Quantcast
Locked: WE WANT BALANCE!! Mods actions are either non existent or out of control...

Forums - Website Topics - WE WANT BALANCE!! Mods actions are either non existent or out of control...

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



Around the Network
ioi said:
Well this thread has certainly gone well.

As I've said before, we have mod forums and a mod structure. Decisions are discussed and agreed on as a group so they should be pretty consistent from case to case. If you have a particular issue speak to the head moderators.

Read the rules, obey the rules.

Moderators are unpaid and do this in their own time to help the site run smoothly. I'm sure most would rather not have to jump in and clear up messes but they do to keep things civil and they deserve the respect of the community not criticism because you disagree with a particular decision that was made. We have better mods than any forum I have ever been on and to be honest those who are complaining are making things personal and this is the issue here. Mods are allowed to discuss whatever they want on the site, it does not distract from their moderating duties - the two are seperate. Normally if a mod is involved in a heated discussion another mod will step in to cool things down...

 Woohaa then there are a lot of members with personal issues here.







All I ask of you ioi is, keep an eye on the power tripping mods. I'm not sure you are aware of this but, they be trippin'. :)

But, I think peole forget to give the props to the majority that are good at what they do.



psrock said:
the people that complain the most seems to cause most of the headache for some reason.

well i voiced my opinion about inconsistency and im pretty sure im a headache for noone on this site...when i voiced my opinion i was refferring of how it used to be..im not sure what recent events sparked the events this time i dont log on enough to pay attention...



THe oNLY TRue STuPiDiTY iS THe aCCePTaNCe oF iGNoRaNCe 

PSNTAG K_I_N_G__COKE

  The King Of The Iron Fist tournament

MontanaHatchet said:
Flow said:
Rath said:
naznatips said:
carlos710 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Carlos, you are being really annoying.

One more Sony bias comment and you're banned for 3 days.

See kids, we do our jobs sometimes.

See ? =))

I would like to see how i broke any site rule... some people are saying that this site is Wii biased = no problem.


Someone says that this site is Sony biased = "omg i'm so going to ban you!"

 

If it makes you feel better you can ban me now =)) i know that i didn't do anything bad so i will feel good with myself regardless of what you do.

 

6. Website criticism. Just as with platform criticism, do not attack the website with out basis. Reasonable debate based on facts are acceptable, but repeated attacks and negative comments about the website will not be tolerated. People are here to discuss sales numbers, and doing nothing but attacking the site is disruptive to those who are trying to participate in a sales discussion.


Hah, what a burn.


What the hell?

Saying other site calls us Sony biased is bashing the site? So please get someone to ban ioi for posting that thread about neogaf bashing us... Because neogaf said plenty bad things about us but pointing it out is bannable now, isn't it?

 

Mods are looking for excuses to ban and abusing the power lately, that's my opinion...

Last ban reason i checked didn't even had the thread number anymore...


No, you missed the whole point.

Read it again, I really don't feel like explaining it to you.

As for the ban number, only DKII does that. The other mods only do it occasionally.

As for Foshoryuken, how long have you been on this site? And you're already becoming a huge pain. Sigh, why do the members have to make everything so difficult?


 "yeah, unfortunately, i think this site is mostly knowed as "Sony Defense Chartz" around the web now =("

I don't see this as bashing the site, he is saying this is how this site is known around the web, being right or not. And i do think he is. 

And i didn't knew about the number, in my opinion it should be on every ban reason.

 

And thanks for the cookie but i'll take the girl =X 




Flow -"The important is to pwn other ppl"

Around the Network

Users that are complaining should know that the mods are fair,once I was banned by a mistake from a mod,and I made another account and let him saw his mistake and I got unbanned.If mods were not fair and they abuse of their power then I wouldn't have been unban the mod that ban me even apologise.



Flow said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Flow said:
Rath said:
naznatips said:
carlos710 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Carlos, you are being really annoying.

One more Sony bias comment and you're banned for 3 days.

See kids, we do our jobs sometimes.

See ? =))

I would like to see how i broke any site rule... some people are saying that this site is Wii biased = no problem.


Someone says that this site is Sony biased = "omg i'm so going to ban you!"

 

If it makes you feel better you can ban me now =)) i know that i didn't do anything bad so i will feel good with myself regardless of what you do.

 

6. Website criticism. Just as with platform criticism, do not attack the website with out basis. Reasonable debate based on facts are acceptable, but repeated attacks and negative comments about the website will not be tolerated. People are here to discuss sales numbers, and doing nothing but attacking the site is disruptive to those who are trying to participate in a sales discussion.


Hah, what a burn.


What the hell?

Saying other site calls us Sony biased is bashing the site? So please get someone to ban ioi for posting that thread about neogaf bashing us... Because neogaf said plenty bad things about us but pointing it out is bannable now, isn't it?

 

Mods are looking for excuses to ban and abusing the power lately, that's my opinion...

Last ban reason i checked didn't even had the thread number anymore...


No, you missed the whole point.

Read it again, I really don't feel like explaining it to you.

As for the ban number, only DKII does that. The other mods only do it occasionally.

As for Foshoryuken, how long have you been on this site? And you're already becoming a huge pain. Sigh, why do the members have to make everything so difficult?


"yeah, unfortunately, i think this site is mostly knowed as "Sony Defense Chartz" around the web now =("

I don't see this as bashing the site, he is saying this is how this site is known around the web, being right or not. And i do think he is.

And i didn't knew about the number, in my opinion it should be on every ban reason.

 

And thanks for the cookie but i'll take the girl =X

No, he's accusing us of bias.

Look at his earlier posts in the thread instead of that one post.

Anyways, this thread is locked. It's done. 

 



 

 

@psrock i voiced my opinion and i don't think i have ever caused a problem on this site. i normally post my point and leave arguing to others. maybe this forum has given a way for people with small points to make a way to air them.



  

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.

 



I am SuperLloyd!

(Im)patiently awaiting the Dawn of the New World!


Well I'm rushing on my run and I've just got to say that some moderators shouldn't interact with some forum members, and vice versa. Most of ya'll get along jest right most'a the time and your' liek a box full of the cutest spekled puppies.

Nowweheyeergotawreselphsacondition. So jes follow me slowly. Steven Samuel Jones the 12th should stay away from Girl Gamer Elite. He's got this weird fixation in his head and he's unsure whether he would want to be the dominant or passive partner. If it turns out GGE is a girl and she looks like this:

 

 

There it is, Bingo. But duz he play pitcer or catcher? Every night he dreams of this man:

 

 

It's a scary world. He ends up laughing and crying at the same time and looks like this:

 

 

Because of his fragile mental state he might have a slight break from reality and end up like this:

 

 

So don't fuck up and let these two near each other. They could both end up like this: