Moderator Performance (was Mods not Gods)

Podman

chompy, just to clarify, I didn't know about that - I wasn't referencing it on the sly or anything.

I know, it's fine.

I didn't suggest "every single decision".

tbh wrote: »

in practice tho, that'd be the case. Otherwise, you'd have people complaining that the mod wouldn't allow a vote on an issue that concerned them. If we WERE to implement user voting on mods actions, it'd have to be for everything - it's the only fair way.

I didn't mean to imply that the voting was a replacement for a Mod, a kind of Mass-Mod-Bod, quivering from all the people in there, shooting bans in every direction.

I meant that the voting would only be "considered" by admin or cmod as public support for either party if more than a few people objected to an action.
Perhaps even only taken into account if there was an appeal by the banee (or banshee:p) against an action.

The votes/kudos can be seen as a kind of "character reference" by the "mob" of either party in the appeal, and could (and would) be overruled regularly, as a matter of course, but should be considered imo.

Podman

chompy wrote: »

I have in the past also posted an image on Boards that was borderline, after another user told me that "some would be offended by it", I removed it without question. If I had been banned for it, I would have been less inclined to return to Boards to contribute positively online and in the Drama group.

The main point I'm making here is that a warning, or a "change your behavior" notice can go a lot further than a ban, and gives people a breathing space for self regulation.

Podman

star-pants wrote: »

... Even the title of this thread 'Mods not Gods' would provoke a lot of people/mods ...

I posted #85 to ask for suggestions for a name change, no one gave any ideas but if it needs to change, it needs to change. I don't mean to provoke anyone, much less give the impression that the God stuff is somehow universal. So I've asked for the name to be changed to "Modzilla" so it doesn't misrepresent or offend anyone else..

star-pants wrote: »

As said there are hundreds of mods, and whilst we have rules, and the admins/co-mods all watch each other to keep everyone in check, some might be more heavy handed than others. If these situations are pointed out in a non offensive way, it would make it easier to deal with. If I see one of my co-mods doing/saying something I don't quite agree with, I might question them or say 'look that was a bit unfair' or whatever. And they'd do it to me. Because we all need to work off the same page.

This is the way it should be

star-pants wrote: »

... been there, done that, got the headache.

A dangerous time for any poster, where objectivity may not survive.

star-pants wrote: »

So I think the process is place is a good one, just both posters and moderators need to utilise it properly. Posters AND moderators that jump into complaint threads making stupid comments or random :pac: don't help anyone.

Gordon

I changed the thread title to Performance Review which is what I think the gist of the OP is. Modzilla sounds like a browser discussion to me!

Podman

What about "General Moderator Performance", I think it would be more specific.

I don't want the thread to fall away into vagueness, it is after all, about Moderators.

..still open to good suggestions here folks..

Discodog

It does seem to me that we are discussing very complex answers to a relatively simple question. I still feel that a simplified version of the Court system would be easy & fair.

A poster would be able to complain about moderation & a Mod could complain about a poster. Each would get an opening post to outline their case. Followed by a maximum of three posts to rebut comment. Then each make a final closing post & an impartial judge gives a verdict.

This could all take place in open forum so that "justice" is seen to be done.

Podman

Discodog wrote: »

It does seem to me that we are discussing very complex answers to a relatively simple question. I still feel that a simplified version of the Court system would be easy & fair.

A poster would be able to complain about moderation & a Mod could complain about a poster. Each would get an opening post to outline their case. Followed by a maximum of three posts to rebut comment. Then each make a final closing post & an impartial judge gives a verdict.

This could all take place in open forum so that "justice" is seen to be done.

Is there any room for a selected "jury" of peers in that setup?

Podman

Gordon wrote: »

I changed the thread title to Performance Review which is what I think the gist of the OP is. Modzilla sounds like a browser discussion to me!

No, that's too vague. It's not the original gist at all.

Please either change it back to "Mods not Gods", or "General Moderator Performance".

The only people/mods who should be offended by "Mods not Gods" are mods who think they are gods, and who will do their best to see the thread shelved.

Spiritoftheseventies

chompy wrote: »

No, that's too vague. It's not the original gist at all.

Please either change it back to "Mods not Gods", or "General Moderator Performance".

The only people/mods who should be offended by "Mods not Gods" are mods who think they are gods, and who will do their best to see the thread shelved.

agree there.

Podman

Still waiting for replies about the name change lads, I am very patient about it as you can see, but I won't be letting it fade away.

I hope that I am not being ignored indefinitely, that might call for a special thread just to tell the story of the "Mods not Gods" name change saga.

Xavi6

Build a bridge tbh :rolleyes:

Podman

Fair play to the moderator yesterday who infracted another moderator for being involved in a slagging match.

It can sometimes be hard to keep the peace in threads, and as most of us know, it's all too easy to be dragged into an argument, even if your a Mod.

Fair play.

Podman

Xavi6 wrote: »

Build a bridge tbh :rolleyes:

I did, I'm surrounded by bloody bridges. Just not getting any change at all. Not even replies now.

-Chris-

Thread name now seems to be changed, you might want to update your sig...

Podman

-Chris- wrote: »

Thread name now seems to be changed, you might want to update your sig...

No, it hasn't been changed.

Dav

Why is this so important to you and what are you trying to accomplish in dragging this up?

-Chris-

chompy wrote: »

No, it hasn't been changed.

strobe

Thaedydal wrote: »

The admins do keep an eye and if a mod is out of line they get spoken to and if needed demodded.

I'm just curious....has that ever happened before? A mod getting demodded?

Dav

It's happened a few times, but thankfully not often.

-Chris-

Just thinking about it, I can't believe this zombie thread was resurrected after over 6 months because the thread title wasn't changed...

:rolleyes:

Podman

Dav wrote: »

Why is this so important to you and what are you trying to accomplish in dragging this up?

Transparency and Fair play are important to all boards readers, and are a going concern.

-Chris- wrote: »

Just thinking about it, I can't believe this zombie thread was resurrected after over 6 months because the thread title wasn't changed...

:rolleyes:

The issues are current, and the thread still has valid points, and what you believe or don't believe doesn't cover round after round of recent emails about it.

As far as I am concerned, this is still a current thread and an important thread for people to have their say on controversial moderator decisions. This thread is important enough to me for it to be linked as the first thing in my signature.

-Chris- wrote: »

Mods not Gods was the original name, and that is the name I wish it returned to, or else General Moderator Performance.

There are a few posts about this on the previous page (example)

-Chris-

chompy wrote: »

Mods not Gods was the original name, and that is the name I wish it returned to, or else General Moderator Performance.

There are a few posts about this on the previous page (example)

Apologies, I had that the wrong way around.

Podman

Thank You for the new name Darragh

4zn76tysfajdxp

Podman wrote: »

This thread is important enough to me for it to be linked as the first thing in my signature.

It's hard to take that seriously when you look at what's next in your sig.

dr.bollocko

"Mods not gods" is an unnecessarily overly emotive name for a thread asking for something with which to measure moderator performance (A theoretically reasonable request).

last name ever. first name greatest

dr.bollocko wrote: »

"Mods not gods" is an unnecessarily overly emotive name for a thread asking for something with which to measure moderator performance (A theoretically reasonable request).

Sadly it is down to the OP the title they chose for a thread. Their thread an all.

What can you do really.

AckwelFoley

last name ever. first name greatest wrote: »

Sadly it is down to the OP the title they chose for a thread. Their thread an all.

What can you do really.

They changed it to reflect the topic of discussion.

They changed it to encourage ongoing additions or comments to it.

The OP wasnt particularly pleased with the change and requested it be changed back or renamed to what he felt was more to his point without being overly tabloidesque

They changed it.

Thats what can be done really

last name ever. first name greatest

snyper wrote: »

They changed it to reflect the topic of discussion.

They changed it to encourage ongoing additions or comments to it.

The OP wasnt particularly pleased with the change and requested it be changed back or renamed to what he felt was more to his point without being overly tabloidesque

They changed it.

Thats what can be done really

The OP started the discussion/topic. All comments and discussion could have been based on the original thread title. That was the topic/discussion. It didn't have to be changed to reflect the "topic"

What is your point? Bar the point backing up the title change. Unless that was it

AckwelFoley

last name ever. first name greatest wrote: »

The OP started the discussion/topic. All comments and discussion could have been based on the original thread title. That was the topic/discussion. It didn't have to be changed to reflect the "topic"

What is your point? Bar the point backing up the title change. Unless that was it

"Stupid moderator decisions" is another title he could have used.

Neither would be apt.

Antagonism - its best avoided.

Overheal

Mods are not exactly given free reign. They are Moderated, as asked about in the original nature of the thread. But I don't think it should be down to the userbase (which as the OP exemplifies, can be anonymous at best) to 'vote them out' so to speak. I've seen people try though. Either because they wanted a mod that supported their football club or they wanted a mod thrown out because she was a woman. Or both, as I recall was the case in one or two examples years past.

I guess I'm not sure that the original purpose of the thread hasn't already been answered, which I think it has.