Author Topic: Thoughts  (Read 24199 times)

Caddberry

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://animenfo.com/
Thoughts
« Reply #25 on: 2005-06-23 01:27:52 »
Quote from: Monkey on your back
Mods need dual accounts. One for their personal use. Other for moderating. Nobody except the mods and admins must know which moderation account belongs to which person. That way there is moderating and there are personal opinions, which are two different things. It's bit harder to get personal, when you don't know who you should get personal with. It can't completely remove the problems (at least as long as people know who are moderating...), but it can help by introducing a clear separation of moderation and discussion.


I'm with Alhexx on this one. I dont like the idea of having dual accounts. It is definitely an interesting take on moderation, but I like my own account. I think moderating shouldn't be anonymous. I dont like the idea because you then don't know who is doing what moderation. I think it's important for the staff to know who is doing what, and also perhaps even the users.

Moderators are also people that users can come to with problems. If they have a question about something for example they PM a moderator. If everything is weird with 2 accounts it would make this more difficult to do.

Some people fear moderators just because of the name moderator. It's the same with an Administrator title. People watch what they say around staff members being careful or as you said not being careful to insult them. This has it's good points. Moderators are more respected generally speaking, and because of that their presence on any forum helps maintain order.

That's why I disagree with the dual account idea.

Qhimm

  • Founder
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
    • Qhimm.com
Thoughts
« Reply #26 on: 2005-06-23 02:16:14 »
original message accidentally destroyed

Alhexx

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://www.alhexx.com
Thoughts
« Reply #27 on: 2005-06-23 11:01:41 »
First, I've got to admit that it was me who "destroyed" Qhimm's original message. Sorry about that.

Quote from: Qhimm
Moderators can choose between the two types while posting, and typically the moderation type of post would only display "Moderator", only revealing the true poster to other moderators/admins.


Well, this sounds a bit better in my ears.
However, this should be clearly written down in the forum faq, otherwise new members could get confused when they only see "Moderator" moderating, and all other "member moderators" do never do their work...

 - Alhexx

Relf

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 714
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Thoughts
« Reply #28 on: 2005-06-23 12:17:39 »
....Most people already know who the Mod's are, wouldn't this would only really do anything to newbs nless all Mod's change their account name.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Thoughts
« Reply #29 on: 2005-06-23 18:34:56 »
Quote from: Alhexx
I, as a member, do not like the feeling of being observed. If go out on the street, then when the police watches me, they wear a uniform (usually).

How does Moderator #4 not wear an uniform? It's more freaking obvious than it's with the current system - the moderation account is just that; only for moderation.

Quote from: Alhexx
Like I said, it's that "They can see you, but you can't see them"-feeling - I just hate it...

You really need to explain how this arrangement would create the said situation.

Quote from: Alhexx
And that anonymous-thingy reminds me of be band Slipknot, if you know them. They also always wear masks to stay anonymous, and what? Everyone says that they're simply to shy to show their real faces.
I'll leave the rest to your interpretation...

And I refuse to take anyone who forms an argument around Slipknot seriously.

Quote from: Caddberry
...but I like my own account.

In other words; you like the prestige of having the little title there. Nobody - well, at least I (can't say for Qhimm, since some monkey censored him) - didn't suggest taking your regular account away. You just don't use it for moderation.

Quote from: Caddberry
If they have a question about something for example they PM a moderator. If everything is weird with 2 accounts it would make this more difficult to do.

How exactly? Is it more difficult to write "Moderator #4" to the recipient field of that PM? There is nothing "weird with 2 accounts", the regular account is not moderation account, period.

Quote from: Caddberry
Some people fear moderators just because of the name moderator. It's the same with an Administrator title. People watch what they say around staff members being careful or as you said not being careful to insult them. This has it's good points. Moderators are more respected generally speaking, and because of that their presence on any forum helps maintain order.

And this would create exactly what kind of problem with the system I suggested? There are moderators, there are admins - you just can't associate them with their regular usernames.

They get respect where they need it - or don't get it, if the current trend continues - but they don't enjoy any kind of unnecessary privileges.

Quote from: Alhexx
First, I've got to admit that it was me who "destroyed" Qhimm's original message. Sorry about that.

You can move the quotation marks from destroyed to sorry, it certainly seems to be gone - but at least I don't believe one letter of that sorry.

I've seen you trying to grab more power by lying and resist everything little thing that would take it away from you, or would take away the prestige associated with being a moderator.

What an assclown.

Quote from: Relf
....Most people already know who the Mod's are, wouldn't this would only really do anything to newbs nless all Mod's change their account name.

You are seriously suggesting that it would not fix #3?

Aaron

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2837
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://aaron-kelley.net/
Thoughts
« Reply #30 on: 2005-06-23 18:46:16 »
I read Qhimm's post before it disappeared, and I won't pretend to be able to quote it exactly, but he said something about not wanting to do the double account stuff, but perhaps giving mods the choice to post a message as either themselves or a "Moderator" user when they are composing a message, which pretty much would accomplish the same thing without having to worry about multiple accounts, names for the accounts, logging out and logging in, etc.

Bunnie-Maru

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1068
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Thoughts
« Reply #31 on: 2005-06-23 19:20:53 »
If anything, the mystery would add even more respect in my opinion to the moderator. It would give more respect to the moderator and not the user himself. A moderator would have respect no matter who he was. The title alone represents the importance and respect needed.

I dont need to know who the cop is, or what his name is. I'll still be pissing my pants when he pulls me over.

The user's dont have to know who's moderating. It gives no edge whatsoever, besides the person with the moderating title outside moderating, i.e. debates/discussions/opinions.

Would you openly disagree and criticize your boss? No, I don't think anyone would, because hell, you're scared stiff of him.

My point: People shouldnt fear users, they should fear Moderators. With mystery mods, everyone has an equal playing field, and the play and  business time are seperated.

Hope I made sense  :-?

Alhexx

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://www.alhexx.com
Thoughts
« Reply #32 on: 2005-06-23 19:35:10 »
Quote from: Jari
I've seen you trying to grab more power by lying and resist everything little thing that would take it away from you, or would take away the prestige associated with being a moderator.

What an assclown.

Very funny.
Jari, why don't you finally create a thread called "bitching alhexx"...
I'll invite my mother, I'm sure she has to add a few things, too.

 - Alhexx

Threesixty

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/threesixtyci/
Thoughts
« Reply #33 on: 2005-06-23 19:40:31 »
Dual Handles:
I feel dual handles are the best option, for personal posts... in theory.

But, I don't think a whole lot of people are capable of keeping such a masquerade for a long period of time.  It's really going to boil down to keeping a secret, for the people who know. And staying humble, for the people having the secret.

The only thing I can think of, is to not have handles associated with the title of, "Moderator". But, then....that's not much fun, is it. I doubt anyone would want to be an the, "Unknown Moderator", for free. The payoff of being an unpaid Mod. is respect; isn't it? (Or a feeling of belonging....at the very least.). It's a double edged sword.

Your going to have your favorites and your brown nosers... there is just no, real, way around that. Using dual handles will only hide it for a little while. It just going to depend on how long the secret can be kept, and how long humbleness is broken by pride. (Pride always wins.)

edit:
heh...guess I should have hit the post button before lunch...and not one hour after it..... I was expecting this post to fall under Relf's Post of: 2005-06-23 06:17 but, forgot what I was doing.
 
Oh....and Alhexx you're becoming personal, right now... This is why the idea of dual handles has come up, I imagine. Simply by arguing, you're being seen as a normal user, not a Mod.  In fact, your not playing the role of a Mod. currently...just your average everyday user, that so happens to have Mod privileges. It sends mix messages to new users.... and that's why this forum has become.... immature, for the most part.

end edit.


-------
First time offenses:
Tempory bans would be the best deterrent for first time offenses, I think.  It'll be up to you on deciding what will classify, though. You could also do the expiration like IGN does. When you get a temporary ban there, you must contact the Mod to get unbanned, even if the period of the banning has expired. In fact...you have to contact them to find out why you got banned. It's like, one day you have access, and the next you find yoruself logged into a, "you are banned", page..

But it's one thing to have the tools to do this....It a whole other thing to actually do it, consistantly. That's is when crew selection becomes important...but you already know that.

Relf

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 714
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Thoughts
« Reply #34 on: 2005-06-23 20:35:28 »
Your right it would solve it, though I'm not entirely sure it should even be classified as a problem...

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Thoughts
« Reply #35 on: 2005-06-23 22:48:58 »
Quote from: Threesixty
The payoff of being an unpaid Mod. is respect; isn't it? (Or a feeling of belonging....at the very least.).

Not better forum? :-?

Qhimm

  • Founder
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
    • Qhimm.com
Thoughts
« Reply #36 on: 2005-06-24 07:14:17 »
Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Caddberry
...but I like my own account.

In other words; you like the prestige of having the little title there. Nobody - well, at least I (can't say for Qhimm, since some monkey censored him) - didn't suggest taking your regular account away. You just don't use it for moderation.

My own view was something to the effect of not having actual dual accounts (at least not under the current account system, which would create lots of extra work for moderators), but rather to have sort of a pseudo-identity just called "Moderator". Moderators could, when posting, choose whether to post as themselves (for normal posts) or as "Moderator", in which case their identity would be hidden. This could, for example, be separated into two entirely different pages, "post reply" and "moderate" (with added moderation tools). To normal users, it appears that a magical "Moderator" user has posted. Thus we have the advantage that moderators can do their work separately from their normal posting, with the added benefit that it's harder to buttercup back with personal insults since you don't know exactly who posted (unless the moderator uses a very characteristic writing style, which would show through anyway).

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Caddberry
If they have a question about something for example they PM a moderator. If everything is weird with 2 accounts it would make this more difficult to do.

How exactly? Is it more difficult to write "Moderator #4" to the recipient field of that PM? There is nothing "weird with 2 accounts", the regular account is not moderation account, period.

This is one of the bits that would not work with my idea, as the "Moderator" user doesn't really exist. But ideally you'd want some form of "notify moderator" system instead of PMs anyway, which would be just special PMs that would show up in some special bin accessible by any moderator. Replies could be written using the same "Moderator" pseudo-user, and replying to that I guess would just send the new message into the moderator bin again. Though this system would probably not be used for lengthy discussion anyway. So essentially what I'm suggesting is a system to mimic actually having a separate moderator account, but which moderators can use without actually having to switch back and forth.

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Caddberry
Some people fear moderators just because of the name moderator. It's the same with an Administrator title. People watch what they say around staff members being careful or as you said not being careful to insult them. This has it's good points. Moderators are more respected generally speaking, and because of that their presence on any forum helps maintain order.

And this would create exactly what kind of problem with the system I suggested? There are moderators, there are admins - you just can't associate them with their regular usernames.

They get respect where they need it - or don't get it, if the current trend continues - but they don't enjoy any kind of unnecessary privileges.

I'm still split on the issue of actually hiding the identities of the administrative staff. Most of the benefits can be drawn just by obscuring the precise identity of individual moderation actions. If there are enough moderators, they can be visible and it's still not trivial to associate them with moderation posts. The problem with keeping the actual "who's a moderator?" secret is that the secret will eventually get out, and then the point is lost. There's also the (admittedly optimistic) idea that a visible moderation staff sets an example for other users even when they post as normal users. Sure if you stay long enough you sort of pick up who's important and who's not, but for new users it's often a relief to be able to clearly see "proper users". This could probably be better established by using different ranks than moderators, though.

