Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
(Post 1599352)
I was actually thinking about just cutting out the options on bolstering the mod team. I thought whether or not the team needs bolstering will basically be determined on whether or not the current mod team can cope with the projected future workload rather than answers in this poll.
Whatcha think?
By the way, great idea about also adding letters to the poll options :)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
(Post 1599474)
If it's no trouble, tore, I'd prefer to see the "additional mod" options retained. A decision about "more mods or not?" can be irrespective of any other changes, and is one of the choices that your super-poll can pick up, I hope.
Does anyone think my own five-cent idea is worth including in the poll, btw:
An anonymous joint account, for mods use only, should be created to promote impartial rule enforcement.
An anonymous joint account for mods use only should NOT be created.
|
Tore, I agree with Lisnaholic in preferring that the new poll include questions about more mods or not.
Various members in the "Changing Rule Enforcement" thread seemed to support the idea of bolstering the mod team (rather than changing rule enforcement), so including that in the poll would give them a place to vote on it, if they wish to vote.
I also still recommend that the new poll include the issue of whether some or all of the current mod team should be replaced or not.
Lisnaholic, I myself don't feel comfortable with the thought of infractions from an anonymous mod, since if I had an infraction I would want to know the moderator with whom to talk about it, but including that option in the poll could help tell if there is wider support for the idea. Perhaps there is!
I think the biggest challenge right now will be how to encourage people to vote in the poll and to make members aware of it. The more people who vote, the better the poll will reflect the wide range of opinions of our members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by right-track
(Post 1599256)
Dear Veganjellyhead, its not for me to have an opinion having lost touch with the dynamics of MB and how it's currently moderated.
I doubt there's much needs changing.
Tore mentioned the old infraction system of which I was a big fan of and was sad to see it go.
Think we used a 3 strikes and out rule.
That way all the mods were reading from the same page when it came to dealing with problem members.
It created a level playing field for both moderators and members if used even handedly.
Replacing moderators who rarely visit the site or moderate was also important. Especially when there are keen, regular members who'd love a chance to moderate these boards.
|
Well, right-track, I realize you are an old, old, OLD member who has probably lost touch with
many things, including MB dynamics, but the wisdom from our elders is often good, especially from someone like you who was a mod here for a bit o' time, long, looooong ago. ;)
I think the 3 strikes and out rule applied even-handedly for both mods and members sounds very reasonable. I don't know if the mod team now has some agreed-upon method of enforcing rules or even agreement on what rules are to be enforced.
RT, I also appreciate your sharing that in your experience it was important to replace moderators who rarely visit the site or moderate.
Currently, if you look at who the mods are, the official list (linked to in the Rules thread) is confusing since mods and very inactive super moderators are all lumped together in the "super moderator" category:
Music Banter - Show Groups
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
(Post 1599232)
I wouldn't personally stick around at a forum where mods are chosen by popular community vote alone, but I don't think it hurts to at least see what the community has to say about the matter. I included the particular option as a counterbalance to the other related options as to not leave out the ability to disagree and keep the options as "fair" as possible.
|
Thanks for your reply.
