LordAkhenUlv said:
This is just a suggestion coming from past experience on aforementioned site Neoseeker where i was mod for the Music forum and various others for about a year... Someone sometime ago proposed some sort of Mod for Mods, which isnt such a bad idea after all.
One of Neoseekers strong points was that it had a "christmas tree" sort of structure when it came to moderation. Just as an idea i will show you what it came along like Administrators - There were only four, but had no effects on the forums (unless something really important happened), they ran the site. "Super" Moderators - Had moderating power on all forums, they could make decisions, wether it was banning or closing threads, on whichever forum they wanted. Technically a really tough job, time consuming and all. The point of interest is mainly the fact that they are what youre technically asking for, "Moderators for moderators". So it was rare to see their activity in individual forums, but presence was felt within the "moderator circle". Eventually they started helping out the administrators as well
Section Moderators - Had full power on their own designated section, for example "RPG" "Action/Adventure" "Music" "General Interets" just to name a few. They controlled activity in all the forums which fell under their category. Same powers as super moderators, except limited to their section.
Moderators - Moderated just one individual forum, meaning for example a game (At the beginning for example i was moderator for the FFXII forum) or a general interest (example - "Wrestling") Just my two cents |
I'm not sure such a structure would work, because the majority of the traffic appears on the "Hot Topics" list. As such, there isn't a lot of weight put on the individual forums, and I think having mods set up for them may cause some confusion.
I do think that if consistency and bias is a problem, there should be a group of mods or users dedicated to just looking over decisions. Heavy bans, mass locks, and other types of situations seem to make the most controversey, so maybe having someone outside looking in that isn't affected by the same circumstances (disgruntled mods, uninformed mods, angry users, etc.) can go over it and make surei t wasn't influnced by the heat of the moment.
Better yet, since there seems to be complaints about inconsistency and mods banning at their own discretion, why not an infraction system? A popularforum I posted on had one, that way overzealous mods could not go aroundbanning people for whatever they want whenever they felt like it. Maybe a 3 strikes system, when the mod adds a 3rd (or 4th?) infraction then the user is banned automatically depending on the 'value' of the infractions. Say, spamming would be 1 point, trolling 2 points, flaming 3 points? When the final infraction is placed, the poitns are 'added' up to decide how long a user is banned. 3-5 Points would = 5 days to a week, 5-8 points = 9 days to 2 weeks, and 10+ =1 month or more?
Just a suggestion. It would certainly kill all complaints about unwarranted, inconsistent bans.
