Moderator Reviews. Options

[*Azarel*]

People who want the position for the title. We periodically review our staff performance, and in the past, those who applied for the sake of having a nifty title never did that well...

This comes up in the chat a lot, when we talk about mods that are active and inactive, etc. Last night, we toyed with the idea of having the mods be reviewed every once in a while, after all, that's what Jusun says that you guys do, right? (Cited above.) I don't exactly know how the current staff members are reviewed, whether it be public to the community or not, but I don't think it's happened in a while. I also think that maybe the community should have a say in some of the reviewing, because perhaps the people doing the reviewing aren't that active.

[Heathasm]

probably because the whole of cb doesnt need to be part of the staff team and start doing the things they do one thing at a time?

[racoons > you]

probably because the whole of cb doesnt need to be part of the staff team and start doing the things they do one thing at a time?

that doesnt really make sense... why would knowing a mod was away mean that members were turning into mods?

Though I think the idea of reviewing a moderator is a good way for memebers to voice opinions and whatnot, I do see a lot of holes. This would be a perfect bash moderator fest. A lot of you are mature enough to use the review for what it's for: constructive criticism, but then there are alot of immature members who will use it to make others feel bad. And then, if we only have "mature" members write the reviews, it wouldn't be 'fair' to everyone else.

well, we could have it available to members witha certain post count, say 1250 (thats what it takes to become a mod, if i remember correctly, so if a person has enough posts to BE a mod, then why not enough to review one)

but i take your point about mod-bashing... but why not let people give it a try. if someone abuses it, then dont alowthem to do it again... i dont really see why the possibility of some people abusing a system means that it should be denied those who will use it responsibly

[Spirited Away]

well, we could have it available to members witha certain post count, say 1250 (thats what it takes to become a mod, if i remember correctly, so if a person has enough posts to BE a mod, then why not enough to review one)
but i take your point about mod-bashing... but why not let people give it a try. if someone abuses it, then dont alowthem to do it again... i dont really see why the possibility of some people abusing a system means that it should be denied those who will use it responsibly

There are members with post counts with 5k+ whose maturity are questionable. Having enough post counts to be a mod doesn't mean he/she is mod material nor does it mean he/she is mature.

If someone does abuse it and we ban them from reviewing ever again, what would be the use? The bashing is already done, and the hurt would be there still after punishing the member.

I think the idea is similar to the "Moderator Performance" thread. The only problem in there is, when a person criticize a moderator, he/she just says something really vague and without naming anyone. That's kind of silly, actually. If you want to say something about a mod, just say it to him/her. And that thread, I surmise, had something to do with a good moderator who stepped down.

Anyway, I think reviews are.... fine since we're already using it in a way with the Performance thread, but they MUST leave out attendance.