Moderator Performance, V.2, Suggestions/Complaints/Compliments Options

[Spirited Away]

I'm not sure what you're proposing, Justin, like go ahead and let mods be inactive for a while and call them"reserved mods"? Here's my two cents on why I don't agree.

First, it's not fair. If a moderator cannot perform his/her job, let another person have a go at it, and come back to reapply when the ex-mod feels that he/she is capable of it again when it's hiring time. If there is a "super mod" who performed brilliantly, he/she should have no trouble getting his/her job back.

Second, keeping them on reserve and having to hire mods that will do their jobs will unnecessary increase the number of mods. Why have a large number of workers, when half of them aren't working? Wouldn't it be hard to keep up with them?

Third, if they are kept, and they don't feel like doing their jobs, cB will have a lot more drama. Mostly, this drama will be from members who feel that mods are incompetent <-- bad image for mods. These members may even be correct more than half the time if this happens.

Unless you mean to say keep them on reserve while they take a short vacation. Then, I don't see why not. But shouldn't that short vacation have a defined length of time?

[*Infinite.*]

Well if mods take a short break then they usually have a reason for it, some take a little personal time off so they can get things straight.

Fae, I agree with you about the whole 'reserved' mod thing, it doesn't seem right and it would cause a lot of drama amoung what the members think.

[sadolakced acid]

well, i guess it stems from different viewpoints of what mods should be.

workers 'moderating' the forums

or members you trust not to screw things up.

since they're not getting paid and all, the whole 'workers' thing doesn't seem to work out too well.

[*afflict.x*]

The mods right now are doing a pretty good job keeping things smooth.

[Spirited Away]

well, i guess it stems from different viewpoints of what mods should be.

workers 'moderating' the forums

or members you trust not to screw things up.

since they're not getting paid and all, the whole 'workers' thing doesn't seem to work out too well.

The thing is, even if they "volunteer", there is a contract, a promise if you will, when they applied. If they cannot uphold their part of the contract/promise, they should be let go so that others have a chance at it.

[sadolakced acid]

well yea, that's the way it works now.

but then you get a lot of complains about mods quitting.

[*Kathleen*]

Complains about mods quitting?

[*Infinite.*]

^Whos complaining?

I haven't seen it happen yet..

[Spirited Away]

Eh? I'm lost, Justin. Maybe cuz I haven't been around. But... I think I get what you're saying... I think.

[sadolakced acid]

basically, i'm trying to bring up this fundamental question: why is there a set number of mods? is it important to keep mods as an exclusive group? certianly 50 mods would be a lot, but what exactly would be the problem with that? who would die? If you trust them all, what's wrong with sharing the responsibility?

yes, what i'm saying is essentially mod the whole community. of course, not all of it, but just those who are trusted, who have posted, and who you know. No, they wouldn't have all the powers- just close and move, and the existing mods would be the core mods who would do warnings and bannings and the such that can be fooled around with. And if someone decided to go through and move a bunch of threads around to screw things up, who's going to die? you have more than enough mods to help move everything back.

share the responsibility. Instead of having 15 members 'modding' the forums, have 50. the job becomes much smaller for mods- they don't have to deal with moving or closing topics. Instead, the members who would have posted "SPAM" or "this is in the wrong place" can just move it themselves.

what would this mean? well, we would see a lot less posts saying what's wrong with a topic and more simple corrective action. Moderators' workloads would be reduced, making thier jobs easier.

yes, there is the possiblitily someone would run amok on the forums closing and moving random topics. but there are now tonnes more mods there to put things back.

[Spirited Away]

The problem is lack of efficiency and productivity overall (long term). Hiring 50 people for tasks that 20 people can get done of equal quality is the worst way run any organization.

With that many moderators, they'll have to compete to close/move/censor topics so that members won't complain that they aren't doing enough. If you think some of these mods are inactive now, they'll seem even more inactive if they don't moderate because there aren't anything out of place for them to moderate.

Lets say you're a moderator and there are 49 others, for example, and there are 10 topics that need to be closed. That means a maximum of 10 of moderators will be able to close topics and the other 40 mods are useless. Members won't be angry at you because you were the hero mod that closed topics, but they'll pick on the useless mods.

Is there a need for useless mods?

If they can't handle the "work load" of modding, they should have never applied. Modding is not that hard is it?

[*Infinite.*]

Honestly, I think theres plenty of mods already. Its not like this forum is so huge that 6? people staff that we have currently need more people on the team. We've discussed this before backstage about the low amount of staff, but everyone seems fine with how many there are and that everyone is able to get around the community and manage their duties. Of course at times they need some help when they over look things, but everyones going to do that.

And no, I don't believe modding around the forum is exactly "hard". I mean most of you guys would know anyway since a lot of you have been on staff before.

[smoke]

^ Agreed. I was about to say the same. The Admins checked with us all weeks ago on how we feel we're doing and if we need more help. Everyone in every department said that they feel fine and we're getting the job done. The only thing is Live Journal staff but we can't really find anyone up to the task as of this moment. Head Staff takes care of any of those places very well anyway.

The problem is lack of efficiency and productivity overall (long term). Hiring 50 people for tasks that 20 people can get done of equal quality is the worst way run any organization.

With that many moderators, they'll have to compete to close/move/censor topics so that members won't complain that they aren't doing enough. If you think some of these mods are inactive now, they'll seem even more inactive if they don't moderate because there aren't anything out of place for them to moderate.

Lets say you're a moderator and there are 49 others, for example, and there are 10 topics that need to be closed. That means a maximum of 10 of moderators will be able to close topics and the other 40 mods are useless. Members won't be angry at you because you were the hero mod that closed topics, but they'll pick on the useless mods.

Is there a need for useless mods?

If they can't handle the "work load" of modding, they should have never applied. Modding is not that hard is it?

Agree 100%. It would do a whole lot worse than it would do good. It would also increase the inactivity of moderators as opposed to preventing it because there would hardly be anything to mod. Everyone would be biting at the bit to close or move anything. Those who didn't would be dubbed "useless" when it's not even their fault because 30 other mods are already on the topic.

[*wind&fire*]

kudos to brownsugar and iRock cB for closing late night spam and not warning me for shamless post count adding

I retract my previous statement... I've been verbally warned

[*Kathleen*]

Pssst. I'm really glad that whoever closed this didn't post (so as not to hypocritically spam), but could you add the edit line next time so I know who you are?

[smoke]

^ Hmm that's really odd. Wasn't me!

[*afflict.x*]

we dont need anymore staff members but it would be really neat if you guys hired some old mods that are contributing in a good way. disregard this.. just a thought.

[Gypsy Eyes]

Please elaborate on that, who? There isn't really anyone that I can think of.

[KissMe2408]

It'd be great if some of our old mods came back and were active again.
Gigi, Frankie, Teesa, and all of them.

Though keep in mind that they would have to be pretty active,
and stick out enough when the next hiring session came along.

[gelionie]

I do not oppose the good, older mods getting back on the mod team, but I think that even if they were good, they should go through the normal hiring process as well. Not just those who were previously mods and not that outstanding... I believe EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO BE A MOD SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE.

[KissMe2408]

^I think that is what the rule is now.
They would still have to go through the hiring process like any other member.

[gelionie]

Yeah, right...

But a lot of them may probably have lost their interest for cB a long time ago... which is a pity.

[smoke]

^ It really is. I plan on being here for a long time though!

I think Holly's doing great. Of course, that's probably why she got staff member of the month. haha.

[x_curse_of_the_c...]

^i think you are doing good like your active and stuff!

[smoke]

^ Thanks! :D I appriciate it. And thank you Robbi for the kind words as well!