Selection of Mods

IITYWYBMAD

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes in my pm box and the reported posts forum and being told by admins that getting banned from forums for the lulz is not acceptable.

Also being told in AH to stop posting and go back to the serious forums :mad:

The fact that Poccington was made a mod less than two years ago would counter this.

LoLth wrote: »

can I ask you to stay calm here? Admins are not "looking for a reason to lock" this thread. No-one has assigned motives to anyone yet and more than once posters have expressly pointed out that that is not their intent.

as for where you said and admin has a grudge



From the wording it could easily be read to mean that "this" in "this is not the first time" refers to URLs application to be a mod. OscarBravo has every right to ask why you would think that.

This thread has been relatively civilised and rational thus far. Taking a minute before reacting to a post might be a good tactic at this point.

I'm perfectly calm. I also think that OB knows I would have no idea why URL was turned down, or why he was black balled. As has been stated on this thread posters with a previous ban history, have been appointed mods, and yet no detrimental affect has been felt to the forums (see Poccington above). I can perfectly accept that Admins have the last say on this, and that's just the way things are...*shrug tbh*.....

oscarBravo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I also think that OB knows I would have no idea why URL was turned down, or why he was black balled.

He hasn't been black balled, and it is at best disingenuous to try to suggest that he has.

Ponster

My name is URL wrote: »

When people say things like 'we have the best interests of the site to take into account' it implies that making me a Mod would be against the best interests of the site, ergo - me being a mod would be damaging to the site

Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that someone thought that there was someone better than you to mod AH.

If for some reason you were the only person available to mod AH and were still turned down I'd understand your feelings.

My name is URL

LoLth wrote: »

ok, this is going in circles.

URL, I've asked Dav if its ok to post the PMs that were initially discussed. Is it ok with you if I do so?

Yeah sure, I think I've mentioned most of the points made in them during this thread anyway

IITYWYBMAD

oscarBravo wrote: »

He hasn't been black balled, and it is at best disingenuous to try to suggest that he has.

Huh..? He was considered, and turned down. i.e. blackballed. Are you saying he wasn't considered?

There are no negative connotations in my description of what happened. I think we all know the outlying facts.

oscarBravo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Huh..? He was considered, and turned down. i.e. blackballed. Are you saying he wasn't considered?

There are no negative connotations in my description of what happened. I think we all know the outlying facts.

The word "blackballed" has negative connotations. It implies a permanent rejection from future consideration.

He was considered, and turned down. No need for potentially loaded words.

IITYWYBMAD

oscarBravo wrote: »

The word "blackballed" has negative connotations. It implies a permanent rejection from future consideration.

He was considered, and turned down. No need for potentially loaded words.

It's not loaded, it may have some different meaning in your books, but to the majority of people it has the same meaning it always had since it entered the vernacular. Where the words "permanent" and "future consideration" come from in relation to "blackballed", I have no idea.

pickarooney

How about: "URL, we decided to go for a candidate with more experience". Would that accurately describe the decision and appease URL's (understandable) sense of being passed over for something he has said or done, or may do, without understanding what that is?

LoLth

well synonyms of blackball are blacklist, ostracise and boycott.

blackball is a negative vote as well. I'm assumign that this is the meaning in your use of the word. However its important to note that URL is not "blacklisted" , "ostracised" or "boycotted" with regards holding a boards position such as moderator in the future which could be a , granted mistaken, interpretation of the phrase that someone is blackballed.

My name is URL

The most pressing question I had still hasn't been addressed

The reasons I was given sound straightforward enough, but why are they not applied to others? That's what makes it hard for me to grasp

I'm not trying to have a dig at any other mod on the site, but others have worse histories than me, others use worse language than me, others don't take part in serious discussions

IITYWYBMAD

LoLth wrote: »

well synonyms of blackball are blacklist, ostracise and boycott.

So are reject, veto, snub, disallow, exclude, prohibit, prevent, interdict, pass up, pass by, etc... I was not using a synonym. I think it's important to point out when I said black balled, I meant black balled or blackballed.

blackball is a negative vote as well.

And that's what I mean. He was considered "unsuitable", so by default somebody must have said "hey that URL guy, he's unsuitable" and "voted" against him or blackballed him. Maybe there was more than 1 vote, I dunno.

