What level of involvement is acceptable for the Demo game moderators?

[chiefpaco]

Good idea, AlmightyJosh. Call me a sticky minimalist, but I think your new threads could be condensed into one thread. Minimize the sticky threads and the forums stay clean.

For this poll, I voted to certain positions. I am torn between that and any position since I think mods are responsible enough to play fair.

One thing I would not appreciate from an active citizen-mod is stickitizing their own threads, therefore, giving their issues the longest play time. There was a very mild and only single example of this in term one, I felt (IIRC), which didn't bother me much. However, I would not like to see it become prevelant.

 

[Almightyjosh]

I think that what the Mods need to do is to handle each other's buisness as much as possible. What I mean is, if there is an issue that Shaitan is heavily involved in (try and find one he isn't) then eyrei should take any moderator action needed. This may be hard to co-ordinate but...

In the case of the current proposed constitution change, Shaitan is all for and Donsig is all against (I am for). In the senate poll, Donsig was, to put it nicely, being a pain and attepmting to start discussions in a thread that it was not appropriate for him to post in (the thread is sopposed to be one post each governor and nothing else). Mod action was appropriate. However, this action was taken by Shaitan and although it was justified, it made me a little worried to see him act agaist a political apponent using mod powers. Now in this case, there is no problem, it was to the letter and I have no doubt that Shaitan would NEVER use his mod powers to win a poll etc. (I voted let mods run for anything). However, all this said it still did not sit so easy with me. This could be a problem with people not so familiar with our mods. If it had been eyrei, who is less involved in the issue, then even the superficial concerns are eliminated.
Can't say exactly where this is going, just talking out loud.

EDIT: I did, of course, mean thinking out loud. I usuallt talk out loud, doesn't work too well if you don't.

 

[Shaitan]

I had the same reservations regarding modding that thread, Almightyjosh. As it was cut and dried and the problem had been pointed out by someone else (you, as a matter of fact) I felt comfortable doing so.

 

[Zarn]

I think mods should be able to be judges.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

if we dont allow mods to run for office, we will loose the hammer.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I had the same reservations regarding modding that thread, Almightyjosh. As it was cut and dried and the problem had been pointed out by someone else (you, as a matter of fact) I felt comfortable doing so.

Unfortunately Shaitan, you see many things as cut and dried that I do not. Now we are no longer on a level playing field and I find that more than uncomfortable.

 

[eyrei]

Hehe. Keep in mind, donsig, that civil disobediance usually ends up with the subject being sentenced to jail time.

Anyway, your argument would be more viable if you had ceased responding when your first post was deleted, and issued a complaint. As it is now, you are most definately guilty of violating forum rules (not necessarily demogame rules, that is yet to be decided). Understand that you would have been banned from the site for several days had you taken similar action in almost any other forum at Civfanatics. Also, keep in mind that this is not a threat, as I have no intention of banning anyone here even for a couple days unless there is a really, really, really good reason.
I just wanted to point out how 'democratic' this forum is, and that that does extend to our attitude towards citizens disagreeing with our moderator actions.

 

[disorganizer]

stuck:
now wait a minute. are we so bound to single person offices? maybe we should then delete the office from government.
our government should be INDEPENDANT, which also means that if 1 person quits the game, the office must a) be still continued or b) be deleted from government as obsolete.

 

[Shaitan]

15 to 6 in favor of allowing mods to run for selected positions. I have to say that I am floored by this overwhelming support and trust. I was expecting a majority to go this way but never dreamed that the margin would be this great. I am reassured and very flattered by these results so far.

Thank you all.

 

[Zur]

IMHO, moderators should be as impartial as possible, ie. no involvement whatsoever (other than moderating). This is not to say I have no confidence in the current/new moderators' to be impartial. I believe they are more than qualified for the job, but this ruling leaves room for future problems if not properly institutionalised initially. Not all future appointments of moderators may be as good as those we have now. ie. this poll should not be based on whether we think the current/new moderators' will remain impartial, but whether or not there is scope for (future) moderators becoming biased. Laws should not be changed depending on the person being appointed into the position.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
D'oh... I missed the word informational in the 1st post. Once again people may feel free to slap me about with any object they wish.

This poll is valid for purely informational purposes, but is non-binding and therefore cannot be used to mandate subsequent actions.

Out of interest, Eyrei, why did you decide to post this as an informational poll?

Think about it. If a mod put up a binding poll, wouldn't that be participating in the game? (usually rule/discision making). AFAIK (or understand ), that's against the constitution, if not impartiallity.

(it's early in the morning... so I could be wrong. )

 

[Shaitan]

The only current rule against mod participation is a ban against holding Leader positions.