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.

..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.

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/cust...ar11566_69.gif

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

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.

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*

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.

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

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!.

..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...

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:

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

..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:

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.

There def needs to be one more mod

I heard vicky slept with mark for her job http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...psfb323382.gif

...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...

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

..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....?...

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

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....