I do believe there should be some reward for being a moderator other than seeing a mildly cleaner forum though, so I think the visible titles should stay. Though perhaps one shouldn't reveal exactly who moderates what, just keep a list of "these people help moderate various parts of the forums". And perhaps the title displayed next to their posts shouldn't be so blatantly official-sounding as "moderator". A small icon would suffice, with a mouse-over text or something, then users could see that he's a higher-ranking member, but would get the immediate feeling that the post contains official forum opinions. I know some people (including me) like the added respect by having the title publically displayed, but we don't always want the room to go quiet when we enter. This would probably still continue with separate moderation posts, since the word "moderator" is to firmly connected to official posts from all the other forums on the internet. A more balanced approach would be needed, I think.

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Alhexx
First, I've got to admit that it was me who "destroyed" Qhimm's original message. Sorry about that.

You can move the quotation marks from destroyed to sorry, it certainly seems to be gone - but at least I don't believe one letter of that sorry.

Now I'm as annoyed as anyone that my extremely well-formulated post was destroyed by a fresh moderator who couldn't tell the difference between the "quote" and the "edit" button. Not a great start on the job, Alhexx... I'm not going to bother with it further though, I've got your assurance it won't happen again, so if it does, and another content post disappears somewhere, I won't consider it accidental. Fair deal, no?

Quote from: Monkey on your back
Quote from: Threesixty
The payoff of being an unpaid Mod. is respect; isn't it? (Or a feeling of belonging....at the very least.).

Not better forum? :-?

I'd think a moderator's primary motivation should be to preserve the community, yes. The added respect comes from him doing a good job, not automatically with the title. Unfortunately the new system would obscure this, so if some moderators do crap work, people won't know, neither will they know who to respect as a person for doing a great job. This is admittedly a small problem, because even in the current situation we've had several moderators burn out because of the small perceived rewards for dealing with idiots all day long. Hopefully this could be partly solved by having stronger-scripted forum restrictions, reducing moderation to the more intellectually stimulating parts of the job. It really shouldn't be about arguing and convincing people of their wrongdoings (as it appears today), it should be about seeing an idiot and clicking the warning/ban button. Easy as pie, like calling the maid instead of scrubbing the floor yourself.

Still quite a ways to go before I get there though... *looks at mess that is phpBB code*

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Thoughts
« Reply #37 on: 2005-06-24 10:19:35 »
Quote from: Qhimm
But ideally you'd want some form of "notify moderator" system instead of PMs anyway, which would be just special PMs that would show up in some special bin accessible by any moderator.

Or even as a topic in Moderator-only forum?

That would not solve the issue of replying to such message, though.

Threesixty

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/threesixtyci/
Thoughts
« Reply #38 on: 2005-06-24 16:21:09 »
I don't know if this can be done with the current forum or the new one. (if there is going to be a new one?) But, if the, 'notify a mod' was something like an email or a fill in the blank form, it would be a little harder to respond to. You could also hide the tattle reports from the public.

Hmm... just like Private Email...but Private Email that only your Administration can read.

The public shouldn't be able to see who is that tattler anyway. Usually just leads to more trouble. Especially, if the thread turns out to be okay.

On the flipside....I don't know if this forum is big enough to really need a notify a moderator link. I also am not sure if it would increase your workload or decrease it. Could go either way, I guess. At the very least...you'll see who the crybabies are.

Anyway...have fun with that... it's not a job I'd ever want.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Thoughts
« Reply #39 on: 2005-06-24 20:07:00 »
Post counts should go.

Especially if the Karma-system can and will be implemented in the scale Qhimm envisioned, there's absolutely no need for visible post counts. Karma will do everything the post count could, only much better and without the downsides.


EDIT: Killfile would be nice in some cases. Not necessary, but it's a nice thing to have. Totally "User"-feature though, mods couldn't really use it.

The next big phpBB is supposed to have something like that, but I think that it was rather elementary at least few months ago - for example it couldn't block quotes from a person in your killfile.

