[Z]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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


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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by arista

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

..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.]

Originally Posted by Jessica‪

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.]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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? That is a bit silly, it would make people more well behaved if they knew they were close to a ban.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by 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.

...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]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Jessica‪

It doesn't show how many points you have or get any more? 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.