Selection of Mods

That_Guy

My name is URL wrote: »

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

Swearing in the soccer forum? I'm a regular poster in the soccer forum and I've not had one infraction over it. I've had infractions for other things but not swearing.

If you're going to infract somebody for swearing in the soccer forum then infract me and anyone else who swears there.

Armin_Tamzarian

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread is dragging on and on, with lots of you seemingly of the view that we made a mistake in not appointing URL as AH mod, because you think he'd be a great moderator. I'm not sure why you think he'd be a great moderator, or what makes most of you think you're a better judge of what makes a good moderator than the admins, but I accept that you guys think that you're right and we're wrong.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve, though. Are you demanding that we go against our judgement and make him a moderator? Why is it so important to you that he be a moderator? (I'm also curious why it's so important to him that he be a moderator.) Is this just an exercise in people power; in trying to claim that the people entrusted by the site owners with the overall welfare of the site can't be trusted to have the best interests of your forum at heart?

I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about.

You seem to be missing the point.
People are upset firstly because of the way the polls and the initial offering of the mod position was handled.
Secondly, as the debate raged on it became apparent that pretty much every contributer to this thread was in favour of Url being made a mod,
with the exception of the admins.

Url's a long standing AH poster who clearly knows how the place works
and he's always come across as being balanced and having common sense.
The arguments that have been offered for reasons to not allow him become a mod have been weak at best and everyone can see that.

I think what's really plssed people off is that to us it seems like the admins are saying "Url can't be a mod just cos we say so".
No admin seems capable of putting forward an argument that shows why Url is any less suitable that doc, frada, zohan, etc, etc.

It's a privately owned site but at the end of the day the people are the site and they deserve better IMO.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

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

You got an explanation and it wasn't 'generic' as you claimed.

Now you want to know about the explanations for other people's choices / non choices. This is something you really don't have a right / moral standpoint to know about.

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

Not posting in this thread wouldn't have created the fuss, no. But again - you already had the answers you were looking for before you started it.

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

Again - this reads more as 'I was wronged - avenge me angry mob' type thread, which really isn't doing you any favours (I would guess) in terms of your potential for modding down the road. Its their site - if the admins get it wrong, you aren't on any 'admin oversight committee'.

Armin_Tamzarian

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point.
People are upset firstly because of the way the polls and the initial offering of the mod position was handled.
Secondly, as the debate raged on it became apparent that pretty much every contributer to this thread was in favour of Url being made a mod,
with the exception of the admins.

Url's a long standing AH poster who clearly knows how the place works
and he's always come across as being balanced and having common sense.
The arguments that have been offered for reasons to not allow him become a mod have been weak at best and everyone can see that.

I think what's really plssed people off is that to us it seems like the admins are saying "Url can't be a mod just cos we say so".
No admin seems capable of putting forward an argument that shows why Url is any less suitable that doc, frada, zohan, etc, etc.

It's a privately owned site but at the end of the day the people are the site and they deserve better IMO.

I'm neither an admin nor do I know them hence I don't speak for them. But this kind of thread pisses me off no end.

Its the admin's site - they own and run it. If they say no, then sorry - the answer is no. The admins gave reasons, they just weren't accepted by Url or his mates. However, what you are looking for now is a discussion / debate / witch-hunt about why other people were made mod which is something that should not be done.

Lots of people of put forward as mods - some get it, some don't but a big public debate ex post on someone's suitability / non-suitability is not on. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone bar the person in question and the admins. End of - its nothing to do with you / me / anyone else on this site.

Quazzie

Deleted User wrote: »

The admins gave reasons, they just weren't accepted by Url or his mates.

MNIU is seeking a reason that is applicable throughout Boards as to why he was not made mod. The reason's he were given seem to be applied to him whilst not applied to others, so he started this thread asking for clarification on why he was singled out amongst the others. If someone can't do that, then no matter who owns the site, its not one I've become accustomed to and the recent changes around here regarding admin decisions just continues to grow.

MNIU asked a question in the OP and amongst everything else thats been posted his original question was not answered. Why were regulations applied to him that have not been applied to other moderators before?

Quazzie

Quazzie wrote: »

MNIU is seeking a reason that is applicable throughout Boards as to why he was not made mod. The reason's he were given seem to be applied to him whilst not applied to others, so he started this thread asking for clarification on why he was singled out amongst the others. If someone can't do that, then no matter who owns the site, its not one I've become accustomed to and the recent changes around here regarding admin decisions just continues to grow.

MNIU asked a question in the OP and amongst everything else thats been posted his original question was not answered. Why were regulations applied to him that have not been applied to other moderators before?

So, you are asking for the reasons of why other people were made mods over him? Ie, you asking - what is so special about him/her?

I would be pissed if the admins started explaining the pros / cons of why I was made mod relative to other people. Furthermore, I've been in conversations with admins about getting new co-mods and I would be very unhappy if those conversations were mad public.

Sorry Url, but you were given reasons why you aren't acceptable and you are really going to have to just suck it up. For the people who have similar 'form' as you and were made mod, then there was something else about that poster that in the admins eyes balanced out there previous infractions and transgressions. For you, I'm guessing the admins just don't see such a quality.

You (and your mates) are now calling for those extra 'qualities' that an individual holds to be a mod to be discussed in public, and to my mind at least, that reinforces my belief that you (and your mates) lack those qualities.

Sorry - but its you, not me.

My name is URL

Nice assumption there Zaraba, indeed everyone that's agreeing with my points must be my mate.. they couldn't possibly just happen to share my views could they?

You're right, I'm not on any 'Admin Oversight Committee' nor do I have a right to know anything. Nobody on Boards does, but I'd like to see how long the site would last if everyone was as dismissive of people's concerns as you seem to be

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Its the admin's site - they own and run it.

Actually just for accuracy, DAFT.ie and the other founders of the site own it. DeVore, an admin, who is one of the original founders also has a stake of ownership in the site.

They may be entrusted with a higher level of input than mods, but the admins with one(?) exception(and DeVore) are all volunteers just like mods and have no biz or financial stake in the site. I think that's important to be clear about. Someone with a business stake in the site is naturally coming from a slightly different angle to someone who is a pure volunteer. Plus as volunteers their passion for the place, given the work they put in can hardly be doubted, even if someone disagrees on some of their decisions. Hence I think their volunteer status cant be undervalued.

6th

Having had my fair slice of the feedback forum over the years I have to say all this should have stayed in PM etc. These type of treads never help anyone.

Quazzie

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you are asking for the reasons of why other people were made mods over him? Ie, you asking - what is so special about him/her?

I think it is a valid query to wonder why one user was singled out against others. Such a thing helps stop prejudice and bullying. I am not claiming either of these is the case here, but if we don't ask then how are we ever to know.

EDIT: also please don't misquote me again or try to twist my words, its not fair on me or this topic.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I would be pissed if the admins started explaining the pros / cons of why I was made mod relative to other people. Furthermore, I've been in conversations with admins about getting new co-mods and I would be very unhappy if those conversations were mad public.

I agree, I would be the very same, but forget about MNIU for a second.

The issue here is also that it seems from reading of it, the other mods of the forum wanted him, his cMod wanted him and these appeared to be ignored to some degree or other.

If I imagine that say in PI a year ago, we all had a chinwag and all agreed on X, a regular known poster and contributer to PI. Then passed that up to the cmod and they agreed yea X is a good idea. Then we sounded them out to see if they were interested... OK not a good plan in the current system I grant you, though understandable if there had been a go from every one up to that point. Then we get told nope, not suitable. Im pretty sure we would ask questions. As mods. Never mind the of going back to X and saying sorry jumped the gun there.

Its a communication issue first and foremost.

Wibbs

6th wrote: »

Having had my fair slice of the feedback forum over the years I have to say all this should have stayed in PM etc. These type of treads never help anyone.

+ 1 though maybe it'll make people in the structure more careful about jumping guns in the future?

6th

Wibbs wrote: »

Its a communication issue first and foremost.

^^ that.

IITYWYBMAD

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you are asking for the reasons of why other people were made mods over him?

Nobody is asking those questions.

Ie, you asking - what is so special about him/her?

No, that neither.

I would be pissed if the admins started explaining the pros / cons of why I was made mod relative to other people.

Really? good, nobody is asking that either.

Furthermore, I've been in conversations with admins about getting new co-mods and I would be very unhappy if those conversations were mad public.

Are you in discussions, good. Nobody is asking for your "discussion" to be mad or made public.

