board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Modding: Decision Thread

Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 107 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Modding: Decision Thread
Posted: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 9:25 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
MAJOR EDIT for those reading this thread for the first time.

All of the questions that this thread was intended to answer (listed in this first post) have either been answered or have ongoing discussions in other threads. I will ask the admins to lock this thread to help eliminate the redundancy in this forum. If you have questions about the nature of the decisions that have been made, view the other threads in this forum or email me at Jnyusa2005@yahoo.com and I will be glad to provide additional info.



This is the first of several threads that I will post, each covering a broad topic concerning our governance. [Please see my post of Jan 31 in the Future of B77 thread for the list of topics.]

In going through our business threads, these are the questions that seem to require answers regarding How We Will Mod. I thought we could discuss each of these questions, winnow our options to a few alternatives, and then hold a vote on each question.

Please feel free to add questions to this list. It will be helpful during discussion if you make it clear which question you are commenting on.

How to choose mods
There is already consensus that Mods should rotate.
• Should there be mods in addition to admins? (Leoba)
• How many mods do we need?
• How long should mod tenure be?
• Can someone serve two terms in a row?
• How long should someone be a member before they are eligible for modship?
• Should modding be voluntary?
• Should mods intervene only upon request? Are there exceptions to this? What are the exceptions?
• Should mods have separate id's? (Farawen)
• Should mod decisions be made public, for example in a sticky thread for that purpose? (Laureanna)

Should there be a conflict resolution process?
• Should there be a mediation vs. arbitration choice available to posters?
• Should there be something like jury duty?
• Should jury duty be voluntary?
• Should there be people who help resolve conflict when posters want to ‘take it off the boards’, e.g. a conflict reduction team?

Banning
•Will there be such a thing?
• Who will make the decision? Should we have a ‘ court’ for serious problems? If yes, how will it be structured?
• Will there be a time period after joining when ‘instant banning’ is possible?
• Can trolls be instantly banned? How do you define ‘troll’?

Jn

one substantive edit for clarity

Last edited by Jnyusa on Fri 04 Mar , 2005 5:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Leoba
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 9:51 pm
Troubadour of Ithilien
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:04 am
Location: Bree, Buckinghamshire
 
It's very helpful to attack the little questions like this. Thank you. :mrgreen::mrgreen:


It's getting late for me (the 5:45am alarm looms large) so I only want to throw out a couple of quick thoughts.


How to choose mods
My understanding from the outset of this board is that it would be self-moderating.

So I don't think we need any Mods at all. We have 4 Admins - half their job is the day to day moderating function of thread moving and deleting and they are more than capable of stepping in to break up a fight if it's absolutely necessary/called for.


Should there be a conflict resolution process?

Yes. If something got to the point where an Admin was asked to intervene and it was still going nowhere, it would be helpful to have a team of volunteers to help individuals find a way forward, or rules they could agree to adhere to, that would strike a reasonably comfortable medium.

That sort of system would require skills of mediation that I certainly don't possess. So how one would compose such a team I'm not so sure that a volunteer or rota system would work. Perhaps a combination of the aggrieved partys' choice and an Admin choice?


Banning
I'm not personally very comfortable with the concept of banning, to be honest. Even someone who initially trolls (posting adverts; spamming; posting inflammatory remarks just to get a reaction) can have the potential to become a decent member of the community. Or they'll get bored and fade away.

It would follow on from that that instant banning of a newish member shouldn't happen. The downside to which is that the Admin might wake up in the morning with quite a cleaning job on their hands.




I know, that doesn't answer half the questions and is possibly less than helpful, but it's a start.


Top
Profile Quote
Farawen
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 10:24 pm
Far out
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:11 pm
Location: State of Confusion
 
Another question: Should Mods have their own Mod ID for modding purposes, or use their "regular" ID?


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject: Re: Modding: Decision Thread
Posted: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 10:37 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Jnyusa wrote:

How to choose mods
There is already consensus that Mods should rotate.
• How many mods do we need?
• How long should mod tenure be?
• Can someone serve two terms in a row?
• How long should someone be a member before they are eligible for modship?
• Should modding be voluntary?
• Should mods intervene only upon request? Are there exceptions to this? What are the exceptions?
  • If we have mods, I'd say that a 3-month stint should be enough. The same as the admins.
    Nobody who goes through an admin stint should have to be a mod immediately afterwards, or before, unless they want to. And vice versa. As for serving 2 terms: if they want. But I'd say, no more than 2 terms, either admin+mod, or both terms in the same position.
    How long before a member can be elected mod: I'd let postcount decide that, more than join date. If someone participates actively (and positively), then they're a worthy member of the community.
    Modding, like admining, should be voluntary, but posters should be able to put suggestions forward and/or vote.
    As for intervention, how about this: A conflict between posters needs to run for longer than 2 posts on each side before a mod can intervene, thus giving them some leeway to solve their differences by discussion. In addition, the posters in conflict, or anyone else, should be able to request mod intervention, via the thread itself or PM. If it's a case of trolling, mods should have powers to intervene swiftly.
    One thing that I regard as very important, though, is that regular posters should be able to "moderate" too - telling people to calm down, flagging a troll etc. Moderators should intervene if regular posters can't solve a problem by themselves, though, or when locking etc. is required.
Jnyusa wrote:

Should there be a conflict resolution process?
Yes, in combination with the mods.
Jnyusa wrote:

• Should there be a mediation vs. arbitration choice available to posters?
Absolutely. I'd say - mediation by default, arbitration only if mediation isn't enough.
Jnyusa wrote:

• Should there be something like jury duty?
• Should jury duty be voluntary?
I'd like to have a team of "mediators" or "meds", the same number as mods, elected the same way as mods. Some people would be better at one thing and others at the other. For instance, Breogán and I would make a fine team; she'd be a good mod, I'd be a good med.
Jnyusa wrote:

• Should there be people who help resolve conflict when posters want to ‘take it off the boards’, e.g. a conflict reduction team?
If people want to take things off the boards, they're off the boards, unless they specifically ask for a mod or a med to intervene.

I don't have any thoughts about banning so far, but I'll be back when I've had a think about that.

Thank you Jny! :) You're an asset to this place.

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 11:18 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
I wouldn't like the mods to be anonymous. If we choose them, we trust them, and they don't need to hide. If they make a mistake so grave that we stop trusting them, they have to be revealed anyway... I mean I don't see the point of having secret mod IDs, especially not if we rotate.

No one has to take the responsibility of being a mod if they don't want to...

Leoba suggests the forums be self-moderating. I think that's possible, and that it should be our plan A. But I think we should also always have one or two mods just in case. Or perhaps the admin could do that... It depends how many people we have who are able to administrate the boards, and how much time they can dedicate.

The recent attacks of viruses on phppb boards had me thinking that perhaps there are certain functions for this board that HAVE to be fixed jobs. It would be helpful if we always had a mod or admin who knew their IT and understood phpbb well enough to cope with updates, virus threats... not to be caught unawares whether by a problem or just a question. (speaking in layman terms right now as I am definitely not IT-savvy)
Or perhaps all we need to do is make sure people who become admins grasp the basics? After all not everyone who has their own board is a techie.


• Should modding be voluntary?

Definitely. A mod who doesn't want to mod or doesn't have time is pretty much useless.

• Should mods intervene only upon request? Are there exceptions to this? What are the exceptions?
Hmm, how about if the mods asked whether any help is needed? If they thought things were getting too heated?
Let's assume a flame war erupts between two posters, and the thread is disrupted to the point of being a nuisance to everyone else. It might be necessary to tell the posters to please solve this over email. It would be nice if we all tried to help them solve it right here, but let's face it- babysitting isn't fun. Sometimes we'll want to get involved in the conflict, sometimes we'll just be tired and wish they'd take it elsewhere.
I don't know if laying a responsibility on the admins to ALWAYS try and help solve the conflict on the board is a good idea. And deciding which conflict to solve and which to send off the boards is tricky.
I propose that when things get too serious, the mods should ask the posters to solve it privately, but say it can continue on the boards if it's a debate aimed at finding compromise, not at hurting people.

