Should moderators be reviewed annually?

[Z]

I know there was discussion about this before in a thread that got locked but I thought it was an interesting subject. Should we elect moderators? Or is it better that they are appointed by the admin staff who spend time deliberating over the decision with the existing moderating staff? I wasn't so much thinking of it in a "yeah we need new mods, screw the current ones" way, but rather, people disappear from the forum all the time, including moderators, and it wasn't until relatively recently that a bunch of them were demoted because they were no longer active members so it looked silly having them on the mod team. Should moderators be elected on an annual basis? Every two years?

[arista]

No

[arista]

Zee wanting a Freaking Game out of it

[T*]

It's a bit iffy because it'd be a fantastic idea but there would be block voting. There'd be some people taking it seriously, and some going "Hey vote for me xxoxoxoxo I'll make everyone's avatar ********tan xoxoxo xox"

[Z]

Zee wanting a Freaking Game out of it

Where on earth did I say that? Stop being so rude.

Moderators are regular members who are given the power to control what is and isn't allowed on the forum. Sometimes people are picked for the job who aren't cut out for the reality of it and I think it's an interesting point of discussion - you can't tell if someone's going to be good at moderating until they're given the chance and if they aren't good at it, there's nothing in place to remove them from the position unless they're actively abusing the position so the admin team remove the power or the user themselves decides to step down.

[smudgie]

Works ok as it is by the looks of it.

[Smithy]

No, not at all

[Z]

It's a bit iffy because it'd be a fantastic idea but there would be block voting. There'd be some people taking it seriously, and some going "Hey vote for me xxoxoxoxo I'll make everyone's avatar ********tan xoxoxo xox"

I don't think it would be a straight forward case of putting out a poll and the most popular wins, not like elections in a who would you rather sense, but mods should maybe serve 1 or 2 years on the mod team and then if they want to continue in the role, they'd need to put themselves forward for consideration like any other member would whenever James posts a thread asking for new mods. Then the admin team would look at what the forum would like to see and take that into account when they decide, which is normally what happens anyway but there's no re-election involved with current mods.

[arista]

It's a bit iffy because it'd be a fantastic idea but there would be block voting. There'd be some people taking it seriously, and some going "Hey vote for me xxoxoxoxo I'll make everyone's avatar ********tan xoxoxo xox"


NO

[T*]

I don't think it would be a straight forward case of putting out a poll and the most popular wins, not like elections in a who would you rather sense, but mods should maybe serve 1 or 2 years on the mod team and then if they want to continue in the role, they'd need to put themselves forward for consideration like any other member would whenever James posts a thread asking for new mods. Then the admin team would look at what the forum would like to see and take that into account when they decide, which is normally what happens anyway but there's no re-election involved with current mods.

That could actually work, :hugesmile:

[Kizzy]

Admin decision, it shouldn't be a popularity contest. And I guess it should go on how active they are if they keep the position essentially, unless the other mods are happy to do more?

[arista]

Admin decision, it shouldn't be a popularity contest. And I guess it should go on how active they are if they keep the position essentially, unless the other mods are happy to do more?


Bang On Right Kizzy

[Z]

To clarify, I'm not really speaking about picking new moderators, I'm speaking about whether or not we should be keeping a check on the current moderating team at any given time, because once a person is made a moderator, they continue to hold that position unless they stop using the forum, they abuse the position or they choose to step down.

[MTVN]

What the hell, how have I only just noticed the inactive Mods are no longer Mods

[arista]

Have you been at those brazillian grapes again?


yes that Sweet Power

[Ammi]

..maybe after a length of time if their absent from the forum and Admin or someone has contacted them and a fairly sure that they're not coming back to the forum, they could remove the status...but most of our current mods are active..(I think I've only ever seen one mod name that I didn't recognise..)..and the only two mods that are new to the site since I've been here, which were elected by admin have both been good mods, so I think it seem the most effective way to choose them...

[Z]

..maybe after a length of time if their absent from the forum and Admin or someone has contacted them and a fairly sure that they're not coming back to the forum, they could remove the status...but most of our current mods are active..(I think I've only ever seen one mod name that I didn't recognise..)..and the only two mods that are new to the site since I've been here, which were elected by admin have both been good mods, so I think it seem the most effective way to choose them...

They do that anyway, remove the inactive moderators after a while.

[Ammi]

They do that anyway, remove the inactive moderators after a while.

..sorry, I don't know what you mean then Zee...

[Z]

..sorry, I don't know what you mean then Zee...

Should the active moderating team be scrutinised every other year? Is it okay that once someone is picked as a moderator, they have that position unless they stop using the forum, choose to step down or abuse the position; or should there be an appraisal period where all moderators are reconsidered by the admin? I just think that sometimes, and I'm not necessarily saying that any of the current mods are bad or shouldn't be on the team, but sometimes people are picked for the position and then they don't have what it takes to do the job, either because they can't be arsed or because they aren't able to be tough when it's required and step into an argument or perhaps they're just too busy in real life for the position after being a great mod for a while and they still use the forum but they aren't around as much so they don't have the time to moderate.

There are plenty of reasons why someone can't be an effective moderator, so should we reshuffle the mod team every now and then after considering personal circumstances or should the mod team remain as it is unless the admin decides otherwise? For example, Ben stepped down because he was moving abroad and didn't think he would be online very much - if he hadn't have stepped down, he would have still been a moderator but he'd have been on much less yet still expected to carry out the duties of a moderator.

[Ammi]

..oh, I think I understand..you mean like school Governors etc, who serve a term ans then have to be 'elected' again to continue..or members of parliament..?...the only thing with that would be that I think it would give a bit of an inconsistency to the forum maybe..having the same ones helps you get to know how the forum works, I think....

[Kizzy]

If moderators break forum rules they should have mod status removed for a specific time maybe too.

[Tom4784]

I stand by what I said last time this came up. Tibb's Next Top Mod should be a thing.

[Z]

..oh, I think I understand..you mean like school Governors etc, who serve a term ans then have to be 'elected' again to continue..or members of parliament..?...the only thing with that would be that I think it would give a bit of an inconsistency to the forum maybe..having the same ones helps you get to know how the forum works, I think....

