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

[*digitalfragrance*]

Alvin, it sounds like your problem is with one moderator and not the entire staff, so can you keep it to PM?

Anyway... yes, quality replies are SO important. However, when there are over 250 graphics in the queue, it's hard to give REALLY detailed replies. If anyone ever wants more, they can always ask

[*shotgunFUNERAL*]

^
why should they HAVE to ask? give it to them in the first place.

[*davinci*]

Anyway... yes, quality replies are SO important. However, when there are over 250 graphics in the queue, it's hard to give REALLY detailed replies. If anyone ever wants more, they can always ask

That's just the point Spencer made. Don't rush through it just because there are hundreds of more submissions to go through and you want to see the queue cleared. :)

"Too simple" is too insufficient of a criticism. It could go into the minimal category.

[YourSuperior]

edit. this can post can be deleted.

[*davinci*]

What's the problem?

You should be specific and you were, which is good. Ryan just needs to be spoken to about this.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

^
why should they HAVE to ask? give it to them in the first place.

Because if you give a very detailed response to every user as soon as you reject their submission, it doubles, triples, whatevers, the time it takes to go through the queue, given that the majority of submissions are rejected. Thus, it gets backed up, and people have to wait for a long time before anyone arrives at a decisions, which is annoying for everyone, whereas having to take the time out to PM the moderator to ask for an explanation which will then be provided in detail is only an issue for those who really care for a detailed explanation, which tends not to be everyone. It's a question of 'How can we make the queue most efficient for the most people,' and providing a brief reason, which is expanded on if required is the best method available in that respect.

[*davinci*]

Even if some don't want a detailed explanation, mods should at least be giving a sufficient reason as to why a submission was rejected. It doesn't have to be a "detailed" one; that has inefficiency written all over it.

Like always, it's easiest to just copy and paste the guidelines they've "broken" from the Graphics Submissions Requirements.

[*digitalfragrance*]

I'm not saying that we go through the queue faster because of the 250 graphics, but I'm hoping that users realize that we can't devote our entire mind to a graphic, or else, as James said, we tick a whole bunch more people off because of the wait.

[*superstitious*]

It is strongly encouraged to give enough feedback as to clearly explain why something was rejected. In fact, it's pretty much frowned upon to not give good feedback (at least that was my impression). Sure, not everyone will get a 100 word essay describing in depth what 'went wrong', so to speak. But I don't think that is what anyone is really asking for.

My suggestion is this - If you do not feel that you've been given adequate feedback, contact the person that rejected your submission. Open up that dialogue. If you notice that the same person is giving you ambiguous feedback when rejecting either bring that up here (like you have) or always feel free and comfortable PMing a Head Staff or Admin about it.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

I'm not suggesting that no feedback is given, just that a short quip will do until asked for more, as a middle ground to combine effciency with advice.

[*digitalfragrance*]

^ I totally agree with that James.

[*kryogenix*]

You know my complaints. Alright. Answer them.

[*kryogenix*]

You're kidding right?

So none of you guys have been paying attention for the last few months. You, of all people should know.

[*kryogenix*]

Well I've gotten used to not reading your posts, since you're rarely serious and 11 times out of 10 you make little to no sense. Now are you going to keep monkeying around, or get to the point?

You, more so than other mods, are on a power trip. I'm still waiting for you to apologize for saying niggard is racist, because it absolutely isn't. You were wrong. Admit it. Don't try to work up some bullshit explanation.

[*kryogenix*]

I respect that you think I'm on a power trip. Thanks for that important information, and I will definitely try to work on that.

The second part of your post is completely false though. I never said it was racist, and I've answered this question for you before. I thought you had new questions?

With that being said, I apologize that you wrongly believed this. No hard feelings?

Liar.

brownsugar: Warned on May 7 2007, 10:10 PM
Added to warn level: Consistently bashing, and racism.

[*kryogenix*]

That word that you mentioned wasn't the instance in which you were warned for racism.

O RLY? What word was it then?

Because I'm pretty sure after I used niggard, you said:

This is your verbal warning for bashing, and racist remarks.

[*kryogenix*]

Oh no, you're assuming that was it because it was after you said that. You've had this discussion with me and Kiera before, and I remember explaining this to you a while back. Now it's going on two months since that whole incident and I can't remember specific details. Also, since you decided to poop all over the forum all of it has been deleted now, and I don't have access to it.

The way I remember it, we came to the conclusion that it wasn't racist. You never explained it to me, other than try to claim that it was the derogatory context that made it racist, which is a very poor explanation considering I used niggard as a criticism against you, so of course it sounds derogatory.

Now, all the evidence against me has been conveniently deleted.

You keep saying it's all been explained when it wasn't. Why are you trying to run away from the issue?

[*kryogenix*]

You're grasping at straws.

1. No one looks offended at my post at all. And they shouldn't be.
2. You have to be kidding me.
3. Ditto above.

[*kryogenix*]

People were complaining, and it was also being discussed backstage that's why the threads were closed in the first place. The reason why your warning level was raised is because you were asked to stop, and chose not to. Just because I was the one that closed your topic/raised your warning level, doesn't mean I was essentially acting alone.

Complaining about my post specifically? Yeah, ok. I wasn't even warned for those posts, so apparently none of you had a problem with those back then. Or if you did, you blatantly did not abide by procedure and verbally warned me.

What it appears to be is you know you were wrong, and now you're trying to find other reasons to justify your warning in order to save face.

[*kryogenix*]

Yes, I have already explained that those were the posts you were in fact warned for.

It seems like you always go back to this "saving face" thing. It also seems you have run out valid things to say (I'm not sure if you started out with anything), so I'm just going to agree with you. No hard feelings?

Wow, did you just completely ignore what I said again? Some mod.

[*MyMichelle*]

Btw-

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but this user "tilanguyenar" has been spamming so much, he's actually today's #1 poster, hahahhaha.

[*mzkandi*]

I disabled posting on that account just now.

[*MyMichelle*]

^ Okay. Just making sure that the staff knew, b/c I didn't see any of his posts edited or anything.

[*SayBloodyMary*]

I would just like to point out that even if you did discuss the racist thing with Suzzette and Kiera, and come to the conclusion that it wasn't racist, your warn history would still read 'racism,' because it cannot be editted after the event. Not a lot anyone can do about that aspect of it.

[*kryogenix*]

I would just like to point out that even if you did discuss the racist thing with Suzzette and Kiera, and come to the conclusion that it wasn't racist, your warn history would still read 'racism,' because it cannot be editted after the event. Not a lot anyone can do about that aspect of it.

I understand this. What I'm asking for is an apology and an admission that she was wrong.