Why do people wanna stay mods

Hagar

witnessmenow wrote: »

Like there is on Cmod that i've literally havent seen posting in the category since i actively started using boards (about a year).

Have you got any kids?
You can't intervene in every little squabble. Kids are well able to sort things out amongst themselves. It's all part of their natural development.

Modding a forum or a category is much the same. Only step in if a line is crossed to prevent a situation getting out of control. If you don't see a mod intervening it doesn't mean he/she is not active, it can just as easily mean he/she is watching over the kids playing with a benevolent watchful eye but saying nothing.

nesf

Hagar wrote: »

Modding a forum or a category is much the same. Only step in if a line is crossed to prevent a situation getting out of control. If you don't see a mod intervening it doesn't mean he/she is not active, it can just as easily mean he/she is watching over the kids playing with a benevolent watchful eye but saying nothing.

Patiently biding their time until everyone's guard has dropped and then...

Hagar

That as well...

6th

Boston wrote: »

When you reach the nadir, there is only one way to go.

Gay? No thanks, you're not my type.

Doctor DooM

Hagar wrote: »

Have you got any kids?
You can't intervene in every little squabble. Kids are well able to sort things out amongst themselves. It's all part of their natural development.

Modding a forum or a category is much the same. Only step in if a line is crossed to prevent a situation getting out of control. If you don't see a mod intervening it doesn't mean he/she is not active, it can just as easily mean he/she is watching over the kids playing with a benevolent watchful eye but saying nothing.

Thats vaguely scary...

Hagar

Go to your room. :mad:

Doctor DooM

Hagar wrote: »

Go to your room. :mad:

You're not my real parent, I was adopted at birth!

*slams door*

smashey

SDooM wrote: »

You're not my real parent, I was adopted at birth!

*slams door*

Adoption forum ftw.

RoundyMooney

smashey wrote: »

It's the thrill of the whinging feedback thread after you ban somebody.

You'd have to ban someone first though

Feedback threads. I can't believe people actually consider them a rite of passage.

I've said too much

Simplicity

Feedback.

Masturbation.

unkel

Well said, RoundyMooney!

RoundyMooney wrote: »

there is little that can be done to address that, bar appointing new people

It's not in the interest of anyone on boards.ie to let an absent / inactive moderator remain in place (apart from the interest of said moderator and the status he/she still enjoys, the access to the sekkrit forums, the coke, hookers, etc. )

It takes guts for anyone to point the finger and it's not an easy job for an administrator (yes you, Gerry ) to make a diplomatic move on this. But it has to be done from time to time

Some of this can surely be prevented in the moderator selection process. Sometimes moderators stepping down select their successors without any scrutiny from other moderators (on their forum) or input from administrators. Ultimately no moderator gets appointed without direct administrator approval. Maybe we should have some sort of system in place, vetting a new moderator-to-be. No need for formality. Could be as informal as an exchange of pms between that person and the administrator

Thoughts?

Jules

But then you get the mods who are just trying oh so hard to be more than they are. Posting in every fora, making comments in every thread. Banning left right and centre. Now thats just a little bit to much.

A nice balance i feel is required to be a good mod!

Sparky

A balance is good. It's not always them and us. At the end of the day we are normal users who when needed can step in and resolve an issue, or calm things down when required.

Of course most of us have paid jobs to do everyday, so we cant be there 24/7 to step in etc, but that's why we have co-mods and a hierarchy system.

Kur4mA

I think there are several mods who should be asked to step down and as said before, they probably know who they are. If you read this and don't give a crap about my opinion because of my post count, that's fair enough but I do not care.

But seriously, there are a lot of mods who seem to be in their position only because they once served the community well or are RL mates with other mods/admins on the site. These 'mods' are not just that in name as they aren't moderating anything and some are moderating only when they feel like it. There should be AT LEAST an active secondary mod in forums where there is just a single snoozing mod.

RoundyMooney

unkel wrote: »

It's not in the interest of anyone on boards.ie to let an absent / inactive moderator remain in place (apart from the interest of said moderator and the status he/she still enjoys, the access to the sekkrit forums, the coke, hookers, etc. )

Agree++

unkel wrote: »

It takes guts for anyone to point the finger and it's not an easy job for an administrator (yes you, Gerry ) to make a diplomatic move on this. But it has to be done from time to time

It's hard to strike a balance from an admin perspective. People will of course drift in and out from time to time, real life being what it is. OTOH, removing someone who has more or less dissappeared forever is no problem, as they just won't notice.