Yeah. I mean, should it be a rule that moderators have to decide every year whether or not they want to continue to be a moderator? I remained a moderator for ages even though it was ruining my enjoyment of TiBB because I wasn't really forced to consider it and it took me ages to decide to step down because of that. If you're asked on an annual basis if you want to continue then at least you have to think about it. Then if any mods decide to step down, you would look for a replacement. I just think that there's a sort of static feel to being a moderator sometimes, like you've achieved something by being asked to do it and to let go of the responsibility makes you feel like you've failed in some way, even if you don't actually want to hold the responsibility anymore.

[Ammi]

Should the active moderating team be scrutinised every other year? Is it okay that once someone is picked as a moderator, they have that position unless they stop using the forum, choose to step down or abuse the position; or should there be an appraisal period where all moderators are reconsidered by the admin? I just think that sometimes, and I'm not necessarily saying that any of the current mods are bad or shouldn't be on the team, but sometimes people are picked for the position and then they don't have what it takes to do the job, either because they can't be arsed or because they aren't able to be tough when it's required and step into an argument or perhaps they're just too busy in real life for the position after being a great mod for a while and they still use the forum but they aren't around as much so they don't have the time to moderate.

There are plenty of reasons why someone can't be an effective moderator, so should we reshuffle the mod team every now and then after considering personal circumstances or should the mod team remain as it is unless the admin decides otherwise? For example, Ben stepped down because he was moving abroad and didn't think he would be online very much - if he hadn't have stepped down, he would have still been a moderator but he'd have been on much less yet still expected to carry out the duties of a moderator.


...the only thing is though that active moderating in terms of infractions/bans etc must be only a part of moderating a forum...there is more 'technical/behind the scenes' stuff as well..?...well you've been a moderator yourself, so you know what goes on and people have strengths and weaknesses, everyone does...so what might not seem like a 'strong' mod in terms of the infractions stuff maybe invaluable elsewhere to the forum...

[Ramsay]

Nope. like someone said in a previous thread, popularity wouldn't make a certain person a good mod

[Z]

Nope. like someone said in a previous thread, popularity wouldn't make a certain person a good mod

That was me who said that :laugh:

Generally speaking the main part of being a moderator is dealing with infractions so a lot of the time you are led to threads that are filled with arguments about stuff you don't even know about, it's what I imagine being a teacher/parent/referee is like :laugh: it's about crowd control, then there's stuff like moving topics or merging them etc... it's not too difficult to get to grips with it, but sometimes there will be situations where members you know and like as people will be causing trouble and you have to put aside your friendships with people and be impartial, and some people don't have that ability, for example.

[Ammi]

Yeah. I mean, should it be a rule that moderators have to decide every year whether or not they want to continue to be a moderator? I remained a moderator for ages even though it was ruining my enjoyment of TiBB because I wasn't really forced to consider it and it took me ages to decide to step down because of that. If you're asked on an annual basis if you want to continue then at least you have to think about it. Then if any mods decide to step down, you would look for a replacement. I just think that there's a sort of static feel to being a moderator sometimes, like you've achieved something by being asked to do it and to let go of the responsibility makes you feel like you've failed in some way, even if you don't actually want to hold the responsibility anymore.

..do you not think though that because you and Ben both did 'step down', which you felt was the 'right thing to do..' because you couldn't spend the time moderating that you felt it needed..it kind of shows we have the right mods and who would make that decision if they felt they should without any other changes to be made..

[Z]

..do you not think though that because you and Ben both did 'step down', which you felt was the 'right thing to do..' because you couldn't spend the time moderating that you felt it needed..it kind of shows we have the right mods and who would make that decision if they felt they should without any other changes to be made..

Well, in all of the time I've been here, the only people to step down have been Lauren, Ben and myself. Ben stepped down for a practical reason; Lauren and I stepped down because it was ruining our enjoyment of being members of the forum and we didn't want to be impartial all the time, we wanted to take part in conversations that we otherwise wouldn't have been able to for fear of being accused of being biased in some way. So I don't think that's the case at all, I think there are plenty of people who would happily hold on to the position without ever giving it up willingly (see: all of the people who have been demodded due to inactivity) because there's no prompt for them to think about it. If you know that you're going to be really busy in real life, you're not going to think "oh I should probably give up that moderating position on that forum I use" - but if you were asked to consider whether you wanted to carry on for another year, you might know that you wouldn't be able to commit so you would terminate your contract, as it were.

I suppose what I'm really talking about isn't popular elections for new mods, that was never the point, I'm asking whether there should be year long commitments to being a moderator instead of it being more like a club with lifelong membership.

[Jordan.]

Nope. like someone said in a previous thread, popularity wouldn't make a certain person a good mod

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar11566_69.gif

[T*]

Where's the mod list, I can't find it anywhere :/

[Kizzy]

Most definately it's a commitment but as you say it has to be someone who's impartial as it would ruin the enjoyment having to effectively mediate all discussions.

[King Gizzard]

Would always have an element of a popularity contest if this was the case *funny post now about me only being one probably because of that reason*

[Z]

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar11566_69.gif

Nah, people put themselves forward for the position in a thread James posts and then the existing mod team debates it to death and then the admin reaches a final decision about who they think would be suitable for the job, people have to actually apply for the position though. If people have been banned/infracted they're generally out of the running so it narrows itself down pretty quickly.

[King Gizzard]

Don't think this place is big and serious enough to have these election kind of things Lol it seems a bit politics-ey

[thesheriff443]

i see no need for elections, what i do see is a conflict of interest at times.
if you're a mod and a member no matter how much people say it does not happen, there are times when your opinion as a member will cloud your opinion as a mod.

the hand that rocks the cradle should also be able to rock the boat!.

[Ammi]

Well, in all of the time I've been here, the only people to step down have been Lauren, Ben and myself. Ben stepped down for a practical reason; Lauren and I stepped down because it was ruining our enjoyment of being members of the forum and we didn't want to be impartial all the time, we wanted to take part in conversations that we otherwise wouldn't have been able to for fear of being accused of being biased in some way. So I don't think that's the case at all, I think there are plenty of people who would happily hold on to the position without ever giving it up willingly (see: all of the people who have been demodded due to inactivity) because there's no prompt for them to think about it. If you know that you're going to be really busy in real life, you're not going to think "oh I should probably give up that moderating position on that forum I use" - but if you were asked to consider whether you wanted to carry on for another year, you might know that you wouldn't be able to commit so you would terminate your contract, as it were.

I suppose what I'm really talking about isn't popular elections for new mods, that was never the point, I'm asking whether there should be year long commitments to being a moderator instead of it being more like a club with lifelong membership.


