1-Why not put a max on moderating terms, American president style? some mods have been mods more than not, their behaviour on the forum is more affected by being in power than being ruled by it, I feel they've got to feel that that power is their default right. they treat us like rich sons which never worked for anything treat the hard workers in their dad's business, they can't relate to them, not really. With the terms the mods come back to earth for vacations and to experience gravity a bit. 2-i honestly think the real problem, is actually finding mods, it's a job many will turn down once they know the bland bothersome responsibility that comes with it. I know for sure that if this was a forum of a majority of my kind, i would never consider moderating, why should I? as some have said in cluelesshusband's thread, why bother reading every single post and face the complaints and rack your brains on dispute resolution when you can just drop in like a free bird read what you want post what you want and that's it. so, why not making moderating an obligatory responsibility of members to take in turns once they reach a certain number of posts or years whichever first, that way everybody knows what it feels like. Imagine a community that gets democracy in summer, communism in fall, dictatorship in winter and theocracy in spring. supermods shouldn't change though, someone has to moderate the rotation.
There's no need. This is all too complicated for what is a simple problem with a simple solution. The problem is that there is no leadership. No one holds moderators accountable. No one demands consistency from them, individually and as a group. I sincerely doubt any of the moderators feel like they have someone they can confide in when things really start to fall apart. I mean, we can obviously look to Tiassa's record for his recent hissy when James decided to put a stay on LG's execution, but there's also the implication that there's virtually no dialogue between the admins and the rest of the moderators; If James was actually someone Tiassa trusted, I'm sure they could have had a conversation about it, rather than having it air out in public. (But then, if things were that different, we wouldn't have these problems to begin with) James needs to get his act together. Kittamaru has said more than once that a major policy change is coming, but I suspect all that will really change is in how the regular members are moderated. In practical terms, I imagine the usual suspects (and the new ones, like Syne) will continue to abuse their privileges and other members, while the rest of us will have less leash to call them on it. Threads like this--and posts like the one you're reading now--probably won't be allowed to stand, for example. But I tend to expect the worst from these people. I guess we'll find out one way or another soon. It would be WONDERFUL if they made it a public discussion, rather than a private thing. This is a community, after all. But, again, part of the problem is them believing they're above us, better than us.
That depends on one's general philosophical outlook. Is bullying someone into submission an act of proper use of power, or an act of abuse of power? Different people will probably disagree on this. For some, it is proper use of power, for others, it's abuse of power.
The other part that they don't see that, I think they honestly, -I repeat- honestly, don't see that. having it on rotation will bring our two closer views together. It will not change some of our conflicting beliefs about how moderation should be done, but it wouldn't let their mindset/view get stagnant, since we're always switching places. too cumbersome? I hope not. member for 1 year or 1000 posts moderates for a week, and held accountable for it, as in he gets permabanned if he ditches it, it becomes one of the responsibilities of membership, you don't want to moderate then just spectate and don't post, you want a username and the ability to post then serve your term responsibly. permabanning mods should be for super serious messups who're clearly just trying to break the system. think about it, there'll never be a clash between mods and members in the sense we see now, as the two groups are dynamic, we're them and they're us, eventually.
I'm of the latter. Sentences should be given and carried out without the personal malice that constitutes bullying.
Let me get this straight... I would be chosen to moderate for some random week of who's choosing? And then say there is an emergency that week. I should be banned??? Really? And on top of that, someone has to watch how I moderate... Does that really make sense? Now, do I believe in a rotation? Yes. Every so often, incumbents and volunteers, could be voted upon.forced moderation, never. Just my 2 cents.
yeah... no, this is a pretty bad idea. Forcing people into any kind of a position of power against their will generally doesn't end well for anyone.
