Just saying, being a mod doesn't just mean you can lock threads and delete posts. You are here to set an example.
Printable View
Just saying, being a mod doesn't just mean you can lock threads and delete posts. You are here to set an example.
It hasn't been?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICEE
What else do you want from me? I'm sorry if these appear to be empty words - you're not unjustified in feeling that way given how many times a staff member has made a thread or post like this, only to slip back into the status quo. I can't do anything other than say that I think this time it's for real. Myself, p0lar, Korn, and Snaf have all agreed that we need a debate section and are trying to get it going. We just need to get together and make it happen.
I want to fall back on "they know what they're doing", but increasingly they haven't been. Bod and Paladin in particular, you two have been at each others throats for at least a few months now. It needs to stop. Ignore each other if you need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
CN has always been sarcastic but I've rarely had a problem with it because I hoped that people could deal with it and I didn't want to discourage something I found genuinely funny. It seems that the time for tolerating that kind of thing when arguments get heated up is over though, seeing as how we don't have the ability to deal with it reasonably. Definitely one component of the debate section - if it materializes - will have to be the ability to remove people who consistently display inability to be constructive participants.
Exactly. Well, at least the theory behind it. There shouldn't be a problem with staff members getting involved in debates, and as Bod said unless they're abusing their power there shouldn't be a problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by paladin
But sometimes they are also taking part in name-calling, making 5-second posts with zero substance supporting whatever message they have (however valid it may be), declaring other users idiots, and so forth. Site staff SHOULD be held to a higher standard to that extent. Never mind the "old members" - if the mod team can't carry itself with dignity we cannot reasonably expect other people to. We should have to be decent, upstanding members when the thread calls for it.
I'm all for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo
Mods are here to make sure the forum doesn't get cluttered with spam and shit posts. Not to be a role model.Quote:
Originally Posted by paladin
However that doesn't mean mods should go around and be the shittiest poster they could possibly be.
What annihilation said. Two things I find weird about the expectations of staff members:
1. To get mod, they would probably have to be an outstanding member in the first place.
2. Why should there be any difference between staff/members in the first place? Is it unreasonable to expect every member of a forum to post to the best of their ability, regardless of status? All of this nagging of the mods to be extra good implies that the members themselves don't have to give a shit. Why put effort into posts when the mods are supposed to be the only role models, right?
Just wondering.
Edit: Yay debate subforum! About time, eh?
If that were the case, jcap would have had to infract himself. I haven't seen him around lately so maybe he isn't so bad any more.
Except Jcap is an admin......Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwood
He doesn't have to show the same ettiquette as a moderator.
Ideally everyone acts top-notch. I'm not saying "yeah non-mods go crazy", I'm saying things need to start with the mod team.Quote:
Originally Posted by flibitijibibo
it's completely asinine to believe that all members will post to the best of their ability. ignoring the fact that very few would or do, the perception of "best of their ability" is completely different among all people. pretty hard to judge what is purely subjective. in other words, some people will always post better than others, so don't hold everyone to some ridiculous and idealistic standard that we're all supposed to follow to be the perfect community member. getting on the internet, for me, isn't about rigidity or being nice, professional, or any of that. i get on to have fun. sometimes having fun means getting out of line. mods are there to keep getting out of line to a minimum, and it's nice (to an extent) to know when i've crossed a line that shouldn't have been crossed. mods are expected to post at a higher standard simply because they've been entrusted with the power to punish those who they think have posted shit. if they post shit themselves, what would make them more fit to mod than any other member?
That being said, how many other members on this forum have reported themselves to receive an infraction for stepping out of line?Quote:
Originally Posted by paladin
i've read every report done and yes i have in-directly infracted myself for stepping over the line.
Which brings me to Good_Apollo's post. For those unaware, he and the staff have had a number of pretty lengthy fights over fairness - or our lack thereof. I feel absurd saying "things need to start changing with the mod team" after having banned him with Snaf, and after having stood by while he pretty much got railroaded (I've used that phrase in at least 4 convos now) into detention for reasons which still don't seem quite right to me. But here I am, saying the mod team needs to improve. We do. We need to at least have the ability to know when we can't (for reasons valid or not) deal with someone. I would rather us remove sources of drama than play around with them like we think they'll turn out differently than they have so many times before.
Even better would be if we were "fair". He said that this notion we (claim to) operate on that we give leniency to people based on whether or not they make up for their faults is a contrivance so we can play favorites with our friends. I don't think it's a contrivance though. I also believe that, while we're nowhere near ideal and are actually pretty pathetic at times, we're not so bad and can muster up some degree of fairness when one of us wants to, at least. And I think it's a bit more often than that. I say I try to do that - even if I don't as much as I should. And then, what - does the long-time member who has consistently proven they've got a few uses (even this part is subjective...) deserve all the same penalties as a newbie? Or someone who's had problems with us in the past? I don't see a problem with giving people slack when we have good reason to do so, if it *is* indeed a good reason (subjective again).
Or maybe I'm just trying to jerk off the other staff members and give us all a collective feeling that we're doing something when we, in fact, do nothing. If that's what you think though, and you really believe that we're hopeless, then I'm not sure. Or this could all be me jerking myself off, trying to wrangle with my horribly twisted logic that I have somehow convinced myself is valid so I can continue coddling useless members while the true gems sit unattended.