..I haven't seen the 'demods' but I'm presuming they are all inactive mods who haven't been on the forum for quite some time..?...essentially they're not really mods anyway if they're not here, so that's really just turning their username from green to black...for me, the mods are just the active mods that we all know and maybe there are some that are less active at different times because of stuff in their own lives but that would be the same with anyone who was a mod, I think....and if/when our active mods become inactive then I imagine they will lose their 'membership' as well at some point...?...

..but it's an interesting comparison to a teacher/parent etc and the crowd control thing because everyone has their own methods to do that and in the right situation, they're all equally as effective...the 'softly' one can be just as much so, as the 'harder approach'..which is what we have here, I think...

[Z]

I'm going to rename the thread, too many people have read the title and think I want some kind of General Chat poll to see who can get 20 votes first :bored:

[Jords]

Theres a few mods that seem to do absolute nothing so maybe :tongue:

[Ammi]

I'm going to rename the thread, too many people have read the title and think I want some kind of General Chat poll to see who can get 20 votes first :bored:

..haha...I think it's more that I don't see the benefit in taking away the status of an inactive mod that quickly because it only seems to be that they're names are in green that's been taken away..(if they're inactive..)...if we had say hmmm 20 'moderators' but only 5 were active but the forum only required 5 active mods..?..then it doesn't really matter if those names are still in green..?...

[Z]

..haha...I think it's more that I don't see the benefit in taking away the status of an inactive mod that quickly because it only seems to be that they're names are in green that's been taken away..(if they're inactive..)...if we had say hmmm 20 'moderators' but only 5 were active but the forum only required 5 active mods..?..then it doesn't really matter if those names are still in green..?...

But I'm speaking about active mods. If you are a moderator, you have been given that position on good faith that you will be good at the job. Some people turn out not to be so great at it, as I said for any number of reasons that could range from not having the time to not having the resolve to be tough in difficult situations. They might be really active members but just not cut out for being a mod - should they be asked on an annual basis whether they want to continue or do you think the system is fine the way it is? I guess I've not made it very clear what I'm asking :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Annual review is an excellent idea, the fact anyone with infractions is out of the running is ridiculous seeing as you get them for looking at certain people the wron way and moderators can't get them...
In the interest of fair play this is not a level playing field is it?

[Z]

Annual review is an excellent idea, the fact anyone with infractions is out of the running is ridiculous seeing as you get them for looking at certain people the wron way and moderators can't get them...
In the interest of fair play this is not a level playing field is it?

Well this is another thing, when you become a mod you are elevated above being held accountable because it is expected that you will be impartial and carrying out the job in good faith - I don't think it's right that moderators aren't subjected to some kind of annual review. I don't think it has to involve normal forum members, as I said, I'm not suggesting a popularity contest forum vote; but maybe the admin team (James and Josy) should be double checking whether or not all of the moderating team are really doing their duty and whether or not they're happy to continue on in the role. It's too easy to accept the position and then not really want the responsibility but have no reason to relinquish it. I enjoyed being a moderator for a year or so; it took me another year to step down.

[Me. I Am Salman]

There def needs to be one more mod

[Smithy]

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar11566_69.gif

I heard vicky slept with mark for her job http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ATRL_Smilies_All/random/mskt8j_zpsfb323382.gif

[Ammi]

But I'm speaking about active mods. If you are a moderator, you have been given that position on good faith that you will be good at the job. Some people turn out not to be so great at it, as I said for any number of reasons that could range from not having the time to not having the resolve to be tough in difficult situations. They might be really active members but just not cut out for being a mod - should they be asked on an annual basis whether they want to continue or do you think the system is fine the way it is? I guess I've not made it very clear what I'm asking :laugh:

...but the active mods are all very active though, I don't think that I know of any who haven't say stepped into a dispute or instilled a ban when we had the ban list..I didn't agree with that anyway in that a moderator's name was attached to a ban when it's more of a forum rule break thing and should I think always come from 'admin'....

...I guess as far as the re election thing is concerned, working in a school myself and having had many different governing bodies through that time..the inconsistencies with those changes can have a very negative effect as well...

[Smithy]

greg you changed the question, yeah, mods definitely need to be reviewed annually, a lot can happen in a year, whats the point keeping people as mods if they're less/inactive or break rules themselves, thinking they can get away with it just cause they have mod status

[Ammi]

..as for the infraction thing..?...that wouldn't prevent someone from being a moderator, would it...I don't personally know but from things that are said, many moderators were infracted etc as members....?...

[Z]

greg you changed the question, yeah, mods definitely need to be reviewed annually, a lot can happen in a year, whats the point keeping people as mods if they're less/inactive or break rules themselves, thinking they can get away with it just cause they have mod status

The title made it seem like I was asking for new moderators but that wasn't what I meant so I changed the title to make it clearer

[Z]

..as for the infraction thing..?...that wouldn't prevent someone from being a moderator, would it...I don't personally know but from things that are said, many moderators were infracted etc as members....?...

I think one or two infractions over the course of a few years wouldn't necessarily impact on someone's chances but if a user has a history of being a nuisance then they're not likely to be seriously considered for the job.

[Ammi]

I think one or two infractions over the course of a few years wouldn't necessarily impact on someone's chances but if a user has a history of being a nuisance then they're not likely to be seriously considered for the job.

..I guess I just don't see the point really because it's either fine how it is now and doesn't need changing or if it wasn't fine and there was an annual election, a yearly change of moderating team would be confusing for everyone and the forum would be completely different to what it is now...and there's also the thing that a moderator could be re-elected but they couldn't make the commitment themselves and would step down anyway....

[Benjamin]

Where on earth did I say that? Stop being so rude.

Moderators are regular members who are given the power to control what is and isn't allowed on the forum. Sometimes people are picked for the job who aren't cut out for the reality of it and I think it's an interesting point of discussion - you can't tell if someone's going to be good at moderating until they're given the chance and if they aren't good at it, there's nothing in place to remove them from the position unless they're actively abusing the position so the admin team remove the power or the user themselves decides to step down.

Seeing the coin from both sides I agree with you completely. But yeah for those that want a kind of game out of it no, it should be more of a review made by admin.

[Kizzy]

What if a moderator becomes a nuisance? it could happen.

[Benjamin]

What if a moderator becomes a nuisance? it could happen.

It has happened.