You (and your mates) are now calling for those extra 'qualities' that an individual holds to be a mod to be discussed in public, and to my mind at least, that reinforces my belief that you (and your mates) lack those qualities.

Are you really that naive, that you believe that people asking for a decision to be explained or, at least, for a rule/criteria to be evenly used, that all those people are actually mates? Really, do you think that?

Sorry - but its you, not me.

I tend to agree.

Quazzie

6th wrote: »

Having had my fair slice of the feedback forum over the years I have to say all this should have stayed in PM etc. These type of treads never help anyone.

I agree with the exception that if nothing else this thread has served to highlight a few things
1. A communication error than now hopefully will be rectified and not repeated

and

2. Its states what the selection process is for moderators and highlights a few possible flaws in the system. Some good feedback came from this thread amidst the rabble and that is invaluable to both the admins and ordinary posters who now realise that should they every want to become a moderator in the future they know that its a site wide performance they have to maintain.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree, I would be the very same, but forget about MNIU for a second.

The issue here is also that it seems from reading of it, the other mods of the forum wanted him, his cMod wanted him and these appeared to be ignored to some degree or other.

If I imagine that say in PI a year ago, we all had a chinwag and all agreed on X, a regular known poster and contributer to PI. Then passed that up to the cmod and they agreed yea X is a good idea. Then we sounded them out to see if they were interested... OK not a good plan in the current system I grant you, though understandable if there had been a go from every one up to that point. Then we get told nope, not suitable. Im pretty sure we would ask questions. As mods. Never mind the of going back to X and saying sorry jumped the gun there.

Its a communication issue first and foremost.

I've been in that situation with DeV before - the key from this thread is that what I said to Dev, I would not like to be made public and if someone can't see / understand that then IMO (and again, I'm not an admin so its nothing to do with me) they should not be made a mod.

In my case - DeV and I exchanged PMs, I'm sure DeV talked to other admins and a decision was made. Its his call at the end of the day, its his site (well, partly his).

However - if information that was exchanged under privacy, and all parties in the exchange understood and acted according to the fact that the information was private, became public then that, I think, is an appalling decision to take. That seems to be what Url and others are calling for, and that, to me, is a way bigger issue that URL's modding / non modding call which really from someone jumping a gun, something that shouldn't happen again.

Quazzie

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been in that situation with DeV before - the key from this thread is that what I said to Dev, I would not like to be made public and if someone can't see / understand that then IMO (and again, I'm not an admin so its nothing to do with me) they should not be made a mod.

In my case - DeV and I exchanged PMs, I'm sure DeV talked to other admins and a decision was made. Its his call at the end of the day, its his site (well, partly his).

However - if information that was exchanged under privacy, and all parties in the exchange understood and acted according to the fact that the information was private, became public then that, I think, is an appalling decision to take. That seems to be what Url and others are calling for, and that, to me, is a way bigger issue that URL's modding / non modding call which really from someone jumping a gun, something that shouldn't happen again.

I must've missed the part in this thread where anyone cared what you and DeV conversed about. No one asked for any such thing so maybe you need to re-read the thread before assuming any such thing. MNIU was asking a question specific to him, that also opens up a few more for discussion. It is a discussion site after all.

Long story short, no one will make you open your closet.

IITYWYBMAD

Quazzie wrote: »

I must've missed the part in this thread where anyone cared what you and DeV conversed about. No one asked for any such thing so maybe you need to re-read the thread before assuming any such thing. MNIU was asking a question specific to him, that also opens up a few more for discussion. It is a discussion site after all.

Long story short, no one will make you open your closet.

+1

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been in that situation with DeV before - the key from this thread is that what I said to Dev, I would not like to be made public and if someone can't see / understand that then IMO (and again, I'm not an admin so its nothing to do with me) they should not be made a mod.

In my case - DeV and I exchanged PMs, I'm sure DeV talked to other admins and a decision was made. Its his call at the end of the day, its his site (well, partly his).

However - if information that was exchanged under privacy, and all parties in the exchange understood and acted according to the fact that the information was private, became public then that, I think, is an appalling decision to take. That seems to be what Url and others are calling for, and that, to me, is a way bigger issue that URL's modding / non modding call which really from someone jumping a gun, something that shouldn't happen again.

Who's calling for anyone else's private discussions to be made public? I think you're seeing something in this thread that isn't there tbh, or else deliberately building straw-men and dragging this off-topic in order for it to be closed

Saying that the reasoning applied to my case doesn't seem to have been applied as strictly in other cases is not an invasion of anyone else's privacy, it's a fair observation

Quazzie

Quazzie wrote: »

I must've missed the part in this thread where anyone cared what you and DeV conversed about. No one asked for any such thing so maybe you need to re-read the thread before assuming any such thing. MNIU was asking a question specific to him, that also opens up a few more for discussion. It is a discussion site after all.

Long story short, no one will make you open your closet.

But that is exactly what Url is calling for - he is asking 'why is this person, who also did X,Y and Z which I was told I was rejected for, made a mod?'

In general, the answer is because that person has also done A, B and C which we think will make them a good mod, even though yes, they did X,Y and Z.

URL is now asking for the reasons (call them A, B and C) about named mods. That leads to an 'opening of the closet' and to getting into a place which I don't see as great for the future of this site.

Yes, this site is a discussion site, but there are boundaries on those discussions and talking about relatively private aspects of users on this site should not be fair game for feedback ranting. This is embodied in the 'attack the post, not the poster' rule.

Quazzie

Deleted User wrote: »

But that is exactly what Url is calling for - he is asking 'why is this person, who also did X,Y and Z which I was told I was rejected for, made a mod?'

In general, the answer is because that person has also done A, B and C which we think will make them a good mod, even though yes, they did X,Y and Z.

URL is now asking for the reasons (call them A, B and C) about named mods. That leads to an 'opening of the closet' and to getting into a place which I don't see as great for the future of this site.

Yes, this site is a discussion site, but there are boundaries on those discussions and talking about relatively private aspects of users on this site should not be fair game for feedback ranting. This is embodied in the 'attack the post, not the poster' rule.

I think you have mistenterprated his intentions with the questions. His general question regarding other mods has always been a general "them" rather than a specific "ModX". Poccington was mentioned once or twice but that was because he (like a few others) volunteered information about themselves regarding infractions and bans.

If you think MNIU is calling for any kind of action taken against a specific mod or any reasoning in regards any specific mods appointment then you are mistaken. All he has asked is why such regulations of mod appointment before has suddenly changed when it came to him.

OutlawPete

Deleted User wrote: »

there are boundaries on those discussions and talking about relatively private aspects of users on this site should not be fair game for feedback ranting. .

Now your just arguing with yourself.

Nobody wants or is asking for what you are suggesting.

URL just wants to know what specifically it was about his posting style or content made him not suitable to be approved for Modship.

This can be PM'd to him and then if URL posts that he is happy then I am sure that people (not his "mates" :rolleyes:) will be satisfied for him.

End of.

He has already stated that he does not want to reverse the decision.

DeVore

Sorry lads, this is going no where.

Mods and Cmods suggest users, sometime we ask users to pop their hat in the ring but since its the admins and I who have to clean up the place after them, its the admins and I who make the final decision.

I think we made the right call and I'm sticking by it. This thread has a limited lifespan. I'm sorry to be blunt but I'm under pressure here.

DeV.

OutlawPete

OutlawPete wrote: »

URL just wants to know what specifically it was about his posting style or content made him not suitable to be approved for Modship.

Url was told this. Its in the post where Dav published the PMs.

URL was told this before he started the thread. However, URL wasn't happy because he saw other people who have been made mods were guilty of the transgressions as he was. Hence he posted asking why he wasn't a mod and they were.

Now, the only way to answer that is to start getting into the talking about things which are none of the business bar the person in question and the admin

bonkey

My name is URL wrote: »

Who's calling for anyone else's private discussions to be made public?

With respect, you've argued that criteria that were applied to you were apparently not applied in other cases.

If that's not suggesting that those other cases be discussed (as you seem to be clarifying), then it would seem to be taking a stance that you must know the admins cannot fairly respond to.

OutlawPete

Deleted User wrote: »

URL was told this before he started the thread. However, URL wasn't happy because he saw other people who have been made mods were guilty of the transgressions as he was. Hence he posted asking why he wasn't a mod and they were.

Yes, which is why he is asking for ADMIN to be specific about what it was excatly. You're not getting his point which you should be, even if you do not agree with it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, the only way to answer that is to start getting into the talking about things which are none of the business bar the person in question and the admin

Here you go again. Your like a broken record.

NOBODY wants to know this. Stop saying that they do.

