Moderator Position Vacant?

Understood.

ViniStonemoss wrote:Understood.

You get it.

Adapt or perish..

xdude wrote:How about this, what is your description of the ideal moderator here? My ego is not special btw, if I failed you all that is fine, so describe who the ideal mod is, let's see if we can do better.

someone who isn't invested...

just kidding, you are the best mod we've ever had

has this place always undermined your sense of power? i imagine moderating the other forums is quite dull...have you been thinking about this for ages?

(ps reaper will come around just be patient with her.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC5E8ie2pdM

I understand pragmatical reasons.
I thought about ViniStonemoss and Jomp's ideas too, but I am not persuaded.
For my part, I don't sign for a moderation that just “works”.
It's surely important, and perhaps basic, but I would be happy if a moderator has other qualities too.

My IDEAL moderator would have five qualities. He would be:

-responsible
-impartial
-psychologically clever
-contemporary strong and human. I mean that, moderating the same situation, he would behave with strength and humanity

Clearly, it's just an ideal. I am aware that a moderator is a human being. A real moderator could fail, obviously would fail sometimes, but in my personal taste, a good moderator would be able to entertain a sufficiently honest dialogue with his conscience, and would often ask himself if his moderation is following these five qualities.
In any case, I would prefer a moderator able to discuss honestly with his conscience, and that tries to follow some principles.

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?

HSS wrote:I understand pragmatical reasons.
I thought about ViniStonemoss and Jomp's ideas too, but I am not persuaded.

First, mine wasn't an 'idea;' just what would happen if certain traits were shown.

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.

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.

I notice one person has voted for me. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but you really don't want it to be me.

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.

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.

I don't know that it's so much volunteers dealing with their own issues, as much as it is volunteers whose issues are a mismatch with the issues on this subforum.

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

WL was the best moderator we had here. He always kept his cool and didn't get involved in any of the drama. He knew his place here.

Ada got some shlt sometimes, but she kept her cool too for the most part. I didn't mind her.

Ada seemed to me a thoughtful, intelligent person who was candid about herself appropriately elsewhere on other subforums.

She never tried to befriend people on the AsPD subforum - didn't try to become buddies.

I think the most grief I ever saw her get was due to her punctuation and unique way of structuring her sentences. It used to drive Wooster mad - that always made me laugh because I love anything that drives Wooster mad.

Eight wrote:I don't know that it's so much volunteers dealing with their own issues, as much as it is volunteers whose issues are a mismatch with the issues on this subforum.

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.

Makes sense.

Eight wrote:I think the most grief I ever saw her get was due to her punctuation and unique way of structuring her sentences. It used to drive Wooster mad - that always made me laugh because I love anything that drives Wooster mad.

What is so special about Wooster that you reference her even if she is no longer posting?