[MTVN]

I actually think we regulate ourselves pretty well, more so than is maybe realised. Everything gets done by consensus or at least majority, nobody could abuse their position as a Mod or anything like that because the rest wouldn't allow it to happen. If a Mod makes a decision or gives some an infraction then the rest all see it along with the Admins and will speak up if they disagree, it's why infractions/bans/decisions do get changed or overturned sometimes because things might be seen or interpreted differently by the others. And on the same note no Mod gets so absorbed in the 'power' of their role, or take it so personally, that they wouldn't always listen to any criticism of something they've done or refuse to discuss it

[MTVN]

I don't really see why Admin need a review system either really when appointing or dismissing a Mod is a power they already have and could use at any time if they thought it justified

[Benjamin]

I don't really see why Admin need a review system either really when appointing or dismissing a Mod is a power they already have and could use at any time if they thought it justified

Me personally, without naming anyone, feel as if a couple of mods just stay as mods because they are nosey and don't want to miss out on the behind the scenes/gossip of TiBB, and do as little as possible modding wise and have such a little input, which that position could be better placed with somebody who would do more. Now that can be denied but you know I have been in towers for a few years.

Again, this is not aimed at all mods, so if any of you take it personally, then yeah it probably is you. The majority of mods are fine and do their jobs.

[Kizzy]

Don't get defensive, you're safe I like you :laugh:

[Kizzy]

I'm surprised that new mods have to be agreed by current ones, that should be admin really. Is that for a reason so you all get on?

[Ammi]

..I don’t believe that any moderator doesn’t do anything though, just by the characters/personalities in general of the moderating team, I can’t see that other moderators wouldn’t have something to say about that...unless it’s an inactive mod.....

[Benjamin]

I'm surprised that new mods have to be agreed by current ones, that should be admin really. Is that for a reason so you all get on?

No, but the current mods tend to be online and have a clearer view of members than admin.

[Gstar]

If people have been banned/infracted they're generally out of the running so it narrows itself down pretty quickly.

that's me out of the running

[Benjamin]

Just an observation. I would also say that the mod team has often changed over the years and adapted with the forum, but it has remained pretty static for the last 3 years with exception of me and Zee stepping down and the loss of Kerry. I think this is the longest the mod team has gone unchanged? A new TiBB record?

[MTVN]

I genuinely don't agree that there are some Mods who are active on the site who do nothing in their role, whether it be through giving out infractions, deleting and banning spammers, merging several threads, helping out users who've asked for assistance in adding a poll to their thread or to edit it in some way, locking threads that have gone off topic, moving threads to the correct section etc. etc. I don't think there is any Moderator on here who while active on the forum would just ignore doing any of those duties if they are able to do them. A good bulk of Moderating is very tedious, menial stuff that most members wouldn't necessarily realise has even been done. And all Mods weigh in on any discussions we have in the towers.

I know you were a Mod for a long time Ben, but really you seem to have a very different view and have had a different experience to what I have had.

[Kizzy]

No, but the current mods tend to be online and have a clearer view of members than admin.

Clearer?... I wouldn't necessarily say so moderators can have differing views on members just like anyone.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Me personally, without naming anyone, feel as if a couple of mods just stay as mods because they are nosey and don't want to miss out on the behind the scenes/gossip of TiBB, and do as little as possible modding wise and have such a little input, which that position could be better placed with somebody who would do more. Now that can be denied but you know I have been in towers for a few years.

Again, this is not aimed at all mods, so if any of you take it personally, then yeah it probably is you. The majority of mods are fine and do their jobs.

http://popoverdose.com/images/smilies/emoji/e419.png

[Benjamin]

I genuinely don't agree that there are some Mods who are active on the site who do nothing in their role, whether it be through giving out infractions, deleting and banning spammers, merging several threads, helping out users who've asked for assistance in adding a poll to their thread or to edit it in some way, locking threads that have gone off topic, moving threads to the correct section etc. etc. I don't think there is any Moderator on here who while active on the forum would just ignore doing any of those duties if they are able to do them. A good bulk of Moderating is very tedious, menial stuff that most members wouldn't necessarily realise has even been done. And all Mods weigh in on any discussions we have in the towers.

I know you were a Mod for a long time Ben, but really you seem to have a very different view and have had a different experience to what I have had.

I never said do nothing, I said do as little as possible. There is a huge difference.

[AnnieK]

I wonder how many people would actually want to be a mod though?

[Benjamin]

Clearer?... I wouldn't necessarily say so moderators can have differing views on members just like anyone.

I mean they know the members a bit better than admin. :tongue:

[Smithy]

A few mods definitely take advantage of their position, there's been numerous times they've made a comment that if any other member had made they'd have been I reacted for

[Z]

I'm surprised that new mods have to be agreed by current ones, that should be admin really. Is that for a reason so you all get on?

Mmm it's more like a debate than anything (which is how most major decisions are made as well, I should mention) - the list of candidates grows as people apply and the mods debate who would be good for the role but ultimately it's down to the admin to decide, I think they maybe base their decision on what the mods have said in the thread because the mods interact with members whereas admin has traditionally been a bit more aloof

[MTVN]

Me and Kerry just got handpicked last time, no need for applications http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/smug.gif

[Benjamin]

Me and Kerry just got handpicked last time, no need for applications http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/smug.gif

That's how me, Vicky and Marc got picked too. :laugh:


I will just clarify that not all mods are bad, the majority of them do their job and do it well. I don;t want everyone thinking I am against them all.

[Tom4784]

Me and Kerry just got handpicked last time, no need for applications http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/smug.gif

I was dead set against it tbh.

[Me. I Am Salman]

I know I've done my fair share of mod bashing but I don't think they deserve this much criticism, my only real problem with them is that they're so quick to hand out infractions over dumb things and some members are allowed to get away with things that others aren't, e.g. the thread Jayson created months ago was blatant spam and would have been deleted say had Apple created it and it was little mix gifs i dunno

I definitely don't agree though that they're as bad as people in here are making out to be, like this taking advantage of their role' bullcrap. Some people in this thread are getting too big for their boots imo

[Benjamin]

I definitely don't agree though that they're as bad as people in here are making out to be, like this taking advantage of their role' bullcrap. Some people in this thread are getting too big for their boots imo

Yeah there is very little chance to take advantage of their role, the rest of the mods and the admin can see everything.

There have been a few occasions (off the top of my head) where mods have overstepped the mark and been reprimanded for it:

* Iceman having a horrible rant at a member for no reason - got a dressing down off admin and some of the team
* Me banning a member because I hated them and was drunk - got told off, had to reverse ban and apologise
* Rory giving a member his log in details so they could snoop in towers - had has mod status revoked

These have all been dealt with and things like this have always been dealt with, so the abuse of power is a flawed argument.

[Z]

That's how me, Vicky and Marc got picked too. :laugh:


I will just clarify that not all mods are bad, the majority of them do their job and do it well. I don;t want everyone thinking I am against them all.

Yeah I don't want anyone thinking I'm criticising anyone on the mod team, I just think generally it should be a bit more accountable than how it currently is and wondered if anyone else felt the same way.

[smeagol]

shoudl they be reviewed anally ? eek

i think once a week they should be strip searched and frisked and fondled lol an dmake sure no concealed weapons and chicken fillets

[Jessica.]

I don't think mods should be criticized as much as they are, but I do believe that they should all be looked at by a neutral admin, not necessarily at a pre allocated time. Some mods have said things that are out of order, but everyone is human and they shouldn't be punished for that, but being a mod is a responsibility that really means a lot to the community, which is really quite small, so even one mod making a wrong decision every so often can really effect the community.

I think all of the mods deserve to have responsibility in their own way, but do I think all of them have what's needed to be the right mod for TiBB? Unfortunately not. Personally I think we should go back to a time before the TiBB Staff account, so we can know for sure that nobody is abusing the system.

[fingers]

If a Mod feels justified in handing out infractions they should be able to stand by their decision rather than hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

[Tom4784]

If a Mod feels justified in handing out infractions they should be able to stand by their decision rather than hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

That used to be the case but it didn't work out well since people kept on focusing on which mods gave them the infraction and not on the infraction itself. You'd give someone an valid infraction and then they'd rile their friends up and cause trouble just because they couldn't accept they've done wrong. We still get that now but it's not as bad as it used to be.

[Z]

That used to be the case but it didn't work out well since people kept on focusing on which mods gave them the infraction and not on the infraction itself. You'd give someone an valid infraction and then they'd rile their friends up and cause trouble just because they couldn't accept they've done wrong. We still get that now but it's not as bad as it used to be.

Yeah that was a nightmare, people would then think you had it out for them when really you were just doing your job and that's why there were so many anti-mod sentiments back then

[Ammi]

..the infraction is from a representative of the forum for a rule break though, so it isn't really relevant which moderator actually implements it...

[arista]

Its a Red Line
the poster goes over.


What does Zee really want?

[Smithy]

..the infraction is from a representative of the forum for a rule break though, so it isn't really relevant which moderator actually implements it...

But it's down to the mod how much of a rule break it is and how many infraction points are given out

Like someone could call someone a dick and get 5 points and someone else call someone something ridiculously OTT racist/homophobic whatever and only get 3

[Redway]

Obviously wouldn't have a clue on the ins and outs of what goes on in the Towers but still pretty sure that each of them do their bit as moderators... if anything occurred within the year then they'd take it up themselves anyway, which works fine. Plus it should be a choice TPTB are more involved in, not just your favourite members.

[Jordan.]

Everytime MMI get's an infraction gets put on a ban so I'm sure some mods purposely give him a lot of points for small things.

[Smithy]

Everytime MMI get's an infraction gets put on a ban so I'm sure some mods purposely give him a lot of points for small things.

Well you'd have thought the amount of infractions/bans he's had would have taught him not to break the rules :shrug:

[Ammi]

But it's down to the mod how much of a rule break it is and how many infraction points are given out

Like someone could call someone a dick and get 5 points and someone else call someone something ridiculously OTT racist/homophobic whatever and only get 3

...I don't know that there aren't set points for specific things but I do like the sound of the 3 strike system because it's like in everything, I think that things should be clear for members when they break rules etc...but there is also a huge flaw in that because lots of things are said in joking and to member's they are familiar with, which is totally different to saying something as an insult...

[Jessica.]

Everytime MMI get's an infraction gets put on a ban so I'm sure some mods purposely give him a lot of points for small things.

Do you even know what he has done every time though? He probably just gets lots of little infractions and I don't think points expire after you get banned for them. :S I am not sure though. When I used to get banned a lot I always had loads of points for ages, maybe they give him ones with long expiration times.

[Z]

Its a Red Line
the poster goes over.


What does Zee really want?

Moderators to treat their position like an annually contracted position and to consider whether they really want the responsibility on a regular basis, rather than being appointed and that being that.

[fingers]

The British Judicial system allows for an appeal to be heard before a panel of independent judges because not even High Court judges are infallible when interpreting the law as they see it.

[Ammi]

Everytime MMI get's an infraction gets put on a ban so I'm sure some mods purposely give him a lot of points for small things.
..but there are two ways you could look at that though..not Jack specifically but with members in general who are often on bans and it's often said that it's harsh etc..?..but if they're often on bans and are still allowed back, then that's quite a relaxed moderating because it wouldn't necessarily be the case on other forums that they would be allowed back .....

[Jordan.]

Do you even know what he has done every time though? He probably just gets lots of little infractions and I don't think points expire after you get banned for them. :S I am not sure though. When I used to get banned a lot I always had loads of points for ages, maybe they give him ones with long expiration times.

I've seen it pretty much straight after he's come off a ban though, so he must have been given a lot of points to push him back onto another one (if that makes sense)

I think it was stupid hiding the infraction points since it's gonna make people suspicious that they're not being given out fairly.

[Jessica.]

I've seen it pretty much straight after he's come off a ban though, so he must have been given a lot of points to push him back onto another one (if that makes sense)

I think it was stupid hiding the infraction points since it's gonna make people suspicious that they're not being given out fairly.

It doesn't show how many points you have or get any more? :shocked: That is a bit silly, it would make people more well behaved if they knew they were close to a ban.

[Ammi]

The British Judicial system allows for an appeal to be heard before a panel of independent judges because not even High Court judges are infallible when interpreting the law as they see it.

...yeah, of course it's not perfect, nothing is but it's also just an internet forum and no one gets paid for what they do and without active moderation, I wouldn't think it would be a site that a lot of us would want to use...

[Me. I Am Salman]

yeah I agree that y'all need to calm down with MMI

[Cherie]

Moderators to treat their position like an annually contracted position and to consider whether they really want the responsibility on a regular basis, rather than being appointed and that being that.

I don't see a problem with this, but I would imagine if a Mod wanted to step down they would just say so? also if it ain't broke why try to fix it?

[arista]

Moderators to treat their position like an annually contracted position and to consider whether they really want the responsibility on a regular basis, rather than being appointed and that being that.


But it is fine as it is.

No Change is needed

[Z]

It doesn't show how many points you have or get any more? :shocked: That is a bit silly, it would make people more well behaved if they knew they were close to a ban.

I think the point is that members should be well behaved all the time, not just if they know they're close to a ban - that shows they haven't learned a lesson, they're just faking it until their infractions come off their record.

[Z]

At the end of the day I just created this thread because I thought it was an interesting topic of conversation raised in another thread which was locked so people didn't get the chance to discuss it. :shrug:

[Kizzy]

I feel this is veering off in a direction that wasn't zees intention, we all have an opinion on moderation but that was not the question posed was it?

[Smithy]

I think the point is that members should be well behaved all the time, not just if they know they're close to a ban - that shows they haven't learned a lesson, they're just faking it until their infractions come off their record.

Tbh I'd sooner have 4/5 weeks of someone pretending to behave than having them acting dickish all the time, being banned for a few days then coming back and carrying on acting the same

[Cherie]

At the end of the day I just created this thread because I thought it was an interesting topic of conversation raised in another thread which was locked so people didn't get the chance to discuss it. :shrug:

I think it is interesting to get different points of view on it, don't have a problem discussing it at all.

[Z]

Tbh I'd sooner have 4/5 weeks of someone pretending to behave than having them acting dickish all the time, being banned for a few days then coming back and carrying on acting the same

I'd rather people like that were just banned full stop.

[Jessica.]

Tbh I'd sooner have 4/5 weeks of someone pretending to behave than having them acting dickish all the time, being banned for a few days then coming back and carrying on acting the same

:worship: My point exactly.

[Z]

I think it is interesting to get different points of view on it, don't have a problem discussing it at all.

Yeah I didn't really anticipate arista accusing me of wanting some kind of forum game :laugh: I just wondered what people thought

[Roy Mars III]

yes, of course

[Kizzy]

The anonymous nature of moderation protects those handing out unfair infractions too, I doubt very much all moderarors agree on them 100% of the time.
Removing appeals and queries was another shift towards a very undemocratic forum, just my opinion you understand.

[Smithy]

I'd rather people like that were just banned full stop.

Well I don't see that happening any time soon :laugh:

[Benjamin]

To be fair people were abusing and misusing the appeals forum more than anything. It deserved to go because people used it incorrectly far too often.

[Marc]

I think a lot of people on here think of the whole moderator thing as way more serious than it actually is :laugh:

[Kizzy]

And to be fair to the people who just used it for an appeal or a query it didn't deserve to be removed as far as I see.

[Benjamin]

And to be fair to the people who just used it for an appeal or a query it didn't deserve to be removed as far as I see.

The ratio was about 85% misuse to 15% using it correctly. :laugh:

[Amy Jade]

I actually think the mods are great here, generally they are impartial and they do their job well. I think inactive ones should be taken down but that's not in a nasty way, just to keep the mods as active as possible.

Ammi should be a mod though, that's my only complaint! :P

[Kizzy]

The ratio was about 85% misuse to 15% using it correctly. :laugh:

I don't believe that, I thought it was great it brought whatever the issue was to the attention of all the moderators as opposed to one or two.
It was surprising how some things were seen very differently depending on who answered your query :laugh:

[Tom4784]

The anonymous nature of moderation protects those handing out unfair infractions too, I doubt very much all moderarors agree on them 100% of the time.
Removing appeals and queries was another shift towards a very undemocratic forum, just my opinion you understand.

Except that that the anonymity doesn't protect us as we pretty much moderate each other.

The Appeals thing is ridiculous as you were one of the people that misused it. This isn't the UN, love. Rules are rules and if you don't follow them then you will be infracted, opening it up for debate just leads to people trying their luck every time they're rightfully infracted which is a waste of our time. The Appeals section was a privilege that the majority of the forum members couldn't be trusted with.

[joeysteele]

I personally wouldn't like to see elected mods,I would guess it is likely that decisions by mods are looked at in some way.

I think the system works fine as it is with admin making the decisions,there have only I think been 2 new mods installed since I joined and they were 2 really excellent choices in my view.Sadly we lost one of them far too soon.

So for me, things as they are now as to selection and ongoing matters is the best way I'd say.

[Kizzy]

Except that that the anonymity doesn't protect us as we pretty much moderate each other.

The Appeals thing is ridiculous as you were one of the people that misused it. This isn't the UN, love. Rules are rules and if you don't follow them then you will be infracted, opening it up for debate just leads to people trying their luck every time they're rightfully infracted which is a waste of our time. The Appeals section was a privilege that the majority of the forum members couldn't be trusted with.

No need to start finger pointing babs, rules are rules yes and moderators do get reprimanded too sometimes I guess?

[Pete.]

I think the alerting system needs to be reviewed :suspect:

[Apple202]

A few mods definitely take advantage of their position, there's been numerous times they've made a comment that if any other member had made they'd have been I reacted for

this tbf

[Apple202]

but the majority of mods aren't that bad

[Livia]

You get reviewed in every job, I don't see why moderators should not be reviewed from time to time. But then, they are an unelected, unqualified body who discipline the rest of the forum for misdemeanours as they see fit, not always in keeping with "the rules" and with no attention to precedent. Meanwhile the right of appeal has recently been removed. Let's just say if TiBB was a country, I wouldn't be expecting an election any time soon.

Having said that... I'm mostly happy with the Mods we have.

[Pete.]

Aren't most mods inactive ?

[Kazanne]

Most of the mods are pretty helpful and nice tbh,but some seem to let their mod status go to their head and can be quite obnoxious and rude sometimes.

[fingers]

You get reviewed in every job, I don't see why moderators should not be reviewed from time to time. But then, they are an unelected, unqualified body who discipline the rest of the forum for misdemeanours as they see fit, not always in keeping with "the rules" and with no attention to precedent. Meanwhile the right of appeal has recently been removed. Let's just say if TiBB was a country, I wouldn't be expecting an election any time soon.

Having said that... I'm mostly happy with the Mods we have.

"Rules" would appear to be made up on the spur of the moment "depending on my mood" kind of ad hoc basis.

[thesheriff443]

You get reviewed in every job, I don't see why moderators should not be reviewed from time to time. But then, they are an unelected, unqualified body who discipline the rest of the forum for misdemeanours as they see fit, not always in keeping with "the rules" and with no attention to precedent. Meanwhile the right of appeal has recently been removed. Let's just say if TiBB was a country, I wouldn't be expecting an election any time soon.