Buford T Justice

This thread is dragging on OB, yes, because Admins still have not answered the original question.

URL asked why he was not chosen to be mod, after the reason he got form Dav was quite generic and didn't cut it. Since then all that has been said is that he wasn't suited to the role at this time or wasn't mod material.

THese answeres are generic too. Like a job interview when you get told that after conisderation you were unsucessful in securing the position blah blah blah. Behind that guff there is a specifc reason why you didn't get the job. Same here. An admin had to have said I don't want URL as a mod because of X or Y.

In the interests of transparency, can we be told what the specific reason that URL was not selected as a mod.

Is that too much to ask?

Sparks

Fingers McGee wrote: »

In the interests of transparency, can we be told what the specific reason that URL was not selected as a mod.
Is that too much to ask?

In general - and I want to be clear, I'm not talking about URL here - that would be a bad idea. What if reproducing the reason constituted libel? The specific person involved might deserve to know, but - no offence meant - we certainly have no right to that information. And normally neither mods nor cmods would be told anything more than has been put forward in this thread.

seamus

Fingers McGee wrote: »

An admin had to have said I don't want URL as a mod because of X or Y.

No they don't. It could be exactly as the admins have said. Why is there a fixation on one specific reason? Why can it not be accepted by some people that an overall judgement of the poster as a whole was used as the basis to decide that they would not make an appropriate moderator.

To use your analogy - It's rare that someone fails a job interview based on a single aspect of their CV or a single part of their interview. Their profile doesn't fit the profile that the employer is looking for, so they don't get employed. But if asked, it's very rare that an employer can go - "There's this one item, that you fixed it, you would get the job".

In the interests of transparency, can we be told what the specific reason that URL was not selected as a mod.

With all due respect, it's no-one's business except the admins'. This has nothing to do with transparency whatsoever, it's just pitchfork waving.

No matter what any admin says, someone's always going to pipe up and say, "That's not good enough, give us a better reason!"

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

This has nothing to do with transparency whatsoever, it's just pitchfork waving.

It amazes me that not only do you know the reasoning behind every Admin decision (and yes I know you're an ex), but you also seem to know the exact reasoning behind anybody who has the temerity to question that decision.

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

but you also seem to know the exact reasoning behind anybody who has the temerity to question that decision.

There's a big difference between "transparency" and "I deserve to know absolutely everything about every decision". A large number of posters seem to get confused between the two though.

The information behind URLs non-selection holds zero value for anyone but URL and the admins. Asking for that information is noseyness and nothing else.

Besides, the information has already been supplied. But for some reason, some people don't accept that many decisions aren't black-and-white and bulleted.

Buford T Justice

My name is URL wrote: »

Could an Admin not have contacted me directly to inform me what the issues were about making me Mod?

No doubt you'll think I'm just bitter about the decision made, but I'm not.. I'm just annoyed that I was messed around with and led to believe that I was going to be made mod without any Admin taking the time to explain to me why I wouldn't

seamus wrote: »

It could be exactly as the admins have said. Why is there a fixation on one specific reason? Why can it not be accepted by some people that an overall judgement of the poster as a whole was used as the basis to decide that they would not make an appropriate moderator.

The question has been asked here by URL, and no answer given barr a generic one.

To use your analogy - It's rare that someone fails a job interview based on a single aspect of their CV or a single part of their interview. Their profile doesn't fit the profile that the employer is looking for, so they don't get employed. But if asked, it's very rare that an employer can go - "There's this one item, that you fixed it, you would get the job".
With all due respect, it's no-one's business except the admins'. This has nothing to do with transparency whatsoever, it's just pitchfork waving.

Sorry, but thats waffle. If you get interviewed, then you likely fit the profile for a job. At that stage it would generally be something in the interview that would let you down. Feedback is critical for anyone to improve on anything. I've not got jobs in the past and asked for feedback. I get direction on what I could do better to improve my chances. Same thing here, only the feedback is being denied.

No matter what any admin says, someone's always going to pipe up and say, "That's not good enough, give us a better reason!"

Again, waffle. but generic 'you didn't suit the profile' yes.

Buford T Justice

seamus wrote: »

The information behind URLs non-selection holds zero value for anyone but URL and the admins. Asking for that information is noseyness and nothing else.

Point being, URL has asked, and he hasn't been told so he has started a feedback thread. He still hasn't been told.