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Thoughts
« Reply #40 on: 2005-06-25 01:29:57 »
But will I still be the equivalent of a "Lv. 16 Crazy poster" in terms of Karma, or will I have to start over?

Contra

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 278
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://contraspontanus.deviantart.com
Thoughts
« Reply #41 on: 2005-06-25 03:32:08 »
Quote from: RPGillespie
But will I still be the equivalent of a "Lv. 16 Crazy poster" in terms of Karma, or will I have to start over?


Not to sound like I'm attacking you, but I think the whole point is that it *doesn't freaking matter*. The post counts and related titles only really serve to make people want to "Get to the next level" by any means possible. At least in some cases, and not necessarily yours. Karma is as Karma does. It goes up, and it goes down. Your own actions determine your fate. Seeing as the number of times you've posted isn't a factor, I'd say that if a Karma system goes into effect, your current level means precisely squat. To be simple for moderation, and relatively fair to the users, I'm guessing everyone would start fresh.

But that's just me.

Caddberry

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://animenfo.com/
Thoughts
« Reply #42 on: 2005-06-26 01:43:41 »
All I'm basically saying is that I like the idea of knowing who moderators are on a forum. I can turn to them for help or ask questions, and basically I like knowing they are there and who they are..

Plus, my writing style is easily identified.. I have a habit of using elipses waay to much to break thoughts.  

It's not about a title for me at all. To prove that I'd take back my other title it wouldnt matter to me.

I don't think this forum requires detailed moderation. There seriously aren't that many problems that we run into here.

I don't like the idea of having to log out of my account to moderate. If you see an issue you fix it on the spot. Having to log out would be a pain. It would seriously get old fast.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Thoughts
« Reply #43 on: 2005-06-26 11:47:56 »
Quote from: Caddberry
All I'm basically saying is that I like the idea of knowing who moderators are on a forum. I can turn to them for help or ask questions, and basically I like knowing they are there and who they are..

And suck up to them? :P

Seriously though, you can turn to them - even if there is no way of messaging a specific moderator.

I think that anonymous mods might even be better in that respect, as long as the messages send to them get seen by all of them and for example only admin can delete them for the public bin or forum or whatever will be used. Thing is, the replies they send should be visible to all mods as well - that way none of them can go solo.

No doubt that at least one moderator will come crying, when I suggest something like that. :P

It is a nice method of self control. As long as everyone (every mod, that is) can see the messages and replies to them, the chances of someone trying persuade a single moderator to their side are much lower.

Yes yes, they can send email, or IM, I know that. Still, it's better than totally uncontrolled system, I think.

Quote from: Caddberry
Plus, my writing style is easily identified.. I have a habit of using elipses waay to much to break thoughts.

I know. Write less? When you moderate, that is. Often times it's not actually required to write a novel.

Quote from: Caddberry
It's not about a title for me at all. To prove that I'd take back my other title it wouldnt matter to me.

Isn't there a contradiction there? :P Think of it this way; if the moderator title would not be visible on your regular account, you could have your custom title back - since it wouldn't be blocking your moderator title anymore.

Quote from: Caddberry
I don't like the idea of having to log out of my account to moderate. If you see an issue you fix it on the spot. Having to log out would be a pain. It would seriously get old fast.

It's a good point, in theory. But I don't see it as a serious problem, unless there's a great deal of moderation to be done.

L. Spiro

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Karma: 13
    • View Profile
    • http://www.memoryhacking.com/index.php
Thoughts
« Reply #44 on: 2005-06-26 17:15:57 »
Why does it need to be the moderator account that is fake?
Why don’t the mods keep their accounts, keep their current names, keep the “respect” or “fear” that goes with their names, and instead execute your plan by creating fake normal accounts?

The existing mods keep their names and all the crap that goes with it.
Users PM/e-mail/notify them in the same manner as they currently do.
Modify the button Qhimm mentioned before (for posting) so that it toggles between your normal account and your moderator account.

Alhexx gets to lay down the law with his moderator (Alhexx) account while entering heated debates with his normal (Bad Mr. Frosty) account.
No one knows Alhexx is Bad Mr. Frosty.
Alhexx needs only to choose between the two names when posting.
Easy for Alhexx to do, solves all problems, etc.

Problem A: Sucking up to mods during debates/opinionated discussions.
    During debates (etc.), Alhexx would be posting as Bad Mr. Frosty; people would only side with him if they feel he is right.
    As for people sucking up to “Alhexx”, what would be the difference between sucking up to a mod you know is named “Alhexx” or one you know is named “Moderator”?  There would be no point in sucking up if the name “Alhexx” isn’t appearing in debates.  Sucking up for the sake of sucking up becomes obvious, and would not do any more good than sucking up to the mysterious “Moderator” name.[/list:u]

    Problem B: It’s too hard to switch between accounts!
      Switching is just a matter of toggling a button on your posts.  Moderators can see who really posted, but normal users would just see, “Bad Mr. Frosty | Lv.25 Crazy Poster”.[/list:u]

      Problem C: We already know who the mods are!
        If suddenly you see that the newest registered member is “Bad Mr. Frosty”, how are you going to know it’s Alhexx?  The current moderators can slip into the fake ID’s and no one here would ever know (except the mods of course).[/list:u]


        Problem D: It requires secrecy!
          Yes.  All implementations of this system require secrecy.  However if a mod’s fake normal account is discovered, it isn’t too difficult for him or her to wait a few days and slip into a new account while no one is watching.[/list:u]

          Problem E: But wouldn’t people still be unnecessarily careful, for fear of angering the mod?
            They would be fearful of angering “Moderator” too, and that’s a good thing.  For general forum usage, it keeps them in check.  But the reason it was considered a bad thing when it was originally listed as a problem is because in can stop people from saying what they want to say in debates.  This is where Bad Mr. Frosty comes in.  People would be afraid of angering Alhexx just as much as they would be afraid of angering “Moderator”, and that is great because it helps keep them in check.  But during discussions, Bad Mr. Frosty will be posting, and people won’t be afraid of angering him.[/list:u]

            Problem F: Moderators’ opinions would still be seen as the official forum opinions.
              Technically this should never be a problem anyway.  If the moderators aren’t representing the forum, why are they moderating?  Either way, this problem is solved in the same manner as the original implementation.  The moderator posts opinions as Bad Mr. Frosty and moderates as Alhexx.  If he wants to represent the forum, he posts as Alhexx.[/list:u]

              Problem G: People can still get personal with the moderators at times.
                People can get personal with any other user on this forum at times.  The moderator (or the other users) have the ability to simply ignore the offender.  If someone is already personal with Alhexx, that isn’t going to change just because he has a normal account named Alhexx along with being a mysterious “Moderator”.  However, new people to the forums will be less likely to get personal with Alhexx since the debates will be held by Bad Mr. Frosty.  If a user gets personal with Alhexx because Alhexx bans him, well those people come and go, and moderators have been putting up with them for decades without slitting their own wrists.  Once he’s banned, he’s gone.[/list:u]

                Problem H: Won’t normal users feel tense knowing they are always being watched?
                  Yes.  That is why they shouldn’t be knowing.  But with either method, it’s the same problem.  With both methods, once the user knows that some of the normal users around him or her are actually mods, he or she will be a bit more nervous.  But generally that is going to be a good thing.  It should keep people under control.  
Will they be inhibited?  They shouldn’t be if the mod team does their job right.  If they are doing the job correctly, the only users who should feel any kind of pressure are the ones who like to cause trouble.  That holds true even with the current method of moderation.  Even with today’s method, people should know that they can disagree with a mod without being banned.  This should not change, regardless of any new moderation methods.[/list:u]


I already know what Qhimm has to say about this idea, and I already know what Qhimm is planning to do.
This is intended for everyone else.


L. Spiro

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Thoughts
« Reply #45 on: 2005-06-26 17:53:41 »
You know, that is a pretty nice idea.

One problem, though; the rather distinctive writing styles of some mods are even worse problem when you do it this way. Now they have to (well, they don't have to, but they are likely to) write lot more on their "secret" account. Thus making it that that much more easier to spot them.

Even though you have to ID the "secret" account out of all users, instead of having to ID the said account of rather small number of users, suspected or known to be mods.

Also, the people who register soon after the change and post a lot... are likely to be the mods. It's kinda obvious. Perhaps they could use some old, unused accounts?

I still think that when it comes to Problem G, it would be better with anonymous mods and normal user accounts.

Oh, as for that problem F: I don't think that moderator's personal opinions on totally unrelated matters (politics, for example) should represent the forum officially, but that's not really the point.

I'm not sure... but I suspect that at least some people would like to keep their username for regular discussion, instead of modding. But like I said, that's just a guess.

Qhimm

  • Founder
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
    • Qhimm.com
Thoughts
« Reply #46 on: 2005-06-26 18:24:53 »
Quote from: Monkey on your back
I'm not sure... but I suspect that at least some people would like to keep their username for regular discussion, instead of modding. But like I said, that's just a guess.

I suppose this as well, and people are not going to be willing to start a new "normal" account and start from scratch at earning people's respect, and they wouldn't want to dedicate their entire original identity to moderating. Heck, we're not the Men in Black. :P

Probably all the problems can't be simultaneously solved, but personally I'm leaning towards the whole "make moderation non-personal" idea. Don't reveal who the moderators are, and don't reveal who moderates what. Keep moderation posts "anonymous", and instead provide a common communication channel to the more abstract concept of "the administrative staff" whenever such talk is needed. Keep moderating as simple as possible, not as a huge task that needs public recognition (this can be done with ranks instead). I'll try to do a quick run-through of Spiro's problem list with this idea:
  • Problem B is completely solved by making the process automatic, separating moderation posts and user posts in the interface.
  • Problems A, C, E, F and G are only problematic because long-time users already know who the moderators are. However, users who have become long-time regulars don't cause problems.
  • Problem D isn't a big problem, because even if one moderator's identity should be revealed, you still don't know what work he/she is doing. Worst case scenario is still no worse than current day moderation systems.
  • Problems E and H will be no worse than the current system, but the reason for being careful is a better one; fear of breaking the rules, instead of fear of pissing of a moderator personally.[/list:u]That's my five cents (inflation).

Caddberry

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://animenfo.com/
Thoughts
« Reply #47 on: 2005-07-04 21:12:01 »
Quote
Quote from: Caddberry
It's not about a title for me at all. To prove that I'd take back my other title it wouldnt matter to me.

Isn't there a contradiction there? :P Think of it this way; if the moderator title would not be visible on your regular account, you could have your custom title back - since it wouldn't be blocking your moderator title anymore.


Damn.. You are right.. That is a glaring contradiction.. LoL .. Well.. Ok.. Titles on forums do mean something to me.. "Druggie Chess Master" meant something to me.. I wont lie, but everyone that I care about on this forum knows me regardless of title. And if they dont know me regardless of title chances are that I wont care about them until they do.. So.. Really, a title wouldnt matter to me, but I wont lie and say it's meaningless.

Quote
Quote from: Caddberry
I don't like the idea of having to log out of my account to moderate. If you see an issue you fix it on the spot. Having to log out would be a pain. It would seriously get old fast.

It's a good point, in theory. But I don't see it as a serious problem, unless there's a great deal of moderation to be done.


True.. Switching wouldnt be difficult unless there was a lot of crap to mod.. But would we still be able to retain post flags? When switching?

If it can be made into an easy system then I guess I wouldnt mind, but if we lose post flags or it becomes any bit of complicated I'd rather not.

Ultimately I'm lazy. Truly .. I know this may be hard for some of you to believe.. *Caddberry looks around and sees shock on everyone's face*

I like to make moderation as easy as possible.