More moderators needed?

[Gevaudan]

I agree with RedEye.

I agree with him too, but I'm actually willing to express my opinion in a few more words than that, Werewolf Warrior.

RedEye, I completely agree with everything you're saying. I'm just afraid that even though "hotheads" would be able to stop a fight because they can see it coming, they might be tempted to join if they happen to have a certain opinion in that particular fight. People who are more prone to arguing do have that valuable skill of seeing a fight brewing and stop it. However, because they are so hot-tempered, and because the temptation to join in is staring them in the face, there is the slight possibility of a relapse.

Or, who knows, it might work the opposite way. Maybe being a moderator can teach them to be a little more diplomatic. For instance, say I work in a candy shop, and I love candy. After a couple of days, I'm gonna get sick of eating candy whenever I want. I can say this from experience, because I'm already sick of eating all of my leftover Halloween candy.

[Xiroteus]

I have had the same thoughts as RedEye reading titles, one that just wants to help out can feel that no title is needed, however, without one many would not know who to ask unless there is a way around that. I find liking this forum and wanting to help out to be a good reason, I hope most do not look much into mod admin titles as a power issue.

[takyoji]

There is a section that lists the moderators and administrators of the forum. Right in the "Who's online" section on the bottom of the main page (legend). Otherwise I'm actually a full admin; the "admin" and "moderator" rank is just a custom rank that is manually applied. Sometimes I just feel like I'm not really a true admin as I'm just the one guy behind the red curtain that just works on the technical details (and it usually makes people treat me as a typical user). In regards of corruptive deletion, I could write a modification for phpBB3 to record all the posts that the moderators delete (plus it already tells us what topic and when a moderator/admin deleted something).

As for board-specific moderation, I don't find that being an issue as my concept of how it would work is that we would still have the global moderators check all the posts, whereas, board-specific moderators could just check the section they're assigned to (in other words, it wouldn't be JUST the board-specific moderator to check over certain sections).

And as a side-note, I think it's a bit silly to even have the rank system at this point since pretty much every user is "legendary" and it's something based upon post count, which just shows how much of a poster they are (doesn't determine quality). I personally think it just makes some people want to just create a lot of non-contributive posts to increase it to look "better than others".

[Silent Hunter]

If there is problems with hotheads then maybe a trial period? Like a few months where they are monitored and watched over to see how they do. Kind of like a job in a sense. Plus hotheads could also ask another to deal with it if they feel they can not without bias.

[PariahPoet]

I like Hunter's idea. It would be too easy for some people to get carried away with the job.

I really disagree with intentionally placing the more argumentative board members in a position of power though. This is just asking for trouble. Just because someone argues a lot does not mean they know how to stop an argument. All it means is now they have the power to shut everyone else up who disagrees with them.

There are very few that I would trust to be level-headed and reliable as a moderator.

The ones I do trust would be Scott, Vrik, Silverclaw, Doodles, Teena, and Baph.
They are the people I most often see being neutral and logical when there is an argument.

[Silent Hunter]

To counter the "they will shut up anyone who disagress" argument, wont they be under supervision anyway and be stripped and maybe even punished worse if they bully people with their power? I mean why not have strict punishments regarding suchp power playing? We can easily make sure mods do not demote other mods or higher ups.

[Kaebora]

I suppose. I mean, any member can submit a complaint to an Admin about a Moderator if there is a real problem. If a judgement call is personal rather than justified, it could mean a warning or two before being demoted. I'd rather that not have to happen, as it would cause some unwanted tension between members after the demotion, or cause that person to want to leave the forum. I think its best to pick the best people for the job now, and not have to worry about personality flaws interfereing with the assigned duties. Well, overall, those kinds of concerns could mostly be scrutinized for being an Admin I guess. The worst case senerio of an admin going postal and deleting an entire forum has happened before in other places I hear.

I guess I'll wait and see who the final four or five candidates are. For Moderator, an old fasioned vote wouldn't hurt. It would work best to have a vote that allows up to two votes per person, one vote per option (for multiple winners).

[PariahPoet]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Kaebora]

Well, lets get this rolling then. Remember that this isn't a popularity contest. It's about if you think you would make a good moderator to help out around the forums. This Saturday I'll put up a poll for voting. We'll need three new moderators, so I'll allow three votes per person, with one vote maximum per candidate.

Criteria to volunteer to be a Moderator:

• Must have a strong desire to help out and actively participate in the Pack regularly. It's a job that is being given to you, not just a pretty little title.
• Must have been a member for at least 6 months.
• Must agree to use Mod abilities to enforce the rules, and nothing else.
• Must be prepared to be criticized by those who might question your judgments, and to always respond responsibly.
• To be a role model for the Pack. As a Mod, you still must live by the same rules as everyone else.

So, who feels that they are qualified, and for the right reasons? Remember, if you get the Mod position because you just want to feel special or have a title to brag about, I can guarantee you will get burned out on it sooner than later. I've seen it happen many times before. If you genuinely care a great deal for the Pack, and want to keep the peace here as perpetual as possible, we welcome your support.

Thanks to Takyoji for going over the criteria with me.