Sparks

Good grief, being a mod isn't a part of your career!

oscarBravo

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Point being, URL has asked, and he hasn't been told so he has started a feedback thread. He still hasn't been told.

He has been told. Not liking the answer isn't the same as not being told.

Buford T Justice

oscarBravo wrote: »

He has been told. Not liking the answer isn't the same as not being told.

An answer has been given, but URL has asked for more details on it. Some elaboration if you will. This has not been done. Why not? (Just to be clear here, I am not demanding anything, I am simply asking the question)

Don't recall seeing a post saying he didn't like the answer.

--amadeus--

seamus wrote: »

The information behind URLs non-selection holds zero value for anyone but URL and the admins. Asking for that information is noseyness and nothing else.

Agree generally but I would have thought the info would be of value for teh AH mods & CMods as well to ensure that they put forward "good" candidates in the future. As in if URL was knocked back for <random silly reason> having a big nose then the Mods should be told so they can make sure no big nosed posters are put forward in future.

2 other quick points - tightening up rules for new mods is no bad thing and in light of the "higher standard" idea restricting mod selection to users with no previous bans may not be a bad idea - there are after all tens of thousands of them. And if that decision is taken then the only people who can make it are the Admins. But - like above - Mods should know in advance so that they can only put forward suitable people.

Second point is that a wider discussion on the roles of Mods, CMods & Admins would probably be of value as there seems (to me anyway) have been some shifting of boundaries; less so at Admin level but fairly signifigantly at CMod. Clarifying that would cover a root issue to this thread and would probably be a good use of teh "Feedforward" forum.

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

He has been told. Not liking the answer isn't the same as not being told.

Of course I don't like the answer, that's a given

The main reason I don't like the answer however is because it seems to have been applied to my case while in other instances it hasn't

Here is the original PM I received from Dav in relation to me asking why I wasn't a suitable candidate -

Well, the very obvious trolling on the Parenting forum in the past, as well as a less than perfect record elsewhere on the site have definitely gone against you. The way you post, the language you use and the attitude you have to being a member here isn't really what we'd look for in a mod either. You come across as someone who treats the site as somewhere to have a laugh, as opposed to a place where you can engage in discussion.

It's not that we have a problem with that or with you personally (because, simply put, you wouldn't still be here if that was the case ), we just didn't think you'd make a good choice of moderator because of what it is you seem to get out of Boards. You would probably have to change the way you post and that's not the sort of thing we think is fair to expect from people.

I hope that helps.

If those reasons were applied to every Mod on the site, would they all still be Mods?

Here's the thread I made in Parenting btw, - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59570707#post59570707 ... by far the most severe infraction I've received..

another in FB - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62312498#post62312498

I have 2 more, which were for swearing in the Soccer forum.. so although I realize that my behavior in the past hasn't been perfect, it's not exactly been despicable either

ejmaztec

Sparks wrote: »

Good grief, being a mod isn't a part of your career!

It would be if there was danger money involved. No-one in their right mind would want to do it for nothing. I'd never put myself forward, nor would I ever expect to be asked for this reason alone.;)

pickarooney

ejmaztec wrote: »

It would be if there was danger money involved. No-one in their right mind would want to do it for nothing. I'd never put myself forward, nor would I ever expect to be asked for this reason alone.;)

Your post count is 8008 - fnaar fnaar fnaar!

ejmaztec

pickarooney wrote: »

Your post count is 8008 - fnaar fnaar fnaar!

I'm certain that someone here owes me some money for my inane contributions, and when I find out who it is, they'll be toast if they don't cough up.:P

Wibbs

--amadeus-- wrote: »

2 other quick points - tightening up rules for new mods is no bad thing and in light of the "higher standard" idea restricting mod selection to users with no previous bans may not be a bad idea - there are after all tens of thousands of them.

Well for a start I would contend there's not tens of thousands of them. How many regged users are online on the entire site now? 2000? What I mean is theres a much smaller pool of people, per forum, that post regularly in a contributive way, havent dirtied their bib too much, that would have the time or the inclination and the skillset* to be up for moderating. Its a more finite resource as it were than it appears. Plus if you were to retrospectively apply the same criteria(previous bans/infractions) to current mods one helluva lot of them wouldn't pass. Bloody good ones too. Even in the last two years. Im sure there are even admins who've picked up a "ahh jayuz pull your head in" warning in their time here. Nothing wrong with that either IMHO.

