By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Angelus said:
Putting aside melbye's post for a moment, I think it might in fact be a good idea for the mod team to reconsider their stance on how they go about the process of actually moderating. Having all mods need to weigh in on pretty much every single decision, is a rather cripplingly ineffective way of doing business. Sure, it has the benefit of making sure everyone's always got their asses covered, because if there's a mistake, misjudgment, etc. it's on everyone....but at what cost?

You don't need the input of every moderator.
A couple of extra moderators giving input is more than sufficient.

Angelus said:

As Hiku just admitted, and as I know from personal experience, this process is simply too slow to be satisfactory for anyone. Users feel frustrated that things aren't getting done, and - unless I was completely alone in that boat - I'm pretty sure mods are often frustrated just the same. Most decisions are really fairly straight forward, and don't require this huge brainstorm. I mean really, if you're on the mod team, after a certain amount of time there's simply gotta be a trust between you all that you know what you're doing. If there isn't, if there are people there that you feel shouldn't be moderating without supervision...well then you gotta drop them.

That is relevant criticism.

And there is trust that we can do the "right thing" otherwise we wouldn't be moderators to start with, but we have a due process that tends to assist in removing bias.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--