moderator for a day |
  |
| *kryogenix* |
 May 27 2007, 11:18 PM
Post
#76
|
|
Guest  |
I guess that's what happens when you drink that much kool aid.
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2007, 10:39 AM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Senior Member  Group: Official Member Posts: 3,459 Joined: Dec 2005 Member No: 328,021 |
I don't really like this, party because I have the feeling that as soon as the winner is appointed mod for a day, there'll be spamfests everywhere.
Not that I would join in, of course, but still. 
|
|
|
|
| *Azarel* |
May 28 2007, 04:50 PM
Post
#78
|
|
Guest |
If this were to theoretically take place, how would said winner be decided anyway? Anyone come up with any ideas yet?
|
|
|
|
| *Azarel* |
May 28 2007, 10:52 PM
Post
#79
|
|
Guest |
I think the problem with having people apply to be a moderator for a day is that, as regular modding, there requires a lot of deliberation on behalf of the staff (and even moreso among the heads/admin/mentors).
|
|
|
|
| *tripvertigo* |
May 29 2007, 03:04 PM
Post
#80
|
|
Guest |
remember when all we had to worry about was Blogring jackasses stealing our shit and how much of a bitch everyone thought I was when I was a mod? (Not that people still dont think i'm a bitch now.)
The good old days. Sorry, that might have been off-topic. |
|
|
|
| *Insurmountable* |
May 29 2007, 09:21 PM
Post
#81
|
|
Guest |
Why not just kind of like combine member of the month and this together?
Like if you win member of the month then you automatically get the staff member of the day and you can choose the day you would like to be on staff for the day? not so much as a hassle, but still keeps the good idea alive. |
|
|
|
| *StanleyThePanda* |
May 30 2007, 12:18 AM
Post
#82
|
|
Guest |
But mods have the final say in who wins MOTM.
 I, personally, think that would work out better than anything else. but idk. |
|
|
|
| *Insurmountable* |
May 30 2007, 05:12 AM
Post
#83
|
|
Guest |
^Yea thats what I was thinking was the mods have the final say in that so I don't see how it couldn't be a bad alternative.
|
|
|
|
| *Mercy* |
May 30 2007, 09:41 AM
Post
#84
|
|
Guest |
I think if we were going with the MOTM winner.The staff would have to now factor in the responsibility level of the winner when selecting that MOTM.As suzzette said sometimes its seems like people arent being serious with their nominations.
Durring a hiring session you wouldent want to pick someone who barely has posted on here or constantly spams even if they are funny oneliners.You dont usualy see someone hired on staff if they are a known troublemaker. So yeah....theres my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
| *kryogenix* |
May 30 2007, 12:41 PM
Post
#85
|
|
Guest |
Speaking of hiring sessions, didn't you guys eschew the hiring session last time?
|
|
|
|
| *Insurmountable* |
May 30 2007, 03:36 PM
Post
#86
|
|
Guest |
Well I'm sorry to hear that the member of the month isn't taken seriously but I still don't see how it wouldn't work since the staff has the final say, unless the staff doesn't care about who gets it and just finds it to be a big game.
|
|
|
|
| *Azarel* |
May 30 2007, 04:25 PM
Post
#87
|
|
Guest |
The problem with verbal warnings is that they are supposed to be recorded in a thread backstage... which proves problematic with the lack of backstage access.
|
|
|
|
| *ersatz* |
May 30 2007, 05:51 PM
Post
#88
|
|
Guest |
Wait, why not access to the queue? Wouldn't it be beneficial for the winners (community members) to learn how the layout accepting/rejecting works? Very sorry if this was said before in this thread; if so, ignore me, I'm a moron.
And Backstage is obviously not there for the mods to talk crap about people in; that's stupid. We're not hiding anything, we're just taking care of site matters. Like CB4, we were talking about it Backstage for a while and we didn't want to let it out because that way it's a surprise. Why is that bad? |
|
|
|
| *Insurmountable* |
May 30 2007, 09:44 PM
Post
#89
|
|
Guest |
I only read a few posts after mind.
But I hate to say this, but I think it would be to much of hassle to have something like this happen. I mean there are just so many things that you would have to disable the person from doing. The only thing they could really do is like move topics. If they have any other ability it could be a bad thing if you didn't trust them enough. Viewing backstage, warning people, viewing the que. I mean come on your taking away everything there is to being a mod if someone had to experience it, it wouldn't be any different from being a regular member. 
|
|
|
|
|
May 31 2007, 04:50 PM
Post
#90
|
|
 My peanut. Group: Member Posts: 948 Joined: Jul 2005 Member No: 187,456 |
Hm. I think I like the idea. Maybe the fairest way to choose is having all people with the best qualifications apply then be randomly chose per week.. would that work?
|
|
|
|
| *shotgunFUNERAL* |
May 31 2007, 05:04 PM
Post
#91
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE(iiTsDAYNA @ May 31 2007, 04:50 PM)  Hm. I think I like the idea. Maybe the fairest way to choose is having all people with the best qualifications apply then be randomly chose per week.. would that work? just used the failed hiring session method...the staff picks or nominates who they think would be best for the job and then those chosen people are given a day or week to become the mod. |
|
|
|
| *kryogenix* |
Jun 1 2007, 12:02 PM
Post
#92
|
|
Guest |
The problem is the staff isn't really to be trusted to make these decisions, or even be on staff at all.
|
|
|
|
| *Insurmountable* |
Jun 2 2007, 02:19 PM
Post
#93
|
|
Guest |
^Well I don't think you can say that about all of the staff. I mean there are a few up there that really show some caring side for this site and understand it fully and deserve to be on staff. I can't say that about all of them but I can say it about some.
I suppose the only way this will work is for there to be a thread in announcements and people can just apply for it and the staff can go through it just like a hiring session. To be quite honest though, I don't see the point in even having it anymore. There wouldn't be any great side to becoming a mod for a day, all you would do is just be a normal member and have the ability to maybe move topics? I think thats about all their giving you. |
|
|
|
| *steve330* |
Jun 3 2007, 11:12 AM
Post
#94
|
|
Guest |
There are always exceptions, but the time used finding those could be highly unpractical.
|
|
|
|
| *Insurmountable* |
Jun 3 2007, 11:14 AM
Post
#95
|
|
Guest |
^exactly.
|
|
|
|
| *IVIike* |
Jun 5 2007, 09:04 AM
Post
#96
|
|
Guest |
sounds fun
|
|
|
|
| *Elba* |
Jun 6 2007, 01:19 AM
Post
#97
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE(Insurmountable @ Jun 2 2007, 12:19 PM) ^Well I don't think you can say that about all of the staff. I mean there are a few up there that really show some caring side for this site and understand it fully and deserve to be on staff. I can't say that about all of them but I can say it about some. I suppose the only way this will work is for there to be a thread in announcements and people can just apply for it and the staff can go through it just like a hiring session. To be quite honest though, I don't see the point in even having it anymore. There wouldn't be any great side to becoming a mod for a day, all you would do is just be a normal member and have the ability to maybe move topics? I think thats about all their giving you. Yeah. Might as well forget about it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2007, 03:28 PM
Post
#98
|
|
 im with the marching band Group: Member Posts: 740 Joined: Dec 2006 Member No: 491,167 |
i think this idea is neat...though i think it'll be to much work
|
|
|
|
| *steve330* |
Jun 6 2007, 09:30 PM
Post
#99
|
|
Guest |
It really wouldn't be a bad idea if not for human error
|
|
|
|
| *kryogenix* |
Jun 7 2007, 08:08 PM
Post
#100
|
|
Guest |
Once again, mod over regulation defeats a potentially fun thing.
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: