More mods?

More Mods?

Hey Y'all
So..after watching certain threads, I've been starting to wonder. Would More Admins be benficial to the forums? Now I know most don't want more people with the power of instant ban. But what I'm really asking is do we want more people to do the small regulation stuff.

I mean, at the moment to settle petty disputes and admin has to
A. Be online
B. Care enough either about the Thread topic, People involved
C. Has to read it in a certain way

For anything to happen.
Now I don't deny it's really easy to say something and have it come accross as hostile. But a lot of the times I personally have to wonder if either the mods don't care about what people are saying for example (Language used, tone, use of "You said X and therefore you are wrong and are trying to spoil the game" ) or they just don't have time to enforce the rules on it.

So yeah
Personally I would either like to see more Mods pop up, or make it more obvious that mods are around. Don't get me wrong, love the currents mods and admins. All great people from what I can tell, and are often helpful when they "want" to be. Just... not on... and seem to important to be basically telling people to stop there e-peen contests and there keyboard warrior fights.

So yeah, more admins without banning powers but who have the ability to give out warnings and tell people to very bluntly STFU.

Maybe a poll on users everyone likes, I don't know exactly the best way to go about picking them. That's my two cents anyway.

Bump.

The idea would be ok if they were people the forum users actually picked and not just friends of the staff. But, I'm pretty sure that idea has been shot down several times. I certainly don't want to see more staff picked mods.

It's kinda why I was thinking a vote of popular, non-dev, forum members
People who have been around enough to know who needs to be told what and when.

I can't say I agree that a popularity contest is the way to go - moderators need to be trusted to enforce the rules.

Moderation isn't about being well liked, it's about staying on top of things. The staff are expected to be trusted individuals, this is not a democracy, and any individuals chosen to keep the rules going should be trusted staff members, not whoever can win a vox pop.

I don't think it'll turn into a popularity contest though
Too many people have too much at stake if the wrong people "get elected" for want of a better term. So it'll come down to, who is popular and has common sense.

For example no one in there right mind would vote me as an admin
But someone like Paper Shadow for example, might be a good choice

(Please note just picking names out of the air)

Yeah Ping, of course you trust the members of the staff. You're their friend and they're biased in your favor. That doesn't apply to the rest of us.

On the other hand, I don't trust the current staff at all because I've seen them repeatedly break the rules, lie or shamelessly go back on agreements, act rude for no reason at all, and do a number of other things that have completely shattered any trust I could possibly have in them to enforce rules fairly.

So regardless of "what is expected", I don't think we have what you're saying we should have for mods. So, I hardly see the issue in trying to acquire some by any other means than the already proven way to just create more mods with the same biases.

The admins we have aren't that bad Ramsus

I just think we need more for basic consistency and so we can actually reliably have one around as needed.

*shrug* You don't have to agree with me. (Might want to try walking in my shoes though before you dismiss my views.)

Dunno, if we'll get consistency with more mods though. They've never really been consistent much at all. I point out things like Logan deciding to change the ban/warnings lengths all by himself without even talking to the others about it first. It seems like they do whatever they feel like and only talk about things if they encounter resistance. Which leads to a lot of things getting overlooked and other things getting overreacted to.
Edit: Anyway, consistency is less my concern than someone who would actually do a good job of it and be fair. Or is that what you meant by consistency?

As for reliably having around. That'd be good.

As for Paper Shadow, that'd be a good kind of person I think. Assuming he'd want to do it.

Individuals standing in a moderation role need to be individuals trusted to moderate fairly and in a disciplined manner. This is not an individual factor, I would advocate this on any forum I am a member of. Yes, I am a friend of Logan's. This does not change matters, because my argument does not gain or lose ground as a result of my relations to other forums members.

This is not electing a representative - this is the selection of the police. And this is not something that should be made a popularity contest.

What we need is more and better enforcement, because right now there are too few active moderators covering too little ground - most individuals with moderation privileges are either inactive or solely preoccupied with development work.

EDIT: That said, Paper Shadow does at a glance have the potential, but I hold that this is not a matter for public discussion.

Ramsus that is hostile and attacking both the staff members, and towards Ping indirectly.

Also, Ping is only my Friend. She barely knows Dan or Kindu or the rest. It's why any comments on her being admin/mod I'll hold my tongue on.

In fact, I'll hold my tongue on commenting on whether we need more mods/admins publicly period.