Also- if there is mod intervention, it should be on both sides.

But what is mod intervention? If this board is self-moderated, then anyone may ask another poster to tone it down for example. It should have the same value as when a mod does it. However, at some point we might need to have the mods give a weighter opinion- when someone just won't listen, for example, repeatedly calls people names instead of discussing their point.

But I never particularly liked the idea of warnings...

So if something bad happens in a thread, I don't think mods should put on their official hats unless a) posters ask them to b) they decide things are going too far.
It all depends on the tone they use, too.

Should there be a conflict resolution process?
• Should there be a mediation vs. arbitration choice available to posters?
• Should there be something like jury duty?
• Should jury duty be voluntary?
• Should there be people who help resolve conflict when posters want to ‘take it off the boards’, e.g. a conflict reduction team?

I think mandatory jury duty stinks- but if it's voluntary, there may not be people willing to help when needed. On the one hand, that doesn't have to be bad- if no one wants to help solve the conflict, then it's clear that the posters have to work it out between themselves- the community asks them to take it off the board.
But if we start involving more people in a conflict, it can get hurtful. How do we even choose such a group? How do we make sure the fighting posters don't feel like there is bias? How do we make sure there IS no bias?
I think solving problems on the board should be at the responsiblity of the arguing posters. They may make a thread, and discuss, and argue, but no one else should be on duty to help- and a code of good behaviour would apply to all those participating.

Banning
•Will there be such a thing?
• Who will make the decision? Should we have a ‘ court’ for serious problems? If yes, how will it be structured?

First of all I think if someone is going to be tried, they must be asked first. They can be given a choice...to either change the way they're behaving, or defend their rights in front of that court (if they choose neither, then I think it's time to think about bans) I think that's pretty fair. They will have a chance to say what they think in public, in front of other posters. The admin could present the other side of the problem, but then remove themselves to an overseer position. And the debate would be between the poster 'on trial' and the rest of the board. I don't know if that's a good idea but it's what seems fairest to me at the moment...

• Will there be a time period after joining when ‘instant banning’ is possible?
• Can trolls be instantly banned? How do you define ‘troll’?

I'm less lenient than Leoba here. If someone registers and is immediately abusive or posts ads, they should get the boot. Along with a polite letter of course, inviting them back if they want to participate properly. When someone registers and posts 'You're all fuckers' it's pretty clear he's not interested in our community.

Now about banning real members...
I think the real problem with banning on TORC (I'm sorry to compare but it's the only messageboard where I've experienced it) is that it's considered punishment. I really hate the idea of punishment, in any form. It doesn't feel productive. What does feel productive is simply wording it differently. Tell someone you're locking their access to the board for a short period because you feel they need time to cool off. Don't tell them they're unwelcome and need to change immediately. Tell them there is a problem that needs to be solved, and that they can try solving it on the board, but that in order to do that they need to stop being aggressive (for example).

Sorry about this being all higgledy piggledy. I work more by intuition than by reason.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 1:11 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks for the positive response, everyone!

As people raise new questions, I'm editing them in to the first post with the name of the poster in parenthesess - thus Leoba's and Farawen's questions have been added.

I also set up a data base on my computer to keep track of the various answers suggested so we won't have to assemble them all at the end.



Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 1:28 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
Jnyusa, if you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you.

:bow:

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 1:35 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I quick one since I don't have a lot of time since Iavas has had control of the computer for most of the day.
Leoba wrote:
Even someone who initially trolls (posting adverts; spamming; posting inflammatory remarks just to get a reaction) can have the potential to become a decent member of the community. Or they'll get bored and fade away.
I'm a mod at another forum and I can tell you this won't always happen. I have a member there who's sole purpose was to antagonize others. He's been through two temp bans and still comes back. He's slightly toned down but really he just harasses others, but now he doesn't quite cross the line.