Having said that... I'm mostly happy with the Mods we have.

your post is very refreshing!

[Kazanne]

your post is very refreshing!

So was yours sheriff:xyxwave:

[fingers]

So was yours sheriff:xyxwave:

I thought so, too!

[thesheriff443]

So was yours sheriff:xyxwave:

it had a shorter life than a butterfly! but for the short it was up, it was beautiful:elephant:

[Kazanne]

it had a shorter life than a butterfly! but for the short it was up, it was beautiful:elephant:

:joker::joker:

[Vicky.]

I've seen it pretty much straight after he's come off a ban though, so he must have been given a lot of points to push him back onto another one (if that makes sense)

This is because 1/2 point infractions tend to only last a couple of weeks. If a 1 pointer banned him for a fortnight, then its chance to be gone by the time his ban is up..and that would mean it would only take 1 point to knock him back into a ban.

It doesn't show how many points you have or get any more? :shocked: That is a bit silly, it would make people more well behaved if they knew they were close to a ban.

Thats exactly why the points dont get shown now :p To stop people just being on good behaviour til 1 expires, then starting being a tit again :p



As for people not being able to be mods if they have infractions, thats not completely true. Kerry had had infractions and been banned before (by mark too :laugh: ) and it was never held against her. The only time it would be is if someone was getting them, every other day, and spent more time banned than posting.

[Jessica.]

As for people not being able to be mods if they have infractions, thats not completely true. Kerry had had infractions and been banned before (by mark too :laugh: ) and it was never held against her. The only time it would be is if someone was getting them, every other day, and spent more time banned than posting.

Yeah, I knew about that too, some members have been around a very long time, so even if they got infractions in the past it wouldn't mean they are irresponsible now. I treat everyone in the same manner that they treat me, got a warning yesterday due to that. :angel:

[Vicky.]

As for the OP, I wouldnt have a problem with reviews. Though honestly, I doubt it would change very much.

I agree that sometimes mods break rules, and I have probably done it myself a few time too. But the amount of members around who have broken less rules than a mod, and could/would want do the job are few and far between.

I know it seems like a good thing, but its really so ****ing thankless and draining at times :S

[Livia]

As for the OP, I wouldnt have a problem with reviews. Though honestly, I doubt it would change very much.

I agree that sometimes mods break rules, and I have probably done it myself a few time too. But the amount of members around who have broken less rules than a mod, and could/would want do the job are few and far between.

I know it seems like a good thing, but its really so ****ing thankless and draining at times :S

Why do you do it then, Vicky? Serious question... I would never consider being a mod and it amazes me why anyone would.

[Vicky.]

Why do you do it then, Vicky? Serious question... I would never consider being a mod and it amazes me why anyone would.

I honestly dont know

I was only a member for a few weeks before I was made a mod so I dont really know what its like to not be one :shrug:

Also, I may be the nosy one ben referred to earlier, a few times I have thought of stepping down, then a mix of members/mods asking me not to, and the thought of not being able to see deleted arguements and stuff made me change my mind :tongue:

[Jessica.]

I honestly dont know

I was only a member for a few weeks before I was made a mod so I dont really know what its like to not be one :shrug:

Also, I may be the nosy one ben referred to earlier, a few times I have thought of stepping down, then a mix of members/mods asking me not to, and the thought of not being able to see deleted arguements and stuff made me change my mind :tongue:

:worship: Such honesty.

[Livia]

I honestly dont know

I was only a member for a few weeks before I was made a mod so I dont really know what its like to not be one :shrug:

Also, I may be the nosy one ben referred to earlier, a few times I have thought of stepping down, then a mix of members/mods asking me not to, and the thought of not being able to see deleted arguements and stuff made me change my mind :tongue:

Yes, I do have to admire your honesty LOL...

I think it makes the mods job harder as the rules are quite wordy, one seems to cancel out another, they're mostly up for conjecture and there's no appeal anymore. The rules could be edited down to a set of bullet points really. I think if there was a review - not by mods or members, by admin - and a proper system of appeal was set, it would make the mods' job clearer, there'd be fewer arguments over warnings and infractions and less abuse of the appeals system. Just my personal opinion of course...

[MeMyselfAndI]

Yes, some mods have broken many rules & enjoy winding up members

[Vicky.]

Yes, I do have to admire your honesty LOL...

I think it makes the mods job harder as the rules are quite wordy, one seems to cancel out another, they're mostly up for conjecture and there's no appeal anymore. The rules could be edited down to a set of bullet points really. I think if there was a review - not by mods or members, by admin - and a proper system of appeal was set, it would make the mods' job clearer, there'd be fewer arguments over warnings and infractions and less abuse of the appeals system. Just my personal opinion of course...

Been asking for a while for a change in the system but it doesnt seem like its happening. Would make everything so much easier, and more clear for members too. I know the rules are hard to understand at times. And it doesn't really help that there are only set infractions for certain rulebreaks, for others we have to use our discretion, which is where the 'bias' thing comes in as some mods ARE harsher than others..an if someone gets an infraction from one person for the same thing that someone else got one from someone else..well they could end up with totally different amounts, if that makes sense :S

Appeals was absolutely perfect (the appeals section was actually my idea to begin with) to begin with, until people started going there for EVERY little thing. I think it would probably have been better to just ban certain users from the section than remove it totally, but even doing that would have caused world war 3 :bored:

[fingers]

There is a a very real problem with interpretation of rules and with personal prejudices on this Forum and it really should be clarified by the Administration even if it means posting clear and unequivocal RULES of conduct and punishments for breaches thereof.

[Z]

Yeah the infraction system leaves a lot of margin for different interpretations, it's not necessarily flawed, it's just... difficult to make it more comprehensive

[Livia]

I think - again , just my own opinion - the appeals process should be reinstated and run like this: one plea of mitigation, with a word limit, to be considered by admin. No other dialogue to be entered into, Admin's decision is final... and your ban/infraction can be increased or decreased.

Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments, terms and conditions apply.

Okay, not the last bit.

[Ammi]

I think - again , just my own opinion - the appeals process should be reinstated and run like this: one plea of mitigation, with a word limit, to be considered by admin. No other dialogue to be entered into, Admin's decision is final... and your ban/infraction can be increased or decreased.

Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments, terms and conditions apply.

Okay, not the last bit.

..oh, there's a little bit of a flaw right there..what would the limit be, roughly..to the nearest thousand..?...

