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.

[radhikaeatsraman]

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.

What hiring session?

[*Libertie*]

What hiring session?

The recent one, where Kaycee, kryo, Michael, James, Anna, and crew (sorry, I can't remember you all) were hired, is the one I'm referring to.

edit; It was mid-January. It was recent, but apparently not as recent as I thought. Time flies when you're busy, I guess. :P

[radhikaeatsraman]

The recent one, where Kaycee, kryo, Michael, James, Anna, and crew (sorry, I can't remember you all) were hired, is the one I'm referring to.

edit; It was mid-January. It was recent, but apparently not as recent as I thought. Time flies when you're busy, I guess. :P

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I don't think you caught that. The reason I said that was because it wasn't a proper hiring session and not every member was given the chance to apply.

[*Libertie*]

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I don't think you caught that. The reason I said that was because it wasn't a proper hiring session and not every member was given the chance to apply.

That's fine, but it doesn't matter, because that's not what I was talking about. You apparently missed that I was referring to an actual hiring session. That's okay.

But fine, though, we'll go off on another subject. True, this recent hiring was not a proper hiring session.. okay. That's not an argument, though, because there has always been the accomodation that people can be randomly appointed if needed. I hate to compare this to real life, but if a workplace has a couple positions open, they don't have to put up a now hiring sign or hold a job fair. It's perfectly acceptable to just hire someone else and fill the spot. If you want to argue about the random hirings, argue the rule, not the action.

On another subject, I've never been to another forum that holds "hiring sessions" like this. Many forums will just let their mods pick a new staff member whenever the wills strikes them, and MOST forums don't even allow the staff members input, it's just a random appointment by an admin. The fact that so member input is so appreciated here was a pretty big shock to me. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, why is it such a big deal?