And that pretty much sums up the problem and I like the "Making policeforce bit"

We need a list of, I guess willing volunteers? And leave it up to actually forum members about who to pick. We can't and I stress, WE CAN'T leave it up to the current Dev team. It'll cause too much frustration and bluntly be unfair, not to mention all the negativity it'll cause for him/her before they even start the position.

So if this is like the police then we need volunteers and a civil selection committee or some such? Because the staff can't be making the choices as the staff are not "the people" that these "police" would protect & serve. So... end result would still be a vote. Though, we'd just be asking for volunteers first. (Not that we wouldn't have done that anyway.) Unless you want us to vote on a group of people who we trust to vote on who would be a good mod. But, that's pretty pointlessly complicated.

Anyway, if we're looking for volunteers, I'll certainly throw my hat in the ring. Though, I've got about the same chance of Hayate, lol. Not that it matters, at the end of the day even if everyone on the forum voted for me, the staff would just say no anyway.

Edit: Seriously Hayate, don't get your hopes up that this will accomplish anything at all. Not saying you shouldn't try. Just, chances are pretty bleak.

I don't know
I think enough people want a change, it's possible. I think so anyway.
Some people just need a banning and a yelling at, and if they current admins won't or can't, I vote new ones that will.

(And then the argument turned into the Superman vs The Elite and everything was great.)

lol.

I'm not entirely sure what we need is someone who's more punitive. Maybe someone who actually tries to resolve problems instead of just telling people to shut up or else. That just leads to grudges and more drama down the road.

I feel like I should be volunteering for this... though I must admit I am likely to be too lenient and well likely to just talk people down if I was selected...

Perhaps someone should make/find a test or something like that

edit ninja-ed...

Not only can we, we must. At the end of the day, the moderation staff are the leadership of the community, and it is their responsibility to set the right example. The old adage applies - their forum, their rules. It should not be pretended otherwise.

At present I feel moderation is quite weak - the impression I've gotten is that there is only a single moderator actively policing threads and even still it often takes multiple warnings from multiple moderators before anybody needs to concern themselves with anything.

And yes, more people standing up is a good thing. It creates a pool from which people may be evaluated and discussed for potential.

Welp in that case
I volunteer cause why the hell not?
I'm around all the time anyway, and I don't have any particular hates and I can always pass those people off onto others. So.. eh. I'll put my hand up just for the laughter.

We don't need more mods, just less censorship.

The rules are okay as they stand, in my opinion, but the fact that various topics including "I disagree with the rules" are de-facto forbidden from being discussed is a major problem.

"I disagree with the rules" isn't against the rules.

Insulting and hostility against those that are enforcing the rules is however.

Huh... that's a new view point AProc(Your new I'm too lazy to type out the full thing name). Interesting.

I sorta agree in some ways? But in others not so much. You're right in the sense of us having no real place to voice dev/mod/forum goer issues, and I do think having "lower run" mods could solve that. Someone  we could go to, that's not bringing it all up again in public and have it spread all over the forums but will still let us say X is unfair cause Y is a dumbarse.

We could definitely use some more moderators for the forums. There's a lot of conversations and while the reporting system helps, having someone online to deal with a problem as it develops is a huge benefit. Very good points Hayate.

I'd like to get recommendations and applications for users that would be good for moderation. A vote-controlled moderation staff probably isn't a good idea though. In my experience with these and other forums, the people that most need to be moderated tend to least like the moderators in question. I'll be happy to explore anyone who can be regularly online and doesn't have a history of fighting with other users.

This really isn't that complicated and it isn't an issue of social justice or anything. We all want a forum where we can focus on collaborating on new content, discussing existing content and explore RPG games together in a pleasant environment. Therefore, a good moderator would be an active member of the community that is good at defusing fights before they get too serious and capable of administering the rules as written with an eye to Wheaton's Law.

EDIT - Isn't there a thread for specifically talking about proposed changes to the rules Aproc? I'm pretty sure it's stickied in this forum. It's fine to disagree with them.

I feel like one is the cause of the other. Without enough staff on hand to create and enforce a stable and useful area for discussion, the censorship occurs because of a lack of ability to effectively moderate them.

---

Preview Edit: Well, it's not so much a change to the rules as it is a request for more moderation.

No, this thread is fine. I was addressing Aproc's statement that you can't disagree with the rules. You totally can.

...I feel like I've just been handed a vial of nitroglycerin; I've got a very volatile opinion I'd like to express but uh

No, I could see this topic burning down. Several casualties. Better keep my opinion to myself besides, of course, explaining why I've suddenly stopped posting in this topic.