My name is URL

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, you've argued that criteria that were applied to you were apparently not applied in other cases.

If that's not suggesting that those other cases be discussed (as you seem to be clarifying), then it would seem to be taking a stance that you must know the admins cannot fairly respond to.

I don't want them to be discussed, and there's nothing apparent about it. Mods have PM'd me saying that they got the position with prior misbehavior on the site

Nothing about those other cases needs to be discussed, it's obvious that the decision made against me was based on something other than the reasons I was given.

I guess this thread is done now.. what has it achieved? Probably nothing

I know that in future, I personally will have little faith in how things are done though, and it seems that Admins have little faith in the Mods and users of the forum either

Wibbs

My name is URL wrote: »

Saying that the reasoning applied to my case doesn't seem to have been applied as strictly in other cases is not an invasion of anyone else's privacy, it's a fair observation

it is

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, you've argued that criteria that were applied to you were apparently not applied in other cases.

Well in fairness they werent or there are examples where they werent. EG I got three forum bans under my belt just before I was asked to mod PI. And warnings in other places, including PI actually. I would not get the gig now. Not just for those reasons though, but mostly

My take FWIW? In the last year or so, the site has changed. The hierarchy at the top has changed, the level of attention the site gets has changed and there have been issues in front of and behind the scenes with these changes. Some constructive some not. Mod selection now is more about The Role tm and the hierarchal decision process(more obviously than before). Which includes being a team player and a known quantity so more stuff doesnt get to the issue stage. Safe pair of hands basically and less headaches for the admins(though sometimes they need those headaches to make improvements, just like mods do).

Understandable too as mods can cause actual damage if they did go batshít(though I dont think anyone ever has?). It also minimises the chances of mods of one forum getting too big for boots too. And equally less accusations of cliques forming. Though that will always happen. Like I said before a lot of current and past mods would not get the nod now.

2 years ago I suspect this thread may never have been posted. But times change. This may mean blander choices may happen from now on. Especially on the bigger forums. It may not. Hopefully not.

OutlawPete

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yes, which is why he is asking for ADMIN to be specific about what it was excatly. You're not getting his point which you should be, even if you do not agree with it.



Here you go again. Your like a broken record.

NOBODY wants to know this. Stop saying that they do.

Dav's PM is pretty clear about why he wasn't deemed to be acceptable.

URL response - but other people on here have done the same thing, why are they mods?

Now - how can this question be answered without going into personal details about other people?

Dav

I haven't had a much time to look in on this today. Every private communication I've had with URL has ended in him saying he was happy with what I'd said and there was no further request for information or clarification. Now why he felt he couldn't ask for this clarification when we were talking is beyond me, but here it is:

After Hours is the busiest forum on the site. Lately we've lost a lot of mods there all who seem to have become "burnt out" with it. We don't want another regular of the forum becoming burnt out because they can no longer use the forum the way they used to. It's hugely unfair to ask someone to "change their ways" for this. So if you look at the latest mods added to the forum, they're people who have moderation experience and who aren't total strangers to AH so they know there's a sliding scale of what's good for the forum and not. They also don't find themselves in the position of having to potentially "discipline" their regular forum friends over the type of thread that not too long ago they themselves were having just as much fun with.

So do these "exacting standards" get applied to every mod? No, of course not. Not every mod is going to take on the beast that is AH. On our busier forums, we have to give more thought to who takes it on. If anyone thinks this is a bad way to go about appointing Mods, then so be it, we'll have it out when the time comes in Feed Forward.

So that's why more care was given to the AH mod selection. If URL was up for a quiet forum at the time, we'd probably have a different situation.

I really do hope that can be the end of this discussion - I have no idea why it's still running.

To recap (and this is generalising somewhat):

• Mod selection is ultimately the decision of the Admins.
• Existing mods and CMods have a big part to play in this process.
• The forum members really don't have a lot of say in this (but if someone's clearly a popular member of a community, it will certainly count in their favour).
  I'm sorry if this seems grossly unfair, but this is how the system works and has always worked (and I think we can all agree that it pretty much does work - no one is making claims it's perfect though).
• For a busier forum, the admins will take extra care to make sure the right person is chosen for the job.
• The whole issue and process surrounding Selection of Moderators will be addressed and reviewed and clarified when the FeedForward forum comes into being.

Dav