(alpha) Reinventing Sciforums -1- Choosing New Mods

S.A.M. said:
I don't think so, I would want a physicist to moderate physics and a biologist to moderate biology, not some popular but clueless candidate.
Click to expand...


So, maybe I'll try to make my point once more. Let say A is interested to be mod in a science subforum. At first A should get 6 recommendation from existing mods and from admin. Certainly this will filter the quality of A. After 6 people (other moderators and admin) agree, A should get public support. If A doesn't get public support, A will have continuous problem with public. And so, for the sake of his quality, A could be an advisor (non-executive moderator / indirect moderator) to avoid clash with public.
 
amethyst08 said:
I think you miss my point. Please read again my post...
Click to expand...

No I don't. What do I as a biologist, know about physics? How would I vote as a science mod for a physicist? Or history? Or politics? Or chemistry?

Whether Ben should be mod of Physics is between Ben and Plazma, and not upto lucifers angel or doctor Lounatic.
 
S.A.M. said:
No I don't. What do I as a biologist, know about physics? How would I vote as a science mod for a physicist? Or history? Or politics? Or chemistry?

Whether Ben should be mod of Physics is between Ben and Plazma, and not upto lucifers angel or doctor Lounatic.
Click to expand...


How do you know that Plazma knows about Physics? If we applied Avatar proposal, candidate will have to get recommendations from other 5 moderators and Plazma himself (or 1 admin, to be exact, i.e. Plazma or James or other admin).
 
John99 said:
The biggest problem is that two moderators (initials- S-T) have very little common sense, one i can understand but T is as annoying as a rock in a shoe. One is senile (F) so i consider that when i read his posts.
Click to expand...

Unless you could prove that, your accusation could be categorized as personal attack.... ;)
 
amethyst08 said:
How do you know that Plazma knows about Physics? If we applied Avatar proposal, candidate will have to get recommendations from other 5 moderators and Plazma himself (or 1 admin, to be exact, i.e. Plazma or James or other admin).
Click to expand...

Plazma does not have to know Physics, he simply has to be free to pick the mods in a forum that is owned and administered by him/his company.

Posting in sciforums is a privilege, not a right.
 
S.A.M. said:
Plazma does not have to know Physics, he simply has to be free to pick the mods in a forum that is owned and administered by him/his company.

Posting in sciforums is a privilege, not a right.
Click to expand...

Huh? Aren't you the one that suggest that biologist should moderate biology and physicist should moderate physics? Or are you now saying that it doesn't matter who could be mod as long as Plazma pick him or her?

I do aware that this is Plazma's priviledge. What I suggest is actually beneficial for the sciforums itself and for the community in general. See my open letter thread..
 
I said what I would prefer. If Plazma decided he wanted a hitorian moderating biology and a biologist moderating history, though, it would still rest ultimately with him. :p
 
My suggestion (or to be exact, Avatar suggestion) is simple: new mod should have approval from 5 other moderators, from admin, and from public.
 
amethyst08 said:
Unless you could prove that, your accusation could be categorized as personal attack.... ;)
Click to expand...

What is there to prove? F is up there in age so why is that so bad? S is as abrasive as a brand new piece of sand paper and T will have no idea what we are talking about.
 
S.A.M. said:
I said what I would prefer. If Plazma decided he wanted a hitorian moderating biology and a biologist moderating history, though, it would still rest ultimately with him. :p
Click to expand...

Uhm, I would disagree with that, even if my disagreement wouldn't matter for Plazma :D
 
John99 said:
What is there to prove? F is up there in age so why is that so bad? S is as abrasive as a brand new piece of sand paper and T will have no idea what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Please, this is Alpha thread. It's about choosing new mod..
 
And what if it was the other way around? What is the moderators selected by the admin are vetoed by the members? Then what?
 
amethyst08 said:
I think what I said should be pretty obvious. If the moderation action to members who have personal problem with the related moderator is applied by admin or by fellow mod (in case the mod has fellow mod in the subforum), then there is no way the members could accuse the mod for his or her moderation anymore. They should stop saying de-mod the moderator. They should make the complain to admin instead if their post get deleted or something.
Click to expand...

You are assuming this does not already happen?

In these kinds of situations, the moderator will bring up the issue with fellow moderators and the administrators and a resolution of the problem is found that way. And it will usually be up to the moderator to implement in his/her forum. Sometimes the administrator will step in as well and stop the member (by warning or implementing a ban) who has been causing the issues in the sub-forum.

There seems to be this perceived belief that moderators do not discuss the issues with the rest of the moderators and the administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do discuss the issues and we do discuss the members who have a problem with us as individuals and how we moderate.

Even if it is done in the manner you are suggesting, the member could then turn around and accuse the moderator of lying.. which, believe it or not, does happen.. I suspect they do not realise that the administrators of this site can view deleted posts and threads to see exactly what has happened to make up their own minds.

