Super Mods!!!

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Lump

I agree with your point about it being a popularity test. I don't think it's fair that just the Mods that are seen to be modding are getting put forward. Not blowing mine or anyone else's trumpet, but there are plenty of us who mod forums and contribute to forums and don't go around posting in the Mod forum letting everyone know when we ban some one, or diss out a bit of advice.

Another point, maybe a good mod is someone who doesn't have to ban people all of the time. Maybe it's in the lack of banning that makes you good.

Halflife, College work and Audio Visual, speaking on my own experience are boards like that, relatively busy but the no-nonsence approach seems to work.

Also when you're a mod of say afterhours, you're going to get plenty of muppets. Fair enough. BUt being the mod of PI you get the same amount of spammers, but I've seen a few threads on there that are locked because the original poster is deemed as having a laugh and not taking it seriously. I don't agree with it and if you ban some one due to their possible false postings it's not very fair.

Bla, I'm starting to ramble. I think that the "Less Known mods" should be put forward. I think that some of the mods of the busier forums will open a can of whoop ass and ban people for minor things. I think "The power" - or lack their of, could go to some peoples heads. Even I feel that I need to be carefull when postig on the Afterhours board... that's saying alot. I worry that I may joke, hence my recent posting clarifing that a previous post was being sarcastic. I think over sensitive mods are really reducing the amount or freedom and discussion that goes on here.

Again, I'm rambling.

They're my opinions.

John

Lump

Forgot to say, why aren't the mods asked if they want the power.

Ie, Pm all of us. If we agree to be put forward there's just an open democracy type vote thingy. Shock! Democracy! Shock! If 20 mods got put forward, I believe there's enough regular users to vote across 20 mods.

John

amp

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm sorry, is this a troll or do you have examples of mod corruption?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

amp

And yes I can pull up a few example of mods going over board with regards to their remit.

Marvelous, let's see these examples.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

seamus

You have people complaining that AH is too spammy, then when you get strict, others complain that it's too strict.

Jesus wept.... :rolleyes:

Lump

Too spammy? It's busy, not spammy.

John

amp

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Tilt has no examples. This thread is a troll designed to try and stir things up for Tilts own childish enjoyment and not for the good of boards.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I know, I was actually referring to Lump's post.

You see asking people to desist from personal abuse and then asking them to keep their "dumb mouths shuts" .. well... it not a bigge but its a mindsight...

It was an attempt at ironic/sarcastic humour. I'm surprised you missed it. Perhaps it was too subtle

BuffyBot

To be honest, it does seem like a someone is holding a big spoon and stirring the pot...

From what I'm gathering this doesn't seem to be about the concept supermod's as such, but percieved clashes between mod behavior (Gandalf/WWM and Seamus's charter). The outing of the debate is one thing, but I'm not so sure what there was to gain from it. Unless you feel it's a conspiracy of some sort, which of course it could be, if you make it one.

The other points seem to more issues to do with standardisation of moderator approach than anything else. Unfortunately boards.ie is such a loose collective, standardisation is a problematic beast. That, however is a seperate topic.

mr_angry

IIRC, the admins were looking for a dozen nominations so they could go into a darkened room and decide who was best. When it comes down to it, they are equally as likely to choose someone like ecksor (ie. common sense over popularity) to fill the void. This is not exclusively a popularity contest, and I think plenty of posts on the relevant mod thread are fine examples of good posts with a lot of thought behind them - not just a popularity poll. To paint it as such is, in my opinion, completely and utterly wrong. I really wonder why you're bringing this topic out of its intended remit Merc - something which you request the Mods themselves stick to. Are you the self-appointed "man of the people" now?

seamus

BuffyBot wrote:

The other points seem to more issues to do with standardisation of moderator approach than anything else. Unfortunately boards.ie is such a loose collective, standardisation is a problematic beast. That, however is a seperate topic.

This is in fact something which I think merits much more attention. Boards.ie has gotten to a stage where most people could name off only a handful of mods, and where the proportion of mods who know eachother becomes less and less.

This is actually a good thing, it helps weed out/disprove any nepotism or "Cliques", and it means that valuable people get the modding jobs, not just the ones known to the admins. Not that this has ever happened, but when there are only a handful of boards, it makes sense for the admins to choose those whom they know and trust. But now, even though it doesn't appear so, new mods are almost being elected. The board users are being asked to nominate their preferred mod, and even though the admins can veto, I've yet to see one actually do it.

