151 replies to this topic

[Lizzie]

WarMenace, on 1 Sep 2008, 19:03, said:

Eddy01741, on 1 Sep 2008, 12:37, said:

Um, how do you know if members were banned? Unless they were perma banned (which I doubt any were), you don't know that they are banned (unless you talk to them on MSN or something).

When they're group icon says "Banned" .

Anyway, the community leader sounds like a hard job, maybe instead of just one community leader, he/she can have sub-leaders, to look and monitor the forums, and then report it back to the actual leader.

That seems a bit unnecessary to me.

[Cryptkeeper]

well if there is community representative or leader all complaints from members should be told to him he will then talk to the mod in question and member mediate the dispute at least thats what i think is the best solution he is third party with no bias so you must pick someone with no bias towards members or mods

mods can also tell him about members causing a bit of trouble and he can talk to them and find out why they are maybe calm them down some how before a mod will take direct action toward said member

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 01 September 2008 - 23:44.

[Jamie^]

lol e-strike

[Sharpnessism]

WarMenace, on 1 Sep 2008, 19:03, said:

Eddy01741, on 1 Sep 2008, 12:37, said:

Um, how do you know if members were banned? Unless they were perma banned (which I doubt any were), you don't know that they are banned (unless you talk to them on MSN or something).

When they're group icon says "Banned" .

Anyway, the community leader sounds like a hard job, maybe instead of just one community leader, he/she can have sub-leaders, to look and monitor the forums, and then report it back to the actual leader.

He means temp-ban.

[Medve]

Obviously a lot of crap happened lately, and the last thing I thought that Kenny was part of it. I think it was the impulse at that time what drove those people, and some wouldn't do that in general.

Medve

[Eddy01741]

What I think? A lot of tension has been building between the normal members and the moderating staff over the last year or so, (when the old moderating staff retired, when the deep end was turned into the philosophical corner, etc.), and then when Alias made his legitimate topic, these members just let all hell break loose with their angry feelings about the moderating staff.

[WarMenace]

Lizzie, on 1 Sep 2008, 18:40, said:

WarMenace, on 1 Sep 2008, 19:03, said:

Eddy01741, on 1 Sep 2008, 12:37, said:

Um, how do you know if members were banned? Unless they were perma banned (which I doubt any were), you don't know that they are banned (unless you talk to them on MSN or something).

When they're group icon says "Banned" .

Anyway, the community leader sounds like a hard job, maybe instead of just one community leader, he/she can have sub-leaders, to look and monitor the forums, and then report it back to the actual leader.

That seems a bit unnecessary to me.

IDK, I mean it might be unnecessary, but it can't be just one guy doing all the work.

[Eddy01741]

If there were to be a group of community "liasons" from members to the moderating team, then they would just be like a secondary staff, no?

[WarMenace]

I don't really know.. but if itmakes more sense with just one person, then I guess it'll be better.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

Does somebody care to explain what the F*** is going on??????

-lost

TB

ps i'll stay neutral on this though

[WarMenace]

We're discussing on wheter or not the community leader idea is suitable for this forums.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

Meaning should there be someone in charge???

[WarMenace]

Don't know yet, that's what we're discussing.

[Lizzie]

The Basilisk, on 2 Sep 2008, 21:05, said:

Meaning should there be someone in charge???

Not in charge. The "community leader" is more of a PR guy. A mediator.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

I don't see what the big deal is honestly...

I realize the need for moderators, to keep jerks off of the forum.

I don't understand why it was such a big deal without mods, business could have just as easily progressed normally.

I think everyone should be able to speak with the mods directly, not like an elected official. This is not a government, its a group of people who communicate and have fun. The mods have no superiority over the normal members, they just contribute more often and have learned the ropes so they deserve their position. I say once someone reaches X amount of posts (something quite high, 12000 plus) that they are automatically bumped up to moderators because they obviously know whats going on and the other mods keep an eye out for people just spamming to get those position. Also maybe the mods have a veto power when a general majority revokes your mod status with good reason.

Its not that complicated.

Respectfully.

TB

Edited by The Basilisk, 03 September 2008 - 01:35.

[Eddy01741]

The Basilisk, on 2 Sep 2008, 21:33, said:

I don't see what the big deal is honestly...

I realize the need for moderators, to keep jerks off of the forum.

I don't understand why it was such a big deal without mods, business could have just as easily progressed normally.

I think everyone should be able to speak with the mods directly, not like an elected official. This is not a government, its a group of people who communicate and have fun. The mods have no superiority over the normal members, they just contribute more often and have learned the ropes so they deserve their position. I say once someone reaches X amount of posts (something quite high, 12000 plus) that they are automatically bumped up to moderators because they obviously know whats going on and the other mods keep an eye out for people just spamming to get those position. Also maybe the mods have a veto power when a general majority revokes your mod status with good reason.

Its not that complicated.

Respectfully.

TB

It would have progressed normally IF Alias did not make his topic (which sparked high tempers) causing the forum to erupt into chaos, if they chose any other day, i guarantee it would have gone fine.

Anyways, 12,000 posts? DOes anybody even have that many posts? I don't think even The_Hunter, POTP, or Warboss Nooka has that many posts....

Plus, it's quality of the posts, not just quantity.

[Ion Cannon!]

The Basilisk, on 3 Sep 2008, 2:33, said:

I don't see what the big deal is honestly...

I realize the need for moderators, to keep jerks off of the forum.

I don't understand why it was such a big deal without mods, business could have just as easily progressed normally.

I think everyone should be able to speak with the mods directly, not like an elected official. This is not a government, its a group of people who communicate and have fun. The mods have no superiority over the normal members, they just contribute more often and have learned the ropes so they deserve their position. I say once someone reaches X amount of posts (something quite high, 12000 plus) that they are automatically bumped up to moderators because they obviously know whats going on and the other mods keep an eye out for people just spamming to get those position. Also maybe the mods have a veto power when a general majority revokes your mod status with good reason.

Its not that complicated.

Respectfully.

TB

People can talk with the mods if they need to, the problem is alot of people just don't.. Sure some people do, I know I do. But the conflicts and unwarranted flaming that has occurred recently leads me to believe many don't.

And as Eddy said post count is not always a good indication of a members maturity. The person that is elected community leader, if indeed it is approved will need to be active, mature get on with both members and the staff team and also be trustworthy. I would imagine they would also need to have spent some time on the forum to understand how it works and to get to know the members and staff team well. There are not many members that fit all these criteria.

The community leader will act as a relay between the moderating team and the members, this doesn't mean members cannot contact moderating staff directly, it just gives them more options.

Can we also please drop the talk about what happened when the mods went, whats done is done.

[CommanderJB]

The Basilisk, on 3 Sep 2008, 11:33, said:

I think everyone should be able to speak with the mods directly, not like an elected official. This is not a government, its a group of people who communicate and have fun. The mods have no superiority over the normal members, they just contribute more often and have learned the ropes so they deserve their position. I say once someone reaches X amount of posts (something quite high, 12000 plus) that they are automatically bumped up to moderators because they obviously know whats going on and the other mods keep an eye out for people just spamming to get those position. Also maybe the mods have a veto power when a general majority revokes your mod status with good reason.

You can speak with us directly. You can say absolutely anything you like to us either publically or by PM. Do you notice us demanding reverence? All the moderatng team ask is that you treat us with the same respect you extend to anyone else and give us reasons for any criticism that you may have. To suggest we try and make the members look up to us, or claim any form of 'superiority' based purely on our position, is completely wrong. We have the power to tell people what to do (note: not what to say) in a select range of instances for the efficient running of this forum and thus the enjoyment of all of its users. That's all.
Also, there is absolutely no reason for someone to become a moderator with 12000 posts, or even 12 000 000 for that matter. All that means is that someone can pump out posts at a ridiculous rate and has absolutely no recognition of want, need or capability to act as a moderator. Even if someone hasn't spammed to get to the position, then there's still no reason to assume they have all the qualities necessary. (Also, on the idea brought up eariler that the moderating team doesn't recognise wish to control elements of the forum in its consideration for members, I'd like to point out I was given a choice. If I honestly didn't want the burden I wouldn't have taken up this role, and I suspect the same would go for the rest of the mods. No-one is forced to become a moderator if they have no interest in it - all of us want to help you, or else we wouldn't be here.) Lastly, if the forum has already been claimed to be 'over-moderated' with a roughly 100:1 ratio of posting members to mods, then this is hardly going to fix anything.

[LCPL Carrow]

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn y'all. I go out on patrol for a couple days and this place goes to hell in a handbasket....

I'm sorry for being out of the loop but I don't really have time to go sifting through everything trying to find the thread that everything went down in, so if someone could tell me which one, it'd be nice to know, if only for curiousity's sake.

So yeah, time to refill the sandbags, string new c-wire, fill in the craters, and move on, oorah?

[Soul]

Here you go Carrow, this should explain everything linky.

[Foxhound]

With absolutely no commentary on the situation, since I wish to remain neutral, I keep misreading this thread as "moderating strike team".

[Cuppa]

I don't get it, 26 days till ground zero? Does this mean this board will die?

[Soul]

Cuppa, on 4 Sep 2008, 21:12, said:

I don't get it, 26 days till ground zero? Does this mean this board will die?

I believe I know what will happen, but I won't say as to not spoil the surprise .

[CommanderJB]

Do you, though? I'll wager that the exact nature of 'Ground Zero' is something that will elude you until its implementation...

[Soul]

CommanderJB, on 4 Sep 2008, 23:04, said:

Do you, though? I'll wager that the exact nature of 'Ground Zero' is something that will elude you until its implementation...

Trust me, I have a good idea what it is .