Self Moderation

[(Shovel)]

I can't help feeling that we wont get a free vote.

Firstly because Ted etc. will have to agree with those people who's names are forward, rather than have Bodhi elected.

Also, popularity has already been mentioned, turning it into a popularity contest to choose people who will be making some unpopular decisions is surely not the best way to select?
Everyone here has either tried to put forward their own strengths, or had strengths named for them (or both). There may well be a difference between who would be best at it and who is more popular.

 

[Munkey-]

we do have to find out first if the ops actually find this an agreeable idea.

No use stirring up arguments if its all for nothing at the end.

 

[Munkey-]

grah. beaten to the mark.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Woohoo for Will!!!

 

[Perplex]

My penis has expressed a desire to be a moderator. Please oblige

 

[Nibbler]

I think I should be a mod. I'm fluffy and lovely, yet firm.










*wanks*

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Summo
I'd strongly disgree with that. No offence to him, but Embattle is far to easily drawn into flamewars and vendettas.

How dare you....damn lieing sack of dog shit

Thanks Shocko

I think you'll find I'm definately out of the question as some one at Game seems to have it in for me.

 

[raw]

Moderating is a shite job anyway, people always think your doing wrong when your trying to do right, some just generally are cunts because your in a position "above" them, cant understand why some people are so keen to do it.

I used to be a moderator for the tech and beginners forums on www.quake3world.com and it really was a nightmare, so many fuckwits to deal with i just quit the board entirely

 

[(Shovel)]

I for one want to do it because I want BW to be the best it can. OK, that sounds big headed. I don't mean it like that.

Erm. I want to do it because I actually think I'm capable of dealing with any "shit" that comes my way. I know that I am reletively level headed and I know that I'm not putting myself forward to get any kind of compliments or backslaps from friends on the board. I like Barrysworld and I think I know Barrysworld quite well, I want to help out.

FS, I'm coming across like a fucking politician. I'm sorry. I hoep you can see what I'm getting at. I agree, it's hard to put into words "why" I want to do it. I care about the place. There we go, that'll do:

"I care about the place."

And there's a lot of people who feel the same.

 

[Sir Frizz]

I feel Ono would make a good moderator. Along with TdC, Xane and Kez (Though his participation is sporadic at best so Will., you're in son ).

 

[~YuckFou~]

 

[Testin da Cable]

hmm I'll have to subscribe now won't I?

 

[Embattle]

No offence Shovel...this isn't BarrysWorld besides the colour scheme some choose in the profile section or if they choose the BW homepage over GAME.net.......this is without a doubt Game.

 

[xane]

We could have a "rotating moderator", like the presidency of the EU, take it in turns amongst a selection of long-standing members who get an invite, or nominated, etc, etc.

/me books holiday to coincide with Wij's turn at the helm

 

[Testin da Cable]

if I recall correctly, that idea was mentioned in one of the original moderaton threads. sounded pretty good at the time, but will bring extra administrative overhead.

 

[~YuckFou~]

Admins giving head?!

 

[(Shovel)]

Could be a good idea that. Though changing mods every month or two months would be at the expense of a stable forum, new mods would take time to get into the role (just as the first set of community mods will)

 

[Will]

I don't think rotating mods would be a good idea. More would have to be selected, and changeovers would have to be organised...sounds like extra work for TTD to me. I think he'd rather set it all up and forget about it.

 

[kameleon]

I still think Will should get the job

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by ~YuckFou~
cock
badger

BAN BAN BAN

 

[bigfoot]

I personally think a three strikes rule is a horrendously bad idea, it's like saying "you can be as racist or abusive as you want, so long as you only do it twice".

From my point of view self-moderation would be good, but unless the people who are in charge are willing to take a really hard line it will simply not work. It's alright editing posts where unacceptable language is used, or removing offending images when they are posted, but if the person in question is not taken to task then they will presume they are okay to post such images again and again because the only penalty they will suffer is their post gets edited. Until they are banned some people will simply not realise what they are doing is just not acceptable behaviour.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by bigfoot
From my point of view self-moderation would be good, but unless the people who are in charge are willing to take a really hard line it will simply not work.

Surely self-moderation means the people "in charge" don't take any line whatsoever.

 

[Will]

Not in the context of this thread...it means that forum regs will moderate the forum.

 

[old.Fweddy]

I think anyone that is willing to become a mod is too power hungry and should not be considered. I think anyone who does not want to be a mod shouldn't have it forced on them and cannot be considered.

Can't we all just unplug our keyboards or something?


Failing that, I vote Will.

 

[DApea!]

The ability to "Report (a) Thread" to the admins / moderators would be worthwhile.

An Email later, and swift action could be imposed on said thread (!), without the nescessary need for 50 moderators (so one would always be online).

Obviously this doesn't include wars / abusive arguments, but they draw enough attention to be noticed fairly quickly anyway.

No?, ok

Edit: :sleeping:

 

[PR.]

Look at the bottom right of your post... Report this post to a moderator...

 

[Lester]

I only have Paint at home, sorry

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by xane
/me books holiday to coincide with Wij's turn at the helm

Cheeky bast

I wouldn't want to do it anyway. You're safe

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by bigfoot

From my point of view self-moderation would be good, but unless the people who are in charge are willing to take a really hard line it will simply not work. It's alright editing posts where unacceptable language is used, or removing offending images when they are posted, but if the person in question is not taken to task then they will presume they are okay to post such images again and again because the only penalty they will suffer is their post gets edited. Until they are banned some people will simply not realise what they are doing is just not acceptable behaviour.

possibly, but it depends what you want doesn't it? I for one would prefer to leave the ultimate levels of moderation where they are. An idea like Shovel's, where a limited ban may be put in effect when a post edit/'quiet word' sadly fails seems a good enough compromise.

perhaps we aren't fully aware of what the staff want though, and a more clear explanation would be in order.

 

[iamglenn]

i vote embattle tbh =/