[Gevaudan]

I am on here almost every day, and I organize my thoughts before posting. I don't have any desire for power on here, but I do devote a lot of my time to reading everything on the Pack. I read much more often than I post, but I'm willing to interfere if things get hairy. I don't have many opinions about things, and I'm good at keeping my mouth shut. I can help stop debates before they turn into flame wars. I hate to see people argue or get mad, and all I want is to maintain peace and keep this place running. I usually don't do much on here anyway, so I see this as more of a duty than a title position. I can put in my time and check posts like I do every day; I'll just have the extra duty of removing spam and keeping the debates stable. I'm also notoriously stubborn, and I'll hold my ground on any decision I make.

With that said...may I volunteer?

[PariahPoet]

I still think we ought to do nominations rather than taking volunteers.

Not all good leaders will feel comfortable standing up and begging for the position.
If nominations are acceptable, I would like to suggest Scott, and Vrik. They are probably too modest to step up, but they are mature and level-headed.

[Berserker]

I already volunteered to takyoji via PM, but since a couple of people mentioned my name, I figured I'll do it here.

Most of you know that I'm quite active on these forums. I've moderated a phpBB forum before with around 40 active users, so it's not an unfamiliar activity for me.

I'm pretty harsh towards kids who claim to be real werewolves, but I don't think that disqualifies me. I don't think I've ever made an inappropriate post.

[Kaebora]

We are doing volunteers, because not everyone that is nominated wants it, or feels they can perform the position. It was discussed thoroughly in IMs, and seems to be the best idea.

[PariahPoet]

I'd honestly rather see an opt-out system.
Only extroverts and people with a lot of self-confidence(or in some cases ego) will actually jump up and volunteer and that may not be what the board actually needs.

This is not a put-down to anyone who does step up. Self-confidence can be ok, but I don't think they should have priority over those who do not have it.

The entire world favors the go-getters when they may not always be the best person for the job.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005609.html
(Again, this is not about anyone who volunteered, just an observation regarding real-world trends. I do not know anyone well enough to try and guess their motives. As it stands I am operating on the assumption that everyone is just acting in the interest of the board and I believe that.)

I am only trying to make a point that someone who does not want to volunteer can make as good a leader as those that do.

[Kaebora]

We could permit both nominations and volunteering. As seen previous, there are already enough nominations. It all comes down to a vote at the end anyways, letting the members decide who they want having Moderator rights.

[Silent Hunter]

Ok thats fair enough. I doubt there be too much trouble but if it fixes things. Again I would want to give it a go. I am active, know Takyoji so I can bring up any technical stuff on the forum. Have some interesting ideas I would like to put to the table.

[PariahPoet]

That's what I was hoping for. I didn't mean to sound like I was against taking volunteers. I was just hoping for nominations as well if possible.

[Kaebora]

Well, as long as a nominee agrees to be placed in the vote, it's not a problem.

[PariahPoet]

Cool, I appreciate it. ^^
Already made known who I'd like to see as mods.

[Kaebora]

Nominations and Volunteers so far:

• Howlitzer
• outwarddoodles
• Berserker
• spongypants23
• Gevaudan
• Silverclaw
• Scott Gardener
• vrikasatma
• Baphnedia

List updated 11/14/2008

If you are on the list and do not want to be, PM me, or post asking to be removed.
If you nominated someone and they are not on the list, it is because you listed too many people. Please refrain from nominating more than two, or re-nominating people that are already on the list. I'm still taking new names until Saturday afternoon.

Nominating the Wolf icons will also allow you to be safe.

LoL! Well, since I'm opting out from nominating any members...
I nominate the wolf with a duckie on his head!

[PariahPoet]

I'd like to make my nominations Scott and Vrik unless they'd rather not be in the running.

[outwarddoodles]

About the Mod Tags: I agree with keeping them. Whenever I have a problem on forums, I often have to look up the usernames of the Mods/Admins so I can PM them regarding the issue. Members here need to know who they can turn to, and the tags allow for this.

About Argumentive Mods: From What I've Seen, even argumentive and opinionated people tend to know where to draw the line between moderation and disagreement. So I'm not remotely worried about mods with opinions.

[Baphnedia]

I should say for the record that I volunteer. I seem to habitually falling off the list.

[Kaebora]

Updated. I can say that I might not agree with some of the choices. Part of the reason we are doing this is because of inactive mod and admins. Some of the people nominated are rarely online. Just a thought.

[Howlitzer]

Updated. I can say that I might not agree with some of the choices. Part of the reason we are doing this is because of inactive mod and admins. Some of the people nominated are rarely online. Just a thought.

*has a feeling he may be one of said members who are rarely online*

Yeah, not going to disagree with you there. But I think there's kind of a gray area you should consider when picking people based on how often they are online. With me at least (I can't speak for anyone else who has been a bit nonexistent lately) while I have been busy lately, I have still been lurking regularly...just not posting much. If I'm busy, I usually will only post if I have a lot to say at once, not little posts at a much higher frequency...and I haven't had much to say in recent months prior to this topic arising. Depending on what happens I don't think I'd find much difficulty in a bit more regular forum browse-throughs.

If you feel you need people who are much more prevalently and reliably active in this forum, I can understand why.
But keep in mind..what if, for example they are, say, not always online daily, might be regularly busy, and just don't talk much while they are busy. They'd be less apparently distinguished from people who truly are inactive, but certainly able to make a valuable contribution if willing. You'd have to specifically communicate with the person to know for sure which one they are.