The over-riding problem is with users who accept the "status", but don't perform the duties.

unkel wrote: »

Some of this can surely be prevented in the moderator selection process. Sometimes moderators stepping down select their successors without any scrutiny from other moderators (on their forum) or input from administrators. Ultimately no moderator gets appointed without direct administrator approval. Maybe we should have some sort of system in place, vetting a new moderator-to-be. No need for formality. Could be as informal as an exchange of pms between that person and the administrator

TBH, that happens too

At the end of the day, it's difficult to enforce a voluntary role on somebody. Therein lies the problem for boards. It's easier for fora, 'cos you can just bang in new people. Defined roles are harder to sort, as somebody would have to be removed, and somebody else instated.

Spanky: Balance is a different bugbear, and is much less of a problem, as it's clearly defined that mods are users outside of their own patch.

witnessmenow

After lookin at amps most recent posts he's more active than i thought, but still not all that active.

Nearly all of his recent posts have been in relation to banning someone, which is fine . I personally just dont understand , if i wasnt using boards.ie on a daily basis anyway i would most certainly not want to be a mod.

EDIT: ##
Sorry , I dont mean this thread to be an attack on amp. I shouldn't have used a specific example.

Sherifu

amp test?

nesf

witnessmenow wrote: »

Nearly all of his recent posts have been in relation to banning someone, which is fine . I personally just dont understand , if i wasnt using boards.ie on a daily basis anyway i would most certainly not want to be a mod.

Not posting doesn't mean someone isn't reading the site, to be fair.

RoundyMooney

Nor should this be about one individual, of course.

This could just be me, but I find that I post less in the forums that I moderate, instead I just make sure that which has been posted in ok, agrees with the charter and is constructive.

I find that I am involved in the debate, its harder to moderate. Myself and Fits have somewhat of a tag going on in the horsey forum - if I see her getting into a debate, then I don't so I am somewhat impartial. There have been major problems in the shooting forum in the past regarding this.

However, just because I don't post, doesn't mean that I am not active! I read every post made in both forums which I moderate.

WhiteWashMan

people want to stay mods because they feel as if they can either contribute to something that they have an interest in, they want to add something to the community, or they like to feel as if they are important.

probably something similar to why they became mods in the first place.

if there are mods that are inactive, or not doing a good job, then feedback is exactly the forum to discuss it. and fwiw, id much rather that mods were named, rather than this ambiguous 'oh, some mods arent doing anything, they know who they are crap'.
if you have something to say, they say it. and if youre right, lets get some solutions in place. if youre wrong, well, do better research next time.

and that goes for anyone who starts feedback threads and then discovers they they may in fact not have all the correct information.

Boston

RoundyMooney wrote: »

No one expects omnipresence from any one individual (this is only a website, after all), but if someone can't or won't fulfil their role, then for them to continue masquerading in that role is IMO selfish, and to the detriment of the work done by others who may have to "carry" them, as it were.

Disgraceful the way you have to carry Gordon,Ruu and Beruthiel. I'm personally campaigning behind the scenes to get you that Smod-ship you so clearly deserver. I doctored up some compromising photos of a couple Admins in a compromising position with a live boy and dead girl, which will no doubt do the trick. Don't worry Roundy, its all in hand.

Your Beloved servant
Boston.

RoundyMooney

I knew I could count on you, Boston.

Just between ourselves for now, eh?

nesf

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

if there are mods that are inactive, or not doing a good job, then feedback is exactly the forum to discuss it. and fwiw, id much rather that mods were named, rather than this ambiguous 'oh, some mods arent doing anything, they know who they are crap'.
if you have something to say, they say it. and if youre right, lets get some solutions in place. if youre wrong, well, do better research next time.

But then they'd like have to go out on a limb rather than being able to generalise freely with no need to be specific so that everyone reading it can fill in the blanks with the people they think are inactive or doing a bad job, etc.

unkel

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

if there are mods that are inactive, or not doing a good job, then feedback is exactly the forum to discuss it

Agreed in principle! Does it work though? Is there any history of absent, inactive or incompetent mods being ousted because of feedback threads?

Overheal

anyway as i understand it dont mods get PM'd when someone reports something?

Active or not if they are off dicking around in the cuckoo's nest they would still be notified of a complaint, like.

muffler

Overheal wrote: »

anyway as i understand it dont mods get PM'd when someone reports something?

Active or not if they are off dicking around in the cuckoo's nest they would still be notified of a complaint, like.

Correct.

WhiteWashMan

unkel wrote: »

Agreed in principle! Does it work though? Is there any history of absent, inactive or incompetent mods being ousted because of feedback threads?

what i mean is it brings it to our attention.

if mods are inactive, and we do not know about, then there is less of a chance of something happening.

yes?

Terry

I do it because I love the feeling of power over you mere mortals.

Popinjay

I do it because... erm... nevermind.