What has happened in Sam's situation is that the members in question are complaining about her moderation when she posts in forums that are outside of her sub-forums... where she is posting as a member and not as a moderator. When these members then decide to go into the sub-forums where she moderates and post off-topic posts and she deletes them and/or warns them about it, they then accuse her of abusing her powers.. which she is not doing. She is acting well within her power to keep the threads on topic and deleting off-topic posts, insults, flames and trolling. To accuse her of abusing her powers in such instances is a way to try to get revenge because they don't like what she posts as a member in other sub-forums.

Your proposal would be removing her moderator powers when it came to such members when they take it upon themselves to flame, insult, troll and post off-topic in her sub-forum.. And that would be unfair to the members who are not causing any issues and want her to moderate and keep the threads on-topic. She has an obligation to those members to ensure that the posts they are diligently posting in or have started in her sub-forum and by stating she should somehow pass the buck to the administrators of this site or to other moderators when it comes to the problem posters is unfair to her and most importantly, it is unfair to the members who are not breaking any rules.
 
S.A.M. said:
And what if it was the other way around? What is the moderators selected by the admin are vetoed by the members? Then what?
Click to expand...

Can you rephrase your question please? Do you mean, what if the moderator that is selected by admin is rejected by members?
 
Bells said:
You are assuming this does not already happen?

In these kinds of situations, the moderator will bring up the issue with fellow moderators and the administrators and a resolution of the problem is found that way. And it will usually be up to the moderator to implement in his/her forum. Sometimes the administrator will step in as well and stop the member (by warning or implementing a ban) who has been causing the issues in the sub-forum.

There seems to be this perceived belief that moderators do not discuss the issues with the rest of the moderators and the administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do discuss the issues and we do discuss the members who have a problem with us as individuals and how we moderate.

Even if it is done in the manner you are suggesting, the member could then turn around and accuse the moderator of lying.. which, believe it or not, does happen.. I suspect they do not realise that the administrators of this site can view deleted posts and threads to see exactly what has happened to make up their own minds.

What has happened in Sam's situation is that the members in question are complaining about her moderation when she posts in forums that are outside of her sub-forums... where she is posting as a member and not as a moderator. When these members then decide to go into the sub-forums where she moderates and post off-topic posts and she deletes them and/or warns them about it, they then accuse her of abusing her powers.. which she is not doing. She is acting well within her power to keep the threads on topic and deleting off-topic posts, insults, flames and trolling. To accuse her of abusing her powers in such instances is a way to try to get revenge because they don't like what she posts as a member in other sub-forums.

Your proposal would be removing her moderator powers when it came to such members when they take it upon themselves to flame, insult, troll and post off-topic in her sub-forum.. And that would be unfair to the members who are not causing any issues and want her to moderate and keep the threads on-topic. She has an obligation to those members to ensure that the posts they are diligently posting in or have started in her sub-forum and by stating she should somehow pass the buck to the administrators of this site or to other moderators when it comes to the problem posters is unfair to her and most importantly, it is unfair to the members who are not breaking any rules.
Click to expand...


I am aware of what you said, and that's why I said, the moderating power is limited only to member who has no personal problem with the moderator. In this case, any accusation which is further pursue by the member could be categorized as personal attack and warrants ban.
 
Bells, SAM, don't you remember what happened in Tiassa case? Members have accused Tiasa for misusing his mod power to Baron Max. If Tiassa moderating power can not be applied to Baron Max, it should avoid the problem.
 
Bells, everyone is replaceable. The point of this thread, i think, is to clean house and let the farts out.

Now i am not of the opinion that a total house cleaning is necessary but if so many complain about the same mods then the membership numbers will reflect this.
 
amethyst08 said:
Bells, SAM, don't you remember what happened in Tiassa case? Members have accused Tiasa for misusing his mod power to Baron Max. If Tiassa moderating power can not be applied to Baron Max, it should avoid the problem.
Click to expand...

You mean by removing tiassa's ability to remove posts that are creating problems in EMJ you would solve the problem? Plazma or James would have to be online 24/7 to moderate. What would be the point of having moderators?

amethyst08 said:
I am aware of what you said, and that's why I said, the moderating power is limited only to member who has no personal problem with the moderator. In this case, any accusation which is further pursue by the member could be categorized as personal attack and warrants ban.
Click to expand...

How would an off topic or trolling post be categorised as a personal attack. If for instance shorty posts some nonsense in B&G and I do not have the ability to moderate her, but must report the post to Plazma, how is this a personal attack by shorty? What if Plazma is busy for 4-5 days? shorty keeps on posting I moderate the people who respond to her but leave her posts for Plazma, what will this accomplish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top