And if that decision is taken then the only people who can make it are the Admins. But - like above - Mods should know in advance so that they can only put forward suitable people.

Generally Id imagine that was the case already. This seems an isolated enough incidence in my experience in the forums Ive been involved in anyway. IE I cant recall it ever happening where someone was rejected from above. Maybe that's changing or may change though, with the application of this new standard?

Second point is that a wider discussion on the roles of Mods, CMods & Admins would probably be of value as there seems (to me anyway) have been some shifting of boundaries; less so at Admin level but fairly signifigantly at CMod. Clarifying that would cover a root issue to this thread and would probably be a good use of teh "Feedforward" forum.

+1

Plus a personal worry would be and has been that the application of "order and rules"or more concrete "official" ones may detract from someone wanting to take up the role? Or those that do are merely a layer of caretakers not intimately involved with the particular community. Im sure I could mod by numbers say the Christian forum or Golf or somesuch, but while it may go alright, something would be lost by not promoting from within. Quite a lot would be lost actually. I'm in a couple of RL fishing clubs. If someone was brought in as a professional "higher member" and he or she was a golfer, most would go WTF?

Not that its a promotion either, but by going this route too far it may more and more start to look like one. IMHO This mod distinction on boards is obvious enough without drawing even more attention to it.

A balance is needed. Not in this particular case, or at least as I for one dont know all sides, but as general thing. Posters, good posters who want the gig and whose fellows and mods in the community want them to get the gig should be given precedence over "Pro" mods. Those people are the ones who will be interacting with them every day. Before anyone says "well in business you have to deal with people promoted from on high" etc. Well this isnt business, or shouldnt be. Not to that degree. Plus people have more faith in any community when they feel their input is being acknowledged and may be rewarded(if modding is a reward for them).



* IMHO the skillset is simple cop on, an idea how people operate and the sense not to rub people in the forum up the wrong way as much as poss. Freedom of time and energy interest and inclination are bigger parts of the role on a practical basis anyway.

End of the day - its the admins site, their rules. They made a decision, they've released the factors that lead to that decision. What more do you want?

Seriously - you aren't doing yourself any favours here. If you really want to become a mod (something you claim that you don't, yet you're quite het up because you were denied the choice) the best thing would have been to address the issues mentioned by Dav in private with Dav while making sure that you don't continue with those actions.

Because - at the end of the day, this isn't a civil service entrance exam and not for one moment are we all homogenous - its a private site who have the right not to appoint you a mod/cmod/admin.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

End of the day - its the admins site, their rules. They made a decision, they've released the factors that lead to that decision. What more do you want?

An honest explanation as to why those factors were applied so stringently to my case and not to others.

Seriously - you aren't doing yourself any favours here. If you really want to become a mod (something you claim that you don't, yet you're quite het up because you were denied the choice) the best thing would have been to address the issues mentioned by Dav in private with Dav while making sure that you don't continue with those actions.

Not posting this thread wouldn't have done me any favors either, it'd just be a flash in the pan that nobody was aware of, and it would be forgotten about as quickly as it was brought up

Because - at the end of the day, this isn't a civil service entrance exam and not for one moment are we all homogenous - its a private site who have the right not to appoint you a mod/cmod/admin.

Who said it was? They do have a right to make any decision they make. It doesn't mean they're infallible though

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

There's a big difference between "transparency" and "I deserve to know absolutely everything about every decision". A large number of posters seem to get confused between the two though.

The information behind URLs non-selection holds zero value for anyone but URL and the admins. Asking for that information is noseyness and nothing else.

You're trotting out the "every decision" thing again.

Look, I'm sure that nobody is looking for a 16/17 page diatribe on every decision that is made. However, if somebody starts a thread asking why they have not been made a Mod, or they have had communication between them and the "powers that be", and the answer they receive is less than satisfactory (to them), are you saying that they cannot ask more? Can they not have a discussion on it?

Irrespective of that, this:

LoLth wrote: »

URL, I've asked Dav if its ok to post the PMs that were initially discussed. Is it ok with you if I do so?

and MNIU's subsequent agreement of it, should clarify the situation for the voyeurs, not that I'm one of them.