So with this, you have new mods being thrust into a position where they may not be entirely sure what to do, and they may not even know any of the more experienced mods. So inconsistencies appear in the way people moderate.

I think it could serve a useful purpose to draft a very rough sort of "constitution" for moderators. A loose set of guidelines dealing with best practice etc. Trojan posted a very good one on Feedback which was dragged up recently. When I say "loose", I mean very loose. If someone can point to the guidelines and tell you where a mod was in breach of them, it means that they're too specific.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Self praise?

Seriously though....if you're in any way criticising the mods for not being able to suggest "super-mods" from within their own ranks without it turning into a popularity contest....how the hell do you think the users can suggest super-mods without it being flawed in exactly the same way?

One would hope that with the mods, the signal-to-noise ratio of such a discussion would be somewhat less than with a more open equivalent.

Ultimately, I don't know how it could be anything other than a popularity contest, if the admins were to make decisions based on any sort of poll, rather than by reading the comments made, and considering what they thought of the pros/cons for a given candidate, and then making their own short-list.

It is only suggestions for super mods.

Only? So "only" that you felt it incumbent on you to take it out of the closed environment that it was originally suggested in and share it with the rest of us mere mortals? Its obviously that important to you....so I have to wonder at the use of only here.

Who knows what little nugget some one might come up with.

Anyone who wants the job shouldn't get it, for a start.

jc

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Lump

I believe that image is out of spec. :P

John

The Muppet

Getting back on topic Merc's list is pretty spot on to the best mods on the site. There are a few there that I have come across so I would add the names of Uberwolf and Mike65 .

gandalf

BuffyBot wrote:

To be honest, it does seem like a someone is holding a big spoon and stirring the pot...

From what I'm gathering this doesn't seem to be about the concept supermod's as such, but percieved clashes between mod behavior (Gandalf/WWM and Seamus's charter).

Yep you are stirring alright as usual :rolleyes:

That incident you have used as your example was cleared up between myself and Eamo and occured when I edited out a spam link in the Work forum during a weekend when wwman was not about. He replied to the pm I had sent him about the thread stating his preference that I do not edit items like that on the forum he mods and I now don't.

The only thing I agree with you on is the choice of bonkey as one of the "Super Mods" who I think would be an absolutely excellent choice.

Just as an aside what has happened to you recently you seem quite contrary these days.

Giblet

Super mods =

No-ones really doing a "super" job as I see it, and I don't know how it's gonna be more "super" with more abilities.

I see Hash Boy is still running around.

amp

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You had not provided examples. In this case my opinion was fact. If you're going to accuse moderators of corruption then you'd better prove it.

Ok so one to keep you quite...See gandalfs recent apologoy to wwhead for editing a thread on the Work forum for one.... When it was not needed. But Ill put up more when it suits me. Not you.

How is this an example of corruption?

But in the greater scheme of things...I have no interest in talking to you amp. This is a reasonable debate. And one that is for the good of the community that is boardsie. Maybe thats where we differ.

Yeah, I've never done anything for this community. Maybe I should post when I'm drunk more. Maybe I should go round accusing the people who help run this community of corruption. Maybe I should get constantly banned from certain forums because the rules shouldn't apply to me. Maybe I should try and delete all my early posts in case anybody reads them and I get embarressed. That's the Mercury_Tilt way, isn't it?

But you are right about one thing. I do get enjoyment out of boardsie. That is what boardsie is all about I recall. Enjoyment.

Your enjoyment at the expense of others. That's not very community minded.

StupidLikeAFox

Someones jealous he wasnt on the list anyway....

BuffyBot

So with this, you have new mods being thrust into a position where they may not be entirely sure what to do, and they may not even know any of the more experienced mods. So inconsistencies appear in the way people moderate.

I think it could serve a useful purpose to draft a very rough sort of "constitution" for moderators. A loose set of guidelines dealing with best practice etc. Trojan posted a very good one on Feedback which was dragged up recently. When I say "loose", I mean very loose. If someone can point to the guidelines and tell you where a mod was in breach of them, it means that they're too specific.

I think, as time progresses and the site grows, it will become more of a nessecity than something that's just desirable. Without some guidelines, the people who make naturally good moderators will do fine, but those who are less adept won't do so well - and it just ends up generating more of a mess to clean up in the long run in terms of muppetry and complaints.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Like the way the moderator forum is supposed to be for moderators only, you mean?