Guest Anonymous

Mod re-election thread #2!

Recommended Posts

I believe Admins choosing new mods is better idea than a mod election, because elections end up being mainly popularity contests, especially because you can't see who is helping the mods/admins the most unless you are an admin/mod yourself.

 

I think there is enough mods on the forums atm, but that is hard for me to judge, so I'll leave it for mods and admins, who have the data they can use to properly judge the situation.

 

When it comes to IRC, I think we are near a good amount of mods, but we might need 1 or 2 more, because there still seem some holes in moderation, but overall I think it's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i think it's about time Jake was replaced

 

I agree.


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Albatross_

I agree.

 

Eh, I used to agree, but Jake's pretty chill these days.

I have no clue why Amadeus was promoted other than that he's polite and draws stuff. Nothing against you, Amadeus.

 

As for the overarching purpose of this thread, I'm conflicted.

 

On the one hand the forum moderators are not bad. If they could cut down on deleting posts and would actually use the mod report thread then they'd be a good, solid team. I also feel like elections would indeed be a popularity contest

especially with the current userbase, I have never seen a more attention-whore-centric community anywhere

.

 

On the other hand I support democracy.

 

Copyright © Amerifat™ 2012

 

 

On the third hand I don't think new moderators will do anything at all to improve this site. You can't moderate a userbase into producing quality content.

 

As for the IRC, that's a totalitarian institution and nothing is going to change anytime soon, if ever. Moderators there are chosen on their politeness and tenacity in regurgitating popular opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purlox pretty much nailed it with it being a popularity contest. For instance, last time we had moderator elections, it was pretty much the most popular members (as well as ones who had a tulpa) and not necessarily the most qualified.

 

Amadeus is an admin for a few reasons. