It is time for a change in the way things are moderated

[Valka D'Ur]

Cam is right about it, there are no big Civ5 problems (unless I don't see them, which is possible in some areas, but in some sure not). I'd say the Civ5 problems consist atm out of 5 persons at max, so not really a big issue.
(which doesn't mean that I'm overall satisfied with it, but that's not the question)

There may not be any NOW, but there were a lot of them THEN. I'm just pointing out that not all the headaches on the forum have been in OT (which Camikaze should have realized is what I meant).

Oh, great, expecting nervous collaps in a week .

I was paying you a compliment.

It's rather that there's no structure to care about that.
There are persons in the mod team who haven't been online or posted only once in the whole time I've been registered here. Even if what you said was totally true for everyone (which I'm also totally sure it isn't), then this still shows another problem.
I guess I'll get on someones nerves in the next time...

Did I say it was totally true for everyone? No, that's not what I said. I used the word SOME. And that was true to some extent during the time I've referenced.

Something I don't get... if people are given the title, responsibilities, and privileges of a moderator, shouldn't they do something to earn it, like... moderating? You're right; there are a few who were made mods years ago, and they haven't been seen in years. Why are they still considered mods? Is it because they "might come back someday"? That's ridiculous. A real, live, currently-active person should be chosen to take their place, and IF they ever come back, then they can make their case for reinstatement (if they want to).

 

[Camikaze]

There may not be any NOW, but there were a lot of them THEN. I'm just pointing out that not all the headaches on the forum have been in OT (which Camikaze should have realized is what I meant).

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

This is one of the reasons the Content Staff was created. The Staff forum is too OT (or Colosseum)-focused, to the point where it was often seeming to drown out more important issues, to the detriment of the rest of the site.

Oh? I remember a freight-train load or dozen of problems related to Civ V and Civ III.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm really warming up to the idea of a moderator roster. It could work like this:

- OT posters volunteer themselves to moderate the Colosseum subforums
- Volunteers are split into teams.
- A team moderates the forums for perhaps a week before handing over to another team
- When not on mod duty, volunteers mods revert back to regular posters.

Can someone tell me how this is a bad idea?

 

[Camikaze]

Well, just off the top of my head, we've never been keen on having mods apply for the job, for starters. There are a lot of people who we wouldn't consider as appropriate to be on CFC staff (though the general rule of 'never or very rarely infracted' is flexible, it's not the only criterion). Also, a lot of different mods means a lot of different standards, which would not be good for consistency. And then there's the point that being in the job longer gives you more familiarity with how to deal with particular issues (that's why we have junior mods after all).

Also, we're far too Hotel California to simply let people go after a week.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I'm really warming up to the idea of a moderator roster. It could work like this:

- OT posters volunteer themselves to moderate the Colosseum subforums
- Volunteers are split into teams.
- A team moderates the forums for perhaps a week before handing over to another team
- When not on mod duty, volunteers mods revert back to regular posters.

Can someone tell me how this is a bad idea?

Ah, no.

I already have enough problems picking up names for the last two batches or so of OT mods. I don't want to do it on a regular (weekly?) basis.

When we make someone a mod, we'll be giving him or her wide-ranging powers as well as access to all the bits in staff (lots of dirt in there). This shldn't be done haphazardly or on a temporary basis.

 

[mayor]

Well, just off the top of my head, we've never been keen on having mods apply for the job, for starters. There are a lot of people who we wouldn't consider as appropriate to be on CFC staff (though the general rule of 'never or very rarely infracted' is flexible, it's not the only criterion). Also, a lot of different mods means a lot of different standards, which would not be good for consistency. And then there's the point that being in the job longer gives you more familiarity with how to deal with particular issues (that's why we have junior mods after all).

Also, we're far too Hotel California to simply let people go after a week.

just out of interest, what are the qualifications you seek in mods?

 

[The_J]

There may not be any NOW, but there were a lot of them THEN. I'm just pointing out that not all the headaches on the forum have been in OT (which Camikaze should have realized is what I meant).

But like he said, times have changed .

I was paying you a compliment.

I know, thanks , but I guess I can't really appreciate it.

Did I say it was totally true for everyone? No, that's not what I said. I used the word SOME. And that was true to some extent during the time I've referenced.

Cool down , I was exaggerating a bit to make my point.

Something I don't get... if people are given the title, responsibilities, and privileges of a moderator, shouldn't they do something to earn it, like... moderating? You're right; there are a few who were made mods years ago, and they haven't been seen in years. Why are they still considered mods? Is it because they "might come back someday"? That's ridiculous. A real, live, currently-active person should be chosen to take their place, and IF they ever come back, then they can make their case for reinstatement (if they want to).

I guess you know that saying with the open door ^^
(at least that's what it is if that's addressed to me )

Also, we're far too Hotel California to simply let people go after a week.

*sigh*

just out of interest, what are the qualifications you seek in mods?

#1) They never asked how to become a mod ^^.

 

[mayor]

Well, it seems to me, that rule #1 is a serious hindrance in the recruitment of new mods.

And for the record: I didn't asked how one becomes a mod

 

[DaveShack]

just out of interest, what are the qualifications you seek in mods?

The thing I look for is maturity. I look for people who calmly argue their point when everyone else is deriding them, or even outright insulting. People who stay on topic, use sound reasoning, and admit when their evidence is proven wrong. The ones who gently help newcomers, not laugh at their ignorance or mistakes.

 

[JollyRoger]

Also, a lot of different mods means a lot of different standards, which would not be good for consistency. And then there's the point that being in the job longer gives you more familiarity with how to deal with particular issues (that's why we have junior mods after all).

First, I do not see how the consistency can be all that much worse than it already is. Second, junior mods seem let loose on infraction binges before they have had time to get a clue. I've seen infractoions handed out for posts that were made before the modship became official.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

About the moderator roster: Isn't that basically saying that most of OT members is of the lowest common denominator and is no good to be a mod? Nice to know what the mods think of us.

Ahem ...

I knew elitism was present in some long-running members of OT, but not the mods. Though I should not been surprised.

 

[classical_hero]

The thing I look for is maturity. I look for people who calmly argue their point when everyone else is deriding them, or even outright insulting. People who stay on topic, use sound reasoning, and admit when their evidence is proven wrong. The ones who gently help newcomers, not laugh at their ignorance or mistakes.

Well in OT the topic changes between threads so often, that is not always possible. That is just the way how some threads will go.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The thing I look for is maturity. I look for people who calmly argue their point when everyone else is deriding them, or even outright insulting. People who stay on topic, use sound reasoning, and admit when their evidence is proven wrong. The ones who gently help newcomers, not laugh at their ignorance or mistakes.

The problem with that is that those ones get drowned out by all the louder people and eventually it's just "Whatever happened to such-and-such a poster....?"

 

[NickyJ]

Well in OT the topic changes between threads so often, that is not always possible. That is just the way how some threads will go.

Just like how this topic is slowly moving into a discussion about the qualifications to become a mod.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

About the moderator roster: Isn't that basically saying that most of OT members is of the lowest common denominator and is no good to be a mod? Nice to know what the mods think of us.

Ahem ...

I knew elitism was present in some long-running members of OT, but not the mods. Though I should not been surprised.

What does that have to do with anything? I've a great many Internet friends, whom I think are great guys. Doesn't mean I think all of them are OT mod material.

We also have one further consideration that probably never occur to most people - people we pick as OT mods have a very high chance to stop contributing to OT. Hence there're a few we think would be good as OT mods but can't touch, because it's very likely to impact their rather unique contribution to OT.

Between this and that and vetting by all the mods of CFC, it's not unusual we won't have very many names to go on at times.

 

[Camikaze]

Second, junior mods seem let loose on infraction binges before they have had time to get a clue.

If that's your contention, I guess you agree with the idea that just getting the first week of someone's modship each and every week wouldn't be that great, then?

 

[JollyRoger]

Hence there're a few we think would be good as OT mods but can't touch, because it's very likely to impact their rather unique contribution to OT.

That answers one of my questions.

If that's your contention, I guess you agree with the idea that just getting the first week of someone's modship each and every week wouldn't be that great, then?

The first week would only happen on the first rotation and the potential infractor would have to be concerned that I may become a mod for a shift. Not that I would hand out too many points though, just one liners in mod text.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm with aimee, as well. The priorities are..... how do I put this..... wacky.

This. And we need a lot less bias in the moderation. Some of the stuff certain members get away with.... would never happen if they were on the other side of the political spectrum.

@Salty Mud- Your post is acknowledged

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What does that have to do with anything? I've a great many Internet friends, whom I think are great guys. Doesn't mean I think all of them are OT mod material.

We also have one further consideration that probably never occur to most people - people we pick as OT mods have a very high chance to stop contributing to OT. Hence there're a few we think would be good as OT mods but can't touch, because it's very likely to impact their rather unique contribution to OT.

Between this and that and vetting by all the mods of CFC, it's not unusual we won't have very many names to go on at times.

Did you ask them if they'd like to join the staff, or did you just assume they wouldn't? Or was it "Well, _____ makes such great posts, we won't even bother asking if they'd like to be a moderator, because they'd stop making such great posts."

This. And we need a lot less bias in the moderation. Some of the stuff certain members get away with.... would never happen if they were on the other side of the political spectrum.

This is actually not one of the problems, at least not one of the major or even medium problems with bias. Trolling and flaming are trolling and flaming, no matter which political party or philosophy one follows. And something that has always been a challenge on a forum with people from so many countries and political systems and worldviews is the idea of "free speech" and "hate speech." The personal perceptions of those differ from person to person and moderator to moderator.

Same with religion. Believe it or not, there were times when the atheist moderators could spot trolling/flaming in a religion thread a lot faster than a non-atheist moderator. Comes from a more objective point of view, in my opinion.

 

[JollyRoger]

This. And we need a lot less bias in the moderation. Some of the stuff certain members get away with.... would never happen if they were on the other side of the political spectrum.)

Yep. When you have a liberal getting 40+ infractions between January and October, the bias is pretty obvious.

I don't think the moderation is politically biased. Rather, once you get on the radar, you are given less latitude (which is fair enough in and of itself). The problem is that the latitude is often so narrow that posts are getting misconstrued to the point that sincere compliments are getting tagged as trolling or flaming.