|
|
Post by Rob on Jul 24, 2010 18:31:51 GMT -5
So, um, we're just discussing THE PROCESS. We don't need moderators now because, yes, us admins have that kind of stuff handled. In the event that we do need moderators, we want to have A PROCESS already set up to acquire moderators. So you all can go ahead and leave that line of reasoning out of here.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Jul 24, 2010 18:54:03 GMT -5
So, um, we're just discussing THE PROCESS. We don't need moderators now because, yes, us admins have that kind of stuff handled. In the event that we do need moderators, we want to have A PROCESS already set up to acquire moderators. So you all can go ahead and leave that line of reasoning out of here. I find it amusing how one admin says that the process suggested is too complicated, yet suggests barley any amendments. The other posts something contradicting what another 2-3 threads are preaching.. then the third says that the discussion is completely hypothetical and makes it seem like it's never happening. Spiralling a 5 page discussion into nothing. No wonder there aren't any fresh suggestions around here. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jul 24, 2010 19:43:25 GMT -5
Sweet, thanks for contributing to that, TheIslander! Your acute analyzation of how this topic has progressed certainly furthers the main discussion.
I simply wished to make sure you understand that bringing up the point I described is useless. I was attempting to push things back towards DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS.
We would simply be looking for folks to do basic moderation tasks and follow our moderation guidelines. Your process does much more than that, TheIslander. It complicates everything. There were no amendments because (and someone correct me if I'm speaking out of turn) we don't like anything about it and we don't think it's worth adopting.
I want people to pick who they admire. I want people to pick who they think would do a fine job. I want people to pick who they are friends with. All of those reasons are valid to me. We are looking for a relatively simple, fun & to-the-point process.
But, again, this is discussion. So if more folks want YOUR process I'm sure they'd come in here and post why it's so great or amendments to make it better. For now, though, my stance on it has been aptly stated.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Jul 24, 2010 19:49:34 GMT -5
There's no reason to amend yours when I think the one WE proposed works fine. You didn't like ours, so you proposed an entirely new process - I don't like yours, so I have the one the admin team originally proposed. I don't see an issue here.
I don't see how Bree (I'm assuming this is who you're talking about with your second point) contradicted what other threads are saying. Moderators =/= leaders. They are people who keep the forum in line. Some might view them as leaders, but that is not their intended role. Natural leaders are still awesome and will arise / have arisen.
Rob isn't saying this process is hypothetical. We're definitely going to use it, just not until we actually need moderators. We're just getting it set up ahead of time. It's called planning, last time I checked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Jul 24, 2010 20:37:11 GMT -5
So, um, we're just discussing THE PROCESS. We don't need moderators now because, yes, us admins have that kind of stuff handled. In the event that we do need moderators, we want to have A PROCESS already set up to acquire moderators. So you all can go ahead and leave that line of reasoning out of here. I find it amusing how one admin says that the process suggested is too complicated, yet suggests barley any amendments. The other posts something contradicting what another 2-3 threads are preaching.. then the third says that the discussion is completely hypothetical and makes it seem like it's never happening. Spiralling a 5 page discussion into nothing. No wonder there aren't any fresh suggestions around here. George Washington was a spectacular debater, yet he hardly opened his mouth during a debate. Rob doesn't have a ton of ideas, but it doesn't mean he has no credibility. |
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Jul 25, 2010 6:18:20 GMT -5
I find it amusing how one admin says that the process suggested is too complicated, yet suggests barley any amendments. The other posts something contradicting what another 2-3 threads are preaching.. then the third says that the discussion is completely hypothetical and makes it seem like it's never happening. Spiralling a 5 page discussion into nothing. No wonder there aren't any fresh suggestions around here. George Washington was a spectacular debater, yet he hardly opened his mouth during a debate. Rob doesn't have a ton of ideas, but it doesn't mean he has no credibility. Did I say anything about Robs credibility? George Washington was also a very decisive and open minded person. Yet nobody on here is, deal with it and stop sucking up - I doubt Rob needs your emotional support. I've said what I've had to say, I've grown impatient of the pessimism - enjoy hating. |
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Jul 25, 2010 7:26:03 GMT -5
Haha. Okily dokily then! I'm sure we're very narrow-minded, especially in comparison to you, the one who wouldn't even consider our moderator electing process, but gave us your own, and then became all defensive and rude when a few people politely disagreed. ;P I'd be glad to hear any constructive criticism you have for how we run this forum / how the members behave, but if you're just going to attack us with unfounded insults, you might be better off not posting.  |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 25, 2010 12:18:44 GMT -5
if anyone has the right to that complaint it's me. look at the "state of the tribe" thread in the forum management section. i worked hard on that thread..i stayed up all night thinking that up. i worked hard developing those systems. people didn't like them, and i'll admit i was annoyed, but i didn't get petulant over it...seriously, you cant win em all give it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Jul 27, 2010 23:47:04 GMT -5
George Washington was a spectacular debater, yet he hardly opened his mouth during a debate. Rob doesn't have a ton of ideas, but it doesn't mean he has no credibility. Did I say anything about Robs credibility? Implications were made. I find it amusing how one admin says that the process suggested is too complicated, yet suggests barley any amendments. Basically you're saying, "Why should we take the word of someone who hardly participates?" Yet nobody on here is, deal with it and stop sucking up - I doubt Rob needs your emotional support. Nope, not sucking up. I pointed out a flaw in your argument, and you interpreted it as partiality. |
|
7
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
Post by 7 on Jul 28, 2010 14:09:49 GMT -5
Why don't the admins vote on the mod rather then the forum members? Therefore, there is no bias.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Jul 28, 2010 15:12:54 GMT -5
The whole point of the voting process is so that the community will have control over who becomes a moderator. Besides, the admins are just as likely to be biased as the other members. At least this way there will be more voters, so it'll be easier to override the bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by UnfairBear on Jul 28, 2010 15:42:26 GMT -5
So I've tried to avoid reading the "youre stupid!" "no you!" posts, so hopefully I'll be unbiased here..
.. but I quite like TheIslander's idea. It is a little complicated, sure, but it's doable, and it can even be simplified somewhat. Thing is, not everybody on the forums will know the people who are nominated, so they may just be voting randomly. I know they should go look at their posts and everything, but how many people are going to actually do that? At least if people voting on disembodied opinions they actually know what they're voting for.
Also, no matter how much we say "it's not a popularity contest", there's always the possibility it will go in that direction. I'm not saying that it will, but maybe it's better to totally avoid the possibility of a problem rather than having to fix it later on.
EDIT: OYEAH something else: You should make the Mod Handbook public to everyone before people decide they want to be a Mod so that they know what theyre getting themselves into and what's expected of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2010 8:04:55 GMT -5
You should make the Mod Handbook public to everyone before people decide they want to be a Mod so that they know what theyre getting themselves into and what's expected of them. It is a very detailed list of each moderation function with a description of when and how you should use each one. If we released a public version I think we would just include the list of functions (as a brief "job description") without all of the details about why and how. That would be more helpful, right? |
|
|
|
Post by UnfairBear on Jul 30, 2010 8:21:53 GMT -5
Well yeah, I pretty much just meant a job description, good call =P
|
|
|
|
Post by Benyamin on Jul 30, 2010 23:39:52 GMT -5
I like
Complaints and mass leaving is not good
|
|
thelighterdark
Planet
"Get busy living, or get busy dying." - Andy Dufresne [Tim Robbins], The Shawshawnk Redemption, 1994
Posts: 374
|
Post by thelighterdark on Aug 3, 2010 2:40:49 GMT -5
Everything from the first post looks great except for campaigning. I think this is something that really doesn't need to be encouraged because it will happen naturally, but regardless, it's not a bad thing. If someone wants the spot they will do whatever it takes and the community will see and, thus, vote on that. |
|
|
|
Post by mrelliotb on Aug 6, 2010 1:18:00 GMT -5
I actually like the idea of campaigning.
I never did get voted into student counsel...
-___-
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Aug 6, 2010 15:20:06 GMT -5
So I've tried to avoid reading the "youre stupid!" "no you!" posts, so hopefully I'll be unbiased here.. .. but I quite like TheIslander's idea. It is a little complicated, sure, but it's doable, and it can even be simplified somewhat. Thing is, not everybody on the forums will know the people who are nominated, so they may just be voting randomly. I know they should go look at their posts and everything, but how many people are going to actually do that? At least if people voting on disembodied opinions they actually know what they're voting for. Also, no matter how much we say "it's not a popularity contest", there's always the possibility it will go in that direction. I'm not saying that it will, but maybe it's better to totally avoid the possibility of a problem rather than having to fix it later on. EDIT: OYEAH something else: You should make the Mod Handbook public to everyone before people decide they want to be a Mod so that they know what theyre getting themselves into and what's expected of them. I agree with Jean on this... TheIslander's idea seems to be best one so far. |
|
|
|
Post by stealth1994 on Aug 6, 2010 23:37:11 GMT -5
im a mod on http://pirateschest.org/ and if you want i can send u a copy of our rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Aug 7, 2010 0:20:44 GMT -5
im a mod on http://pirateschest.org/ and if you want i can send u a copy of our rules! Your rules for adding moderators? |
|
