Process for appointing new mods

donfers

right, last time I started a thread in this forum I asked if mods can delete non-offensive on-topoic posts without giving an explanation and just for the simple reason that they disagree, I was informed they can do this and to contact the forum mods to ask why, I did this and unsurprisingly I got no response

Now on top of all this I want to ask about the process for appointing new mods, I notice new mods appearing every now and then and on the more partizan forums here (not AH, which is in my opinion the most fairly moderated forum) it seems that mods being appointed are some of the most partizan and outspoken of posters, I thought mods were meant to be impartial, objective and balanced but looking at the appointment of certain mods in certain forums beggars belief and makes the forums they belong to even more entrenched, one-eyed and partizan, hence the cosy clique accusations again.

Let me state I have no interest in becoming a mod and again let me also say the vast majority are grand but it is astonishing to see how certain forums are appointing certain mods.
In light of this may I ask what is the process for appointing new mods?

The admission here that mods can unilaterally decided to delete whatever posts they wish without any justification or explanation was quite disappointing and thus it is doubly important that there is some credible process in place to appoint mods, if it's a case of the new mod simply holding the same opinions/ frequently thanking/sucking up to/having the same sheep-minded consensus as other prominent mods on a forum and simply getting a pm and being asked to do it then really that is beyond a joke and it consolidates the lack of integrity at the heart of a few forums here, stifling real debate and promoting propoganda

If a user's submission for a new forum is accepted, they are given the chance to mod it alongside the category mods. If there is a need for a new mod, the current ones will put forward who they feel is best suited; this may be whoever has personal experience in the area, whoever contributes the most etc. The admins then decide if the person is acceptable or not.

Zaph

Deleted User wrote: »

If a user's submission for a new forum is accepted, they are given the chance to mod it alongside the category mods.

This is not necessarily true and, if anything, proposing a forum will often put a poster to the bottom of the list for mod if the forum is created. The logic behind this is to stop a rash of new forum requests just so someone can be made a mod.

donfers, you're throwing out all sorts of opinions and supposition there. Without any specific examples it's impossible to discuss your contention that only partisan mods are appointed.

As regards new mods just getting a PM asking if they're interested, I can assure you that the process is more involved than that.

donfers

Zaph wrote: »

This is not necessarily true and, if anything, proposing a forum will often put a poster to the bottom of the list for mod if the forum is created. The logic behind this is to stop a rash of new forum requests just so someone can be made a mod.

donfers, you're throwing out all sorts of opinions and supposition there. Without any specific examples it's impossible to discuss your contention that only partisan mods are appointed.

As regards new mods just getting a PM asking if they're interested, I can assure you that the process is more involved than that.

ok i appreciate I was a bit vague, anyway can you go into detail on the process involved?

Because I can be quite dogmatic, passionate and partisan at times the last thing I should ever be is a mod, but because I am these things I recognise these traits in others and ummm I don't believe they should be mods either.....but it's not really for me to name and shame as who am I to judge (just one user's opinion) so the most I can do is ivestigate how mods are appointed (details on process) and rationale or reaosning behind the appointments

Steve

donfers wrote: »

ok i appreciate I was a bit vague, anyway can you go into detail on the process involved?

Because I can be quite dogmatic, passionate and partisan at times the last thing I should ever be is a mod, but because I am these things I recognise these traits in others and ummm I don't believe they should be mods either.....but it's not really for me to name and shame as who am I to judge (just one user's opinion) so the most I can do is ivestigate how mods are appointed (details on process) and rationale or reaosning behind the appointments

Well seeing as Mods themselves aren't privvy to the vetting process, I doubt it'll be posted in public.

Mods can propose additions to their forum but the vetting process then goes through Cmods and then to Admins for final approval. Cmods / Admins can also act on their own authority if needs be.

Tom Dunne

The process is roughly as follows:

• Current mod(s) want to step down and/or forum is getting busier
• Cmods ask incumbents for a recommendation for a replacement
• Cmods take this recommendation to Admins
• Admins discuss new mods and decide accordingly

Typically, the person recommend is a solid contributor to the forum, has a level head and is knowledgeable about the subject matter and shows an interest in the forum.

AckwelFoley

Theres no conspiracy regarding mod selection.

Im here a few years now and the trend is pretty obvious.

If you are generally a forum regular and contribute to a particular forum and you have a decent forum record, which doesnt necessarly need to be spotless you are likely to get nominated to be a moderator at some point. If you like Zombies and have a high contribution rate and a decent level head - you are likely to become a zombie mod in the zombie forum at some point in your life.

Moderators are going to pick someone that isnt going to shame them after they nominated them.

Overheal

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Typically, the person recommend is a solid contributor to the forum, has a level head and is knowledgeable about the subject matter and shows an interest in the forum.

To add to this, there is no set Criteria in the nomination of a Mod. The reason being if a list of set criteria was lain down it becomes 'Game-able' in a way that a user that may be entirely unfit to be a mod would attempt to present themselves as a prime candidate.

Other than that, basically what Sniper said. Selection is considered on a Subjective, case by case basis.

Steve

There are exceptions to every rule of course.

Like the time someone won a forum in a SSF raffle

You know who you are

Overheal

And never again, because it was quickly determined the concept was a mistake

Dudess

donfers wrote: »

if it's a case of the new mod simply holding the same opinions/ frequently thanking/sucking up to/having the same sheep-minded consensus as other prominent mods on a forum and simply getting a pm and being asked to do it then really that is beyond a joke and it consolidates the lack of integrity at the heart of a few forums here, stifling real debate and promoting propoganda

Straightaway you discredit your reasonable opening with the usual paranoia. I'm not "in with" the mods - I am not a member of any clique (yet it's assumed by some I am because I have a high postcount and I'm here a long time and am "known" - things really are not always as they seem though).
However I did mod for a while (and clashed with a lot of mods) and I can see how it works - it is most certainly not as you speculate. A person who is deemed to have their head screwed on, has a feel for how the forum works (and I emphasise the forum, not the website - e.g. a good After Hours mod might not make a good Humanities mod), is a regular contributor (if that is a pre-requisite), makes decent contributions (not possible for the person to always be partisan really if they started out as a poster, which every mod does) - these are the qualities looked for. This stuff about licking-up to and thanking etc - the ego of a mod is greatly over-estimated here.
A mod taking a particular stance, in and of itself, shouldn't be seen as problematic - it's when that stance affects their modding that it is.

Zaph

Steve wrote: »

There are exceptions to every rule of course.

Like the time someone won a forum in a SSF raffle

You know who you are

That's ridiculous Steve, how could anyone ever take that mod seriously?

/whistles innocently

bonkey

the same sheep-minded consensus as other prominent mods

You're hardly doing your cause any favours with comments like that.

donfers

bonkey wrote: »

the same sheep-minded consensus as other prominent mods

You're hardly doing your cause any favours with comments like that.

My cause?

I am under no illusions that anything will change, surprised that this hasn't been locked by now.

Indeed comments like the one you highlighted, although my honest opinion, are precisely why hotheaded hipshooting souls like myself should not be appointed mods. I was just curious about if the process was regulated in some way and as I suspected it's kind of an
arbitrary gesture from an existing mod/cat mod to some fellow poster who finds favour in a particular forum. It works in the majority of cases and any preferable method would be problematic in terms of logistics and bureaucracy so fair enough...I stand down!

Dudess

I've seen it in an "All Things Retro needs a new mod - how about Nostalgiajunkie?" kinda way.

bonkey

donfers wrote: »

Indeed comments like the one you highlighted, although my honest opinion, are precisely why hotheaded hipshooting souls like myself should not be appointed mods.

Generally speaking, "hotheaded hipshooting souls" like yourself aren't appointed as mods.

I was just curious about if the process was regulated in some way and as I suspected it's kind of an arbitrary gesture from an existing mod/cat mod to some fellow poster who finds favour in a particular forum.

I'm not entirely sure how you've managed to distill that conclusion from the responses you've been given. Suffice it to say that its incorrect. Its not an arbitrary gesture.

any preferable method would be problematic in terms of logistics and bureaucracy so fair enough

I'm curious as to what you think would be a preferable method.

donfers

bonkey wrote: »

Generally speaking, "hotheaded hipshooting souls" like yourself aren't appointed as mods.


I'm not entirely sure how you've managed to distill that conclusion from the responses you've been given. Suffice it to say that its incorrect. Its not an arbitrary gesture.


I'm curious as to what you think would be a preferable method.

well as I got the wrong end of the stick with regard to my interpretation of the process for appointing mods I would need that clarified to me before suggesting a preferable method (if applicable)

tbh

RopeDrink wrote: »

Can't add much

ORLY?

I just noticed that it seems like RopeDrink is modding half of boards.

Dudess

tbh wrote: »

ORLY?

I'd love to see a long post - it would out-Wibbs Wibbs! :pac:

Steve

Dudess wrote: »

I'd love to see a long post - it would out-Wibbs Wibbs! :pac:

Keep up girl, Ropey is the new Wibbs - although he hasn't quite mastered Wibbs' art of wimminz wooing yet :cool:

Silverfish

Steve wrote: »

Keep up girl, Ropey is the new Wibbs - although he hasn't quite mastered Wibbs' art of wimminz wooing yet :cool:

Wibbs is the new Ropeh, you mean.

Steve

Silverfish wrote: »

Wibbs is the new Ropeh, you mean.

Bugger, I'm too old - can't keep up with you kids and your fads...

tbh

RopeDrink wrote: »

Least someone remembered

The decade long "Oh god, not another Ropey Rant" finally made me self-aware... I try to shorten things but... Old habits die hard'n'all... Working on it

[img]http://images.wthax.org/Boards.ie/TheGathering/RopeDrink's Amazing Rant.jpg[/img]

It wouldn't be you ifthe post was short ropeh, hence the expression "how long is a piece of rope"

donfers

I had a previous thread asking if mods could delete posts without giving a reason, the answer wa.s yes.

My last post on this thread was deleted without reason being given or notification via pm. Please whoever deleted this post can you state who you are and why you deleted it please.

My last post in this thread (the deleted one) commented on the irony of the various mods in this forum going off-topic while I awaited clarification on the process for appointing mods. It's strange to me that that post was deleted while the off-topic in-jokes remain.

For the record the deleted post was something like this:

"Mods, any further off-topic posting will not lead to infractions or bans, this is not your final warning"

My experiences even in the feedback forum itself add weight to some of my previous claims.

Daemos

donfers wrote: »

I had a previous thread asking if mods could delete posts without giving a reason, the answer wa.s yes.

My last post on this thread was deleted without reason being given or notification via pm. Please whoever deleted this post can you state who you are and why you deleted it please.

My last post in this thread (the deleted one) commented on the irony of the various mods in this forum going off-topic while I awaited clarification on the process for appointing mods. It's strange to me that that post was deleted while the off-topic in-jokes remain.

You were told the process here, which you seemed to ignore. There are also several posts whichj elaborate on it.

For the record the deleted post was something like this:

"Mods, any further off-topic posting will not lead to infractions or bans, this is not your final warning"

Then it was probably for backseat modding and trying to get a rise out of people, considering you're basically accusing the posts of being ignored because they're by mods. If you have an issue with a post, report it.

If I was a mod, I'd say you were trying to act like a martyr, trying to get yourself banned to justify your arguments. But that's just me...

Edit: Ignore the backseat-modding comment, misread your post

donfers

Daemos wrote: »

You were told the process here, which you seemed to ignore. There are also several posts whichj elaborate on it.

Then it was probably for backseat modding and trying to get a rise out of people, considering you're basically accusing the posts of being ignored because they're by mods. If you have an issue with a post, report it.

If I was a mod, I'd say you were trying to act like a martyr, trying to get yourself banned to justify your arguments. But that's just me...

The process described in the link basically details giving the job to your mates no matter how it's dressed up...either it is that or it isn't. In my opinion it is, of course I may well be completely wrong


As for the accusation of backseat modding all I'll say on that is

a) lol

and

b) parody = not the same as the real thing

as for reporting posts, I'm not bothered by the posts in this thread, I was just trying to point out a few things

1) the importance of the modding position and how much it can impact/influence any debate on here, hence the need to examine the appointment process

2) the importance of consistency of application of modding disciplinary powers i.e. don't just censor those you disagree with or those who aren't your chums

I appreciate I could be interpreted as being a pain in the ass or simply a contrarian here but I am just trying to defend my justification for starting the thread

I also accept the matter has been discussed and the rationale for the appointment process has been outlined, it's just the interpretation of that process that is open for debate here and that will undoubtedly turn out to be a circular argument so I am happy enough for this to be locked unless someone questions how genuine my motives are again in which case I'd reserve the right to respond

5starpool

How do you think mods should be appointed and why do you think it would be better than the current method?

I can't see any process better than the current way, and even you admit yourself that most of the mods do a good job. I would contend that it is the nature of particular forums and the people those forums sometimes attract that certain mods appear controversial or bad. I have no doubt that there are some people who maybe should not be mods, but a few flaws from a large sample size is no reason to change somethng that by and large works, although it is over cumbersome at times imo.

Tom Dunne

Guys, as much as I hate to admit it, donfers has a point regarding off-topic posting.

Can we please keep the off-topic comments for another thread.

Thanks.

donfers wrote: »

The process described in the link basically details giving the job to your mates no matter how it's dressed up...either it is that or it isn't. In my opinion it is, of course I may well be completely wrong

I don't see how me approving a mod is giving a job to my mates, seeing as I probably know about 1% of the moderator population on Boards.ie.

As 5starpool says, if you have any better suggestions, we are all ears.

dr.bollocko

I'd love to run a mod training programme for after hours. Take people who want to do the job and load a simulation where Stargeret Smatcher or Barry Blitter or some such fictional unpopular leader / celebrity that couldn't get us sued dies. Ask the locals to go to town. See who implodes and who rises to the top.
Also, a re-assessment and removal of moderators not up to the task / too inactive after 6 months or so of moderating. You know. Let them get in to it for a while and then if they're not up to the task a bit of a thanks but no thanks could be used. Most cases it would be grand but if a bad call was made then this would provide a useful out in the event that the moderator is bad for the forum without the fallout from a de-modding.
There are many people willing to moderate. A bit more circulation of duties to regular posters would be nice some times.