MOD WARNING SYSTEM Options

[*kryogenix*]

I have been a victim of moderator abuse TWICE (three times if you count the one I'm bringing up about the cosplay thread) now only recently.

I think there should be a mod warning system in place, where users can vote against a moderator's action and then once they abuse their powers to a certain point, they get kicked off the team.

Cause I'm sick of it.

[*Libertie*]

You know, I'll jump in and say something here - I don't think you're entirely wrong in what you're aiming at. I also don't think it's as bad as what you're saying, but I can agree that a lot of mod actions that have been directed at you recently have been because of a lack of communication. People have been too quick to move, close, warn, without understanding the meaning behind your posts. Just because people don't "get it" doesn't necessarily mean it's spam.

Realizing that a lot of our staff members are young, they've been trusted with a responsibility that requires some of them to be more mature than their actual age. That being said, I think our staff members are mature enough to handle it. The problem is the misconception of the term "mature". Being mature doesn't mean performing as many mod actions as possible, it's knowing WHEN to perform these actions that counts, as well as being consistent in how they are carried out. I think we can work on this, and I think as they get settled into their roles (this WAS a very recent hiring session, after all, it was only about a month ago, if I remember correctly) we'll have a more pleasant interaction between mods/members.

Without dismissing your idea completely, James, I'm interested in hearing more about your idea as far as how the system works, and how, if it were implemented, we would prevent members voting mods down simply because they were angry about something. It's easy to feel like you're being treated unfairly when you're on the receiving end, is all I'm saying.

[*Podomaht*]

You know, I'll jump in and say something here - I don't think you're entirely wrong in what you're aiming at. I also don't think it's as bad as what you're saying, but I can agree that a lot of mod actions that have been directed at you recently have been because of a lack of communication. People have been too quick to move, close, warn, without understanding the meaning behind your posts. Just because people don't "get it" doesn't necessarily mean it's spam.

Realizing that a lot of our staff members are young, they've been trusted with a responsibility that requires some of them to be more mature than their actual age. That being said, I think our staff members are mature enough to handle it. The problem is the misconception of the term "mature". Being mature doesn't mean performing as many mod actions as possible, it's knowing WHEN to perform these actions that counts, as well as being consistent in how they are carried out. I think we can work on this, and I think as they get settled into their roles (this WAS a very recent hiring session, after all, it was only about a month ago, if I remember correctly) we'll have a more pleasant interaction between mods/members.

Without dismissing your idea completely, James, I'm interested in hearing more about your idea as far as how the system works, and how, if it were implemented, we would prevent members voting mods down simply because they were angry about something. It's easy to feel like you're being treated unfairly when you're on the receiving end, is all I'm saying.

Now there's a mod I can semi-agree with.

Honestly, it's just the choice of the mods. Most of them aren't 'mature' enough to handle the power of what to close, and what to warn about. Half the threads that are closed don't need to be and 90% of the actions most of the mods take on behalf of assuming things are in fact, wrong.