[Livia]

..oh, there's a little bit of a flaw right there..what would the limit be, roughly..to the nearest thousand..?...

500 words max. But yes... I see the flaw LOL...

[Benjamin]

Tbh, the last time the rules were updated were when I did them last and that was probably a good couple years back. They could probably do with a review/update soon just so everybody can reread them and so that everybody mods,admin and members are all on the same page.

[Ammi]

500 words max. But yes... I see the flaw LOL...


..just a little ..('special' exceptions will apply..)..should do it I think...

[fingers]

Just print the rules and penalties and STICK to them.

[Livia]

Tbh, the last time the rules were updated were when I did them last and that was probably a good couple years back. They could probably do with a review/update soon just so everybody can reread them and so that everybody mods,admin and members are all on the same page.

That's true Ben... Edit them down too. As a writer you know people switch off when stuff's wordy. The bones are all there though. I was warned for something and told I was supposed to read and understand the rules, and yet what my warning was over appeared nowhere in the rules. It's maddening! It would be good on all sides if they were sharpened up a bit.

..just a little ..('special' exceptions will apply..)..should do it I think...

No dots allowed in appeals either..............................

[Josy]

That's true Ben... Edit them down too. As a writer you know people switch off when stuff's wordy. The bones are all there though. I was warned for something and told I was supposed to read and understand the rules, and yet what my warning was over appeared nowhere in the rules. It's maddening! It would be good on all sides if they were sharpened up a bit.



No dots allowed in appeals either..............................

I do agree the rules needs to be redone and made more simple to understand but then saying that, there is no way at all that we could put in every possible rule break scenario, the rules would end up needing an entire forum of their own if we did.

[Livia]

I do agree the rules needs to be redone and made more simple to understand but then saying that, there is no way at all that we could put in every possible rule break scenario, the rules would end up needing an entire forum of their own if we did.

I agree with that. But most people know what they're doing when they step over the line. The current rules could be a third of the length and say just as much.

[Benjamin]

I do agree the rules needs to be redone and made more simple to understand but then saying that, there is no way at all that we could put in every possible rule break scenario, the rules would end up needing an entire forum of their own if we did.

You could possibly keep the main rules that apply for this forum, and just to cover your backs put in spoilers an extensive rule list that is there to read of less used rules/less common rule breaks. If people then choose not to read it then they have no excuse.

[fingers]

I do agree the rules needs to be redone and made more simple to understand but then saying that, there is no way at all that we could put in every possible rule break scenario, the rules would end up needing an entire forum of their own if we did.

That's simply because each moderator interprets thim in his or her own way.

Other institutions have simple clear cut rules, you break them, you pay the penalty, why is TiBB a special case that needs 50,000 sub clauses?

[Vicky.]

I do agree the rules needs to be redone and made more simple to understand but then saying that, there is no way at all that we could put in every possible rule break scenario, the rules would end up needing an entire forum of their own if we did.

Could always go back to the old rules before we did out the long list. I believe it was something along the lines of

-Respect other members
-Do not spam
-Staff may edit/delete your post ban you for any reason at their discretion

:joker:

That was the reason we did up the long list in the first place I believe

[Z]

I do agree the rules needs to be redone and made more simple to understand but then saying that, there is no way at all that we could put in every possible rule break scenario, the rules would end up needing an entire forum of their own if we did.

Could they be listed as major and minor rule breaks? Major being the kind of stuff people get 3 month bans for; minor being heated arguments or whatever, and maybe set infraction points for a minor one so that at least people know where they stand with minor rule breaks? Most people never get to an extreme level where they get a 3 month ban so I'd guess they don't need to have set infraction points... just my thoughts, I don't know how it would work in practise.

[Benjamin]

I also would like to see things more consistent. Sorry to bring up my infraction from the other day but I got infracted straightaway, not even a warning, despite the fact the member I was referring to was okay with it and the fact I have never had anything other than an infraction that I did deserve for being rude intentionally. I didn;t even know who to query over that as it seemed no mods/admin were online at the time (because I imagine they were appearing offline, something that I don;t think mods should do)

I know mods hating hearing this, but not being one anymore it does sometimes come across very inconsistent depending on who handles it.

[Ammi]

That's simply because each moderator interprets thim in his or her own way.

Other institutions have simple clear cut rules, you break them, you pay the penalty, why is TiBB a special case that needs 50,000 sub clauses?


..it's not an institution though, it's an internet forum and no one gets paid to moderate....I think that people always say that DS is too strict and run more like that and people have chosen to be on TiBB instead...and also been permanently banned from there....I also think that you can't have a 'community feel' to a forum if it were to be 'run like an institution..'....

[Vicky.]

Oh no, there was slightly more to it..

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_rules

[Niamh.]

..it's not an institution though, it's an internet forum and no one gets paid to moderate....I think that people always say that DS is too strict and run more like that and people have chosen to be on TiBB instead...and also been permanently banned from there....I also think that you can't have a 'community feel' to a forum if it were to be 'run like an institution..'....

I believe Josy got a company car when she was promoted

[Lee.]

Just condense all the rules into one...

1. Don't act like dicks

[Benjamin]

Just condense all the rules into one...

1. Don't act like dicks

Oh Lee, you;d be infracted all the time. :(

[fingers]

"Institution" was simply terminology, geeze!

[Niamh.]

Just condense all the rules into one...

1. Don't act like dicks

I like that :laugh:

[Lee.]

Oh Lee, you;d be infracted all the time. :(

:laugh2: this is probably true!

[Z]

Oh Lee, you;d be infracted all the time. :(

No she'd be fine, it'd be different if it was "don't like dicks" though

[Ammi]

I believe Josy got a company car when she was promoted

..I thought that was agreed not to be mentioned...I loved the way that the convertible bounced down with that button thing, though....

[Lee.]

No she'd be fine, it'd be different if it was "don't like dicks" though

:nono:

[Z]

:nono:

What? Ben would be permanently banned! :idc:

[Benjamin]

No she'd be fine, it'd be different if it was "don't like dicks" though

God, I think the only person left on the forum would be Arista if that was the rule

[Niamh.]

..I thought that was agreed not to be mentioned...I loved the way that the convertible bounced down with that button thing, though....

woops, my bad :blush:

[Livia]

Just condense all the rules into one...

1. Don't act like dicks

The place would be empty!

[Livia]

I believe Josy got a company car when she was promoted

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7297/10446849376_a42c4eeeb4.jpg