can understand not doing this on a ban because bans are common or you don't want drama or whatever nonsense, but unless you're ashamed or embarrassed of your choice (and if you are, you shouldn't be picking that choice in the first place) you should have some sort of... not like a Press Release or something, because that's lols but... at least something that explains why you selected them, who the other candidates were, maybe a breakdown of the votes, who else was in the running, maybe? I dunno.

[evilfusion]

This seems to have been not brought up until or after now. It seems very important. Because the status drama was started when a member said that Striker took away their image posting ability because of a joke aimed at Striker.

If this is not possible to do for a mod, a big part of that entire drama is null. So could you explain what you mean here? I think it would be very important for people to understand.

 

It is not possible for a moderator to specifically restrict image posting. They can post-lock members, but there is no way to restrict images while leaving the posting ability intact.

 

 

 

 

Shouldn't full discussions involve the community? The community isn't be all end all, but mod picking shouldn't just be done among mods. 
Hell, the community really should be a large part of the decision. They're the reason this site even has any remote activity. 

I would also think checking out a member's past would be relevant in giving them a job, much like jobs in real life. 

It's not like the mod team has done an awful job picking mods so far, at least while I've been here. Heck, 3/4 members I've seen become mods looked to have a valid reason or soon proved they were worthy of the job.

Giving someone a job just because they can do it is awful, and if that's how we're going to do it make me a mod. Why not?

I think that the moderator team as a whole should be required to at least explain the reasons behind making members mods instead of saying "too bad shut up he's a mod" which is basically what some of you are doing.

Night's first post has been noted, however.

 

 

I'm not sure how mods prior to my appointment got chosen, but the system I've seen used most of the time, including my own and most appointments since, was to have a thread mentioning the opening, and asking members to nominate other members via PM to the mod posting said thread, and these votes were then examined before the rest of the mod team then discussed the merits of the top picked candidates. This was also important when distinguishing popularity vs actual merit of the candidate.

 

This particular appointment, however, had candidates chosen not only if they were nominated in a public thread, but also if they stepped up and self-nominated. There wasn't any "vote count" system, and the mod team determined which candidates they'd discuss by asking questions via PM, and then discussing the answers among themselves.

 

I have no idea why we did it this way this time around, but because we were looking for specific character traits regarding the section, it was reasonably effective.

 

To be honest, I don't believe we've ever been questioned on moderator appointment decisions before, so it most likely never occurred to us to actually explain our reasonings.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It is not possible for a moderator to specifically restrict image posting. They can post-lock members, but there is no way to restrict images while leaving the posting ability intact.

Okay, see. I may be misremembering or misinformed. But as I said, part of the problem was that Striker supposedly abused his power and took away image posting ability.

Meaning, a big complaint about it has been essentially disproved. Now, he still did take the picture down, but that's not nearly as bad of an offense as what it was made out to be. Especially since there is still a link to said picture on the comment.

Thanks for elaborating on this.