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

[*Zatanna*]

Do you have suggestions, complaints, or compliments as to how the moderator staff is performing? Voice your opinions here.

Make this thread helpful for the mods.

Mods are members, also. So member bashing is not allowed, as always. Don't make it a personal vendetta, please. Keep the bashing at 0%, please.

Any moderator has the right to close and unpin this thread at the signs of bashing, pointlessness, and/or any other guideline breaker.

I do hope this works out. I want to stress that this is not the place for personal attacks. If you really have to, keep it in the PM system between you and the mod. This thread is here to help mods work better with members.

So...your thoughts?


PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

To avoid redundancy and to leave room for valid comments, posts consist of concerns/suggestions that have been addressed will be deleted. Please do not post something someone already brought up because your post will be considered as spam. The only exception to this rule is compliments.

Also, please do not make this thread into a full scale discussion. Its main purpose is for members to evaluate moderator performance. If your question/concern has been answer, cease to post here until you have another concern. Thank you.


Historical Threads
Moderator Performance V.1

// Update - Moderator Performance Threads will be 50 pages in length.

[*incoherent*]

Were any of those quotes by you? No, actually warnings that raise your warning lvl are not to be publicly stated. Verbal warnings, on-the-other-hand, are to be stated.

since you quoted everything else, can you quote where it specifically says that you can't be warned publicly?

[*Intercourse.*]

^I think he said it was in the approved bylaws?

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=106742

[*StanleyThePanda*]

^ I think the point Spencer was getting at, is that it doesn't specifically say you cannot be warned (lvl raised) publicly.
It doesn't say anything like "Warnings will only be stated by means of PM", or something along those lines. I don't really see why it is a big deal anyways.

[*incoherent*]

^
and besides which, the by-laws still haven't been approved by anyone making them void and frankly it's not a big deal, they just feel they're being mistreated, but what else is new?

[*Intercourse.*]

Okay then why is the staff all quiet about Seon Ho's warnings and stuff but when it may come to other members they are put out to the public.

I don't want to be negative but I do recall reading that you guys do keep that stuff out from the public.

[*Uronacid*]

Okay then why is the staff all quiet about Seon Ho's warnings and stuff but when it may come to other members they are put out to the public.

I don't want to be negative but I do recall reading that you guys do keep that stuff out from the public.

I think that it's embarrassing to be in thread and have a mod interrupt, posting your newly raised warning lvl.

Just like you would like to be taken aside in real life to be told what you have done wrong. I personally see it as respectful for staff to privately reprimand members when a warning level or punishment is administered (not in the case of a verbal warning). This is just as bad as your parents spanking you over their knee in front of your friends.

If you aren't going to have enough tact to do this, you people might as well make the warning levels public.

^
and besides which, the by-laws still haven't been approved by anyone making them void and frankly it's not a big deal, they just feel they're being mistreated, but what else is new?

When you say that, do you think that treating the by-laws as if they do not exist will increase the chance of them being approved?

[*StanleyThePanda*]

^ It hasn't been told to staff to not post it publicly. So, it isn't like they know any better.

With that said, I do agree that raised warning lvl should only be done via PM.

[*annonymous.*]

Well to bring a bit of positive to the topic since it hasn't been touched in a few days.
Jane, I think you doing such a lovely job. Your so nice and you go and introduce yourself in the introductions all the time, I don't think I've ever been in a topic in there without seeing you post in it. Kudos for be welcoming!

I definitely have to agree with Holly.

I'm not saying this because she's one of my closest friends on cB, but she is DEFINITELY doing a splendid job, and she knows how to do her job well. She's very active around the Community, and I love how she's so nice, but can be strong when she needs to. Good job, Jane.

[*incoherent*]

When you say that, do you think that treating the by-laws as if they do not exist will increase the chance of them being approved?

do you think that complaining about every little flaw this site has will help it to be improved?

[*Duchess of Dork*]

owner of cB chat? how is that possible? no one on aim is given special "mod" powers for certain chat rooms and rebecca, i highly doubt you'd be able to have someone "moderate" an aim chat room. it's not part of the program to advance people to a new level and have them have control of other things.

Heh. As Anna and James can attest, I am pathetically ignorant when it comes to AIM and I particularly know next to nothing about chatrooms (which they can also attest to, since I kept booting myself out the other night).

Also, when I said moderate, it wasn't at the level in which we moderate here. I just meant as far as keeping bots in check and banning people who are overly nasty to people. I wasn't trying to advocate more "control."

AOL as well as other progs allows chat owernship; I would know, I used to kick people out on AOL. :3

In any case, moderation power is the reason we tried to get the IRC chat up. It was a bit of a flop, though.

You know, I actually liked IRC (although it took some patience at first). It really is a shame that more people cannot/will not utilize this more often.
---

Regarding in-thread/in-public verbal warnings as it relates to By-Laws, it's stated there that folks are supposed to have both in-thread in PM verbal warnings. However, as mentioned before it doesn't state anywhere that the raised warn levels cannot be made public (not that I endorse this, in fact, I would prefer that neither happen publically, but that's just me).

By-Laws are being brought up again (as is mentioned in a current topic in the By-Laws forum). I would suggest bringing up By-Laws related issues there.

[Retrogressive]

^I've always wondered why CB didn't utilize IRC and preferred AIM. Most Europeans and Aussies use other Instant Messengers and aren't willing to download AIM. This is a bit constricting if we'd like to incorporate everyone. IRC is a little more fluid because Freenode requires no downloading and easy management, in my opinion.

[*disco infiltrator*]

We know it is...we had an IRC chat and no one used it. Not our fault.

[*mzkandi*]

I don't think she (or anyone for that matter) was saying it was.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, she said that she wondered why we didn't utilize it...I was just pointing out that we tried to.

[*Uronacid*]

do you think that complaining about every little flaw this site has will help it to be improved?

Do you think that ignoring every flaw this site has will improve it?

[*incoherent*]

Do you think that ignoring every flaw this site has will improve it?

no, but what good points have you brought up that haven't been brought up before?

[Retrogressive]

Well, she said that she wondered why we didn't utilize it...I was just pointing out that we tried to.

I didn't know, thanks. Although, I still think IRC would be a better alternative because of its more obvious features compared to AIM. To my recollection, CreateBlog has gone far enough to deny connection to the chat or authority over it. At best IRC could set a new precedent for new and old members, at worst the AIM chat would be a little harder to find. Maybe CB could even offer both?

Just an idea worth throwing out there.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, the IRC chat is still there, just...no one goes in it. People went in for about a week (once they figured out how), but then it started being me, Michael, Justin, and James, and maybe some other people. The people who are actually most active in the CB Chat don't want the IRC. The AIM Chat used to be awesome, but now it's just flooded with immaturity and dullness (not necessarily the fault of the people there, just how it is). Since the IRC thing was tried and not well-accepted, I think we should just be more focused on making the AIM Chat a more pleasant, fun, and interesting place for everyone.

[Jeng]

It's already fun, the regular people who are in it do it, just we have dead times when there's 2 people in the room, when new people come in, they are so confused and just leave. :D
Most people from here go in, don't know what we're doing and never talk/or ask for layout help.leave ;\

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, maybe it's fun for you guys, but the majority of us don't enjoy ourselves in there.

Perhaps we could make separate chats for different types of people?...Like "Lounge Frequenters" - people who just talk about general life a lot; "Sandbox Frequenters", "Debate Frequenters", etc. I don't know, just an idea...

[Jeng]

Would people actually go into those chats, like if they're empty then people would just leave.

And yeah, I understand how people who just go in, don't enjoy themselves. :|
Because they just BAM leave. :\

[Retrogressive]

Well, the IRC chat is still there, just...no one goes in it. People went in for about a week (once they figured out how), but then it started being me, Michael, Justin, and James, and maybe some other people. The people who are actually most active in the CB Chat don't want the IRC. The AIM Chat used to be awesome, but now it's just flooded with immaturity and dullness (not necessarily the fault of the people there, just how it is). Since the IRC thing was tried and not well-accepted, I think we should just be more focused on making the AIM Chat a more pleasant, fun, and interesting place for everyone.

The AIM chat's faults could be resolved if there was only, say, even one moderator at a time in the IRC. CB would have control over the chat. By using the Freenode access site, it's virtually one-step access to the chat. I don't see how any of the problems you posted couldn't be resolved with a simple thread explaining IRC. The problem with trying to force AIM chat to be more pleasant, fun, and interesting is that there is no mediator nor is there a law enforcer when things go otherwise planned. I'm not moving to replace the AIM chat. I'm simply stating that, properly handled, IRC could be a solution to the aforementioned problems.

[Jeng]

If people want another chat, go ahead and make one if the people don't enjoy the cbc, and invite people to go there, because in cbc, we talk about PG 13 things ;x well not all of us, just a few, and thing's that CB can't talk about.

[issey miyake]

if its such a big problem, create another chat cbc2. really not that difficult. i consider cbc is one big clique, just like anywhere on the forum there are cliques.

[*disco infiltrator*]

The AIM chat's faults could be resolved if there was only, say, even one moderator at a time in the IRC. CB would have control over the chat. By using the Freenode access site, it's virtually one-step access to the chat. I don't see how any of the problems you posted couldn't be resolved with a simple thread explaining IRC. The problem with trying to force AIM chat to be more pleasant, fun, and interesting is that there is no mediator nor is there a law enforcer when things go otherwise planned. I'm not moving to replace the AIM chat. I'm simply stating that, properly handled, IRC could be a solution to the aforementioned problems.

Yes, I know those problems would be solved, but we already tried that...there was a thread Backstage and a thread in the Lounge explaining IRC to everyone, and it just didn't work.