[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Karl

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

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho

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.

[Gstar]

Originally Posted by Zee

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

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

isn't popularity how most of the current mods got the job tho

I heard vicky slept with mark for her job

[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]

Originally Posted by 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....?...

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.

[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*

[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!.

[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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Zee

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

..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]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Zee

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

...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...

[Jords]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

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

[Z]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Kizzy]

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

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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