I've had another awful member keep spamming and just being awful and the only way to get him to stop was a ban.

Not all trolls will go away. Some want to keep coming back and trying again so I do think we need the banishment option.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 3:27 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
When I saw the name of this thread: Modding Decision Thread, I thought it was going to be a thread listing official mod actions, and why they were taken, as they come up. This would be nice, I think, rather than letting people find out by rumor and inuendo, or remain clueless like me. It could be a sticky with (current) mod access only, saying that ### thread was "given a three day lock for all parties to cool off" or So-and-so is in the penalty box for 3 days for a PMS-induced day of trolling, or something like that.

I like the idea of witnesses. There's nothing worse (and I've had this happen to me in my first MB experience in 1995) than having someone ream you privately on email, then insist that her privacy be honored. So maybe if there is a modding action, the emails are also sent to a few witnesses, just so the two people emailing each other don't get nasty.

I like knowing who the mods are.

I don't think we have to worry about trolls until we open up to general membership, unless, of course, I go off my meds. :P

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 4:02 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Laureanna, just for clarity, there are no mods on B77 right now. We're basically trying to decide what structure the board needs in order to open it to the public, so the troll questions, etc. refer to what might happen at that time.

I'm going to add your idea to the questions in the first post. Others had mentioned in earlier threads the idea that mod decisions would be made public somehow and I missed this when I compiled issues, so thanks for bringing it up.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 8:32 am
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
I thought when we set this site up we decided no mods. There is no need for mods, and certainly no need for seperate id mods.

We are adults here, we can deal with the occasional spate.

Really not happy that the idea of mod's has come up. It brings a whole set of baggage and a whole set of rules. Before long we will be sucked into the no swearing, no swearing in German, no nipples no smut.


To answer your questions Jny

How to choose mods

We don't, simple really. We self moderate, and if sombody is being out of line, tell them. If they don't stop, bring it to general attention and look at the case in an open thread for all to comment on.

Should there be a conflict resolution process?

Not a formal one. Case by case as need. And if people can not work things out between themselves......:roll:

Banning

It will happen, probably with trolls if we get them. If we are mature enough to work it out then we will. If people persist in causing trouble of deliberate hurt for others, they will go. We can do a temporary ban and set up a poll if we need to.

Lets just try to work at not being in that situation.

Sorry if this is harsh Jny, but one of the first things agreed upon when this board was set up was no mods. They cause trouble, look at how this whole situation arose anyway (we would not have B77 if TORC mod/admin behaved like human beings).

I just really don't see the point of turning this board into a TORC/TORN/etc clone.

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 10:30 am
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Din, the way I see it is, we need to have structures set up in case we need to use them. As the voting turnout has shown (and Eru's frustration was eloquent in this regard), even though all members of B77 are supposedly equal and we all have the privilege/duty of voting in this board's decisions, not everybody does. That leaves me wondering: what will happen to self-moderation if there is a conflict, but nobody around is willing to intervene? We should have at least some semblance of minimum moderation, so that we could recourse to it, should we need it. And it would be no good to try and set that up hurriedly when we're having a problem, like is happening now with the invites because we didn't think that through before. So, as far as I'm concerned, all this mods discussion is preventative, and does not imply that we WILL have mods set in stone. Just a discussion so that we can implement them, should we need to, in a relatively straightforward manner.

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 10:57 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
Well said Ber. Maybe the key lies in words- maybe we needn't have mods at all, just admins, or 'caretakers' or whatever you'd like to call them. The board can't function properly without someone at the steering wheel, even if it's the community that says which way to turn it. If the positions rotate, there shouldn't be a problem. These people will be there just in case.

Like shirriffs in the Shire. I don't recall them having to do anything except patrol inns. :P But they were there just in case.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:00 am
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Shirriffs would be an excellent term, Ro! :D

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 11:01 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
Whaddya know...maybe we could call them that. :Q

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 1:09 pm
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
I would just call them Admin :roll:

And to be honest I would prefer to have the potential for Admin to have to intervene in possible conflicts if brought to their attention, rather than the situation we had on that supperficially similar board, where we had roving bands ready to pounce.

It is tricky, but I also think it is something that every member of this board has to take on as a role. If you want to post here, you need to be considerate, and ready to help if anybody is being picked on/flamed or whatever.

Maybe we should have Sherrifs, as mentioned in sigs or we can have a catagory of member set up if we like. Not with Mod powers to delete or to ban, just to come in and say hold on.

If the shit does hit the fan and somebody does go berserk, admin can edit posts to clean up at need.

But I for one would not feel happy here if we have the same set of rules and regulations for mods that we did on TORC.

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 2:09 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
I think we're both saying pretty much the same thing...minus a few details. :P

I'm just worried, like Ber, that at some point there might be trouble that no one will have enough strength or will to take care of properly. I mean, when you have conflict, it takes effort to solve it.

So...let me think again. Admins=Mods, rotating, only a limited number of them, ergo, we assume we can mod ourselves, and take on that responsibility.

I like this...it means there is no situation on this board where it's none of our business. It's always our business...and if someone wants privacy then they must take it off the board. But like laureanna said, there are always witnesses to matters that concern the board- meaning you can't deal with a problem you have with b77 'privately'.
Or should there be exceptions? Maybe that's not too good an idea?

At least the clear thing is that ideally, no member will ever be removed from b77 without the process and reasons being available for discussion on the boards. Is that right?

So maybe all we need to say is that a poster answers to the community, and the admins do not make individual decisions, only pull the levers.

Of course, sometimes an admin must make an individual decision, like giving someone a quick temp-ban if they're going crazy, or locking a thread which is out of control...but then the condition could be that 1) the decision is temporary and will be discussed on the board 2) that the admin must explain what they did, when they did it and why they did it. 3) that this is never a final decision.

In other words...allow the admin to make quick decisions when they need to, so they don't feel like they're caught between Scylla and Charibdis when they need to act fast but haven't talked to people, but let those decisions be temporary solutions until the community decides.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 2:28 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I haven't read all of this. I will.

But please remember that the closer you make this to real life and the simpler it is, the more successful this will work and attract new posters from all walks of life.

A *real* community on the net. Our own country.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 2:58 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Din, right now I'm just trying to assemble the questions/suggestions that have been raised by others in various threads so that we can see more clearly what the choices are. You can be as harsh as you want without offending me because I haven't yet expressed my own opinion inside this thread! :)

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 01 Feb , 2005 5:44 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I agree that admin should be the mods, but I like the idea of the Shirriffs or people that help mediate if there are problems.

Really, admins don't have that much to do now that the board has pretty much been set up. Moving, locking threads, deleting double posts...that's the kind of stuff that falls under a Mod's job on TORC. Admin are doing that right now. So to me B77 Mod/Admin are the same thing.

Lidless said we should make this as close to real life as possible. Doing that would mean more of a structure and heirarchy wouldn't it? Take law enforcement (here in the states because that's all I know). You have a sheriff (the guy who oversees everything) and a bunch of cops (mods) who take care of the general population. To me that would point to an Admin and Mod structure. But since the Admins here aren't the final person to appeal to that really won't work here. All Admins do is follow the will of the normal posters. I wouldn't forsee anyone being banned without B77 consenting to it. So since the Admin here don't have an powers when it comes to decision making (though I agree with Rodia that they should be able to lock a thread or intervene just to help people calm down and of course remind them that it isn't a final action), let them do the modding stuff.

We're just too used to TORC's system. It's names for positions are confusing ours.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 107 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: