justonemoreperson wrote:I think you've vastly over-thought the whole process. The forum is being moderated now and no one notices because we've all been conditioned into not putting up stuff that needs moderation. Merely the idea of moderation is enough to create a glass wall of rules which everyone seems to follow for the sake of convenience.
Yes you are right, I over-think sometimes. But I don't regret that I spent some time about this topic. I like the sub-forum, both for constructive aspects and for its cathartic role, and I think that people here deserve, wherever possible, a good moderation; above all, an abusive one would risk to destroy the positive things that I often read here.
justonemoreperson wrote:However, seeing as over-thinking is the theme for this thread, how's this:
We put out an advert for a mod, listing all of the criteria they need to possess to apply for the role. Then, each one that checks the criteria is given a one week trial, during which time random tests will be applied, such as the odd video of a beheading, a couple of badly veiled death-threats, some child porn links and liberal use of the word ni66er.
We watch the response to see how quickly the issues get resolved, how they're resolved and how the fall-out is managed.
Extra points will be awarded for managing an unruly user without banning them, not becoming personally involved and not bowing to pressure.
The successful candidate will be awarded the role, with the runner-up offered the stand-in position in case the moderator isn't available, gets jack-sh1t of the bullsh1t or hangs themselves.
A selected group of peers will be appointed as a committee, whose job it is to arbitrate disputes and take care of the individual's human rights.
Signed. It seems the right project to attract peaceful people.
-- Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:34 am --
ViniStonemoss wrote:HSS wrote:In any case, I would prefer a moderator able to discuss honestly with his conscience, and that tries to follow some principles.
But that kind of person is rare enough IRL, let alone on a forum where people come to deal with personal issues.
That would be ideal indeed, I am not sure how realistic it is to expect this from a forum run by volunteers dealing with their own issues.HSS wrote:I am figuring this: there is a moderation, where subforum works perfectly: topics are appropriated, people are respectful,... Then, Jomp, ViniStonemoss, you receive an unexpected ban. Its reason isn't related to your behaviour on the forum. It's a personal revenge: the moderator isn't impartial nor responsible, and has an antipathy for you, due to some past, stupid event. What would you gain from the new, wonderfully working forum?
That's what I am saying. You don't get banned for no reason on a working forum.
This subforum last moderator tried to shape the forum to her taste. She soon gave up on this endeavor, her moderation became then rather hands off, and she appeared to be applying the rules discriminately. Despite I lost no affection on her, she seemed to be doing a proper job (unless there was some behind-the-scenes issue that I am not aware of)
This being said retaliation is abuse, if I was to be banned for no good reason by an antipathic moderator, I would just get myself a new account.
Understood, all this makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
-- Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:39 am --
Eight wrote:In my experience here, the best suited mods were those who identified with schizoid traits and had sufficient years of maturity. I'm thinking of Ada and WL in particular but there may have been more.
The schizoidyness allowed them to stay at arm's length from the forum drama and intrigue and not play favorites or get personally affected by posts. Both left after long stays as successful mods and of their own accord.
So that is why Naps must be the next AsPD mod.
NAPS NAPS NAPS NAPS NAPS NAPS NAPS
I wasn't here when Ada or WL were mods, and so I don't know; everyone is different, but yeah, I have schizoid friends, they are very discreet and quiet, and they don't play power games.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed