This is a thought on our moderators. No it's not a bad one. Today in chat the members were rolling around an idea, which started with Zoe(Spork.)'s brilliant idea. What if mods were no longer chosen by other mods. There are members who feel we should make a voting system of the ones who are interested. In hopes we could trust our members at RYL to not do a popularity contest, but the fact that some mods are not right for the job. We interact with most chat members daily and know if they have those qualities that would make a good mod. I'm not saying there shouldn't be requirments, like join date, and such. It's a thought to roll over, and maybe if people vote on this poll it would be considerd. Please post what you think as you vote. Thank You in advance. ~Derrick
~~~In Responce to some questions I bring this edit.~~~
Honestly if this were to pass and it became a democracy voting system, then the option that if a mod was seen not doing their job, there is a vote to strip them of their powers. A mod being voted in for popularity can be picked out like a sore thumb. When we vote in real life, it becomes painfuly clear we didn't make a good choice if it turns out wrong. So there would have to be a system in place to remove such sore thumbs.
Last edited by NoSanity : 29-04-2010 at 06:02 PM.
Reason: responce
In hopes we could trust our members at RYL to not do a popularity contest,
This is the fundamental problem. It would be a popularity contest, and then would the person chosen really want to actually do their job and tell off someone who has voted them in?
I've also seen a fair few mods that are members far too new and intimidated by people to do their job though? Surely you would have better mod/member relationships by a system like this.
I've never been a fan of celebrity modding per se (which a vote can be conducive to). Mostly because a mod has to represent the site and its protocols. I've seen good and personable posters who light up threads get made into mods and then they become (necessarily) bureaucrats removed from the daily vitality so to speak. It's like turning a strength into a void. Not that they are bad mods at all, often it's just the opposite.
I just think modding done well is often a routine thing punctuated by one crisis or another. Realistically I think if people like participating in a forum
then they might want to think twice about modding because a persons relationship to a site will change.
I also don't like giving power to people that really want it lol.
What some sites have is a kind of rotating ombudsman ( "a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing the broad scope of constituent interests"... wiki). People vote every 3 or 6 months to chose a person to represent the forum membership and then they deal with admins.
If ryl staff teams turn into a popularity contest then alot of people would leave. Mods, staff even are picked because its felt they can do thier job well and be neutral and not take sides. Also if a mod wenrnt doing thier job and was corrupt so to say then they would get kicked off.
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
If ryl staff teams turn into a popularity contest then alot of people would leave. Mods, staff even are picked because its felt they can do thier job well and be neutral and not take sides. Also if a mod wenrnt doing thier job and was corrupt so to say then they would get kicked off.
In my experiences at this site, alot of the chat mods have favoritism and have refused to punish their "friends" and have not been removed.
next you'll be saying we should have a say in our mods and force them to retire if they do something corrupt like fiddling their expenses.
I'm onto you. You're really Dave Cameron aren't you?
Don't be fooled by my smooth skin. The deepest scars are the ones unseen.
Remember compliments you received, forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how..~ Baz Lurhman.
Letting it get to you - You know what that's called? Being alive. Best thing there is. Being alive right now that's all that counts. ~ Doctor Who "The Doctors Wife" 06.November.2011
What about people who dont use chat, surley that starts to become unfair?
This is only a proposition for chat. I do not usally go on the forums thus I know nothing about forum moderators. The voteing could perhaphs be limited to those who use chat, and given its own small section of the forums.
The staff deal with people but tellin offs and infractions are given to people in private on not on chat/the fourms. If you have issues then you rasie it with the head mods or go higher if you have to, been there done that, but it seems like this is going to start to be a mod bashing. But it would be unfair for chat people to pick thier mods and for fourm people not too.
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
The staff deal with people but tellin offs and infractions are given to people in private on not on chat/the fourms. If you have issues then you rasie it with the head mods or go higher if you have to, been there done that, but it seems like this is going to start to be a mod bashing. But it would be unfair for chat people to pick thier mods and for fourm people not too.
I rather this not turn into a mod bashing and would request a Forum mod monitor this thread and edit/delete posts that go in that direction.
This is only a proposition for chat. I do not usally go on the forums thus I know nothing about forum moderators. The voteing could perhaphs be limited to those who use chat, and given its own small section of the forums.
If it was used for Chat, then it should really be used for both. Also, some people are not religious users of Chat but go in every now and again. They won't know enough about the people to really have a good vote, thus reducing it to the regulars which leads back to the friends choosing friends.
Would it turn into an election campaign? Obviously there would need to be a list of people wanting to do the job. They would need to say why they wanted to do it, what they were going to bring to the table, etc.
This was never intended to be mod bashing and i don't appreciate the suggestion. It was just an idea that got thrown around and we would like an opinion from other people.
If it was used for Chat, then it should really be used for both. Also, some people are not religious users of Chat but go in every now and again. They won't know enough about the people to really have a good vote, thus reducing it to the regulars which leads back to the friends choosing friends.
Would it turn into an election campaign? Obviously there would need to be a list of people wanting to do the job. They would need to say why they wanted to do it, what they were going to bring to the table, etc.
A list is a good idea. The details would be finely tuned as it went along. I was thinking alot like the democracy system where if something is to be voted for, law, position, anything, it has to be presented, sold, and voted upon. Campaigning would be necesary and maybe it would be like every 6 months 1-2 mods could be voted upon. And if a mod is needed before voteing periods an emergancy mod in place.
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!"
Thomas Parke D’Invilliers
*Headdesk*
Come on guys, this is simply an idea people came up with and made a thread about. It's hardly like Harley or James have posted it, in which case there would be far more people for it. I highly doubt this idea will actually happen, it's just opinions being asked for.
I personally don't think people should be necessarily 'nominated' or whatever out of the blue..but if someone wanted to go forward as a mod or other mods asked them to be one, then I think, depending on if they'd be a forum or a chat mod, then regular forum or chat members should be asked for their opinion on whether or not they think that person would make a good mod and if they could handle it etc.
Of course, only sensible opinions will be taken into consideration, but you have to look at the other side of the coin. There have been mods [now I'm talking about Chat in this case because I don't have much knowledge of what happens on forums], who don't get much respect and people purposefully play up to annoy them or whatever. But wouldn't it be better to get mods who everyone, or at least the majority of members, respected and thought would do a good job?
I can almost guarantee there would be a lot less trouble. I will confess there are only certain mods who I highly respect and if they ask me to stop behaving as I am or anything, I'm more likely to listen to them than someone I don't have any respect for.
This was a long post and I apologise, but that's what people are forgetting. That it's just an idea.
I'm gonna tap him like a maple tree. I'm gonna search him for some syrups. I'm gonna be having sex with him.
That.
And also - if you dont feel a mod is doing a good job - report them.
But this is blatantly going to turn into a popularity contest.
Sarah: Give me the child.
Jareth: Sarah beware. I have been generous up till now. I can be cruel.
Sarah: Generous? What have you done that's generous?
Jareth: Everything! Everything you have wanted I have done. You asked the child be taken, I took him. You cowered before me, I was frightening. I have reordered time. I have turned the world upside down, and I have done it all for you! I am exhausted from living up to your expectations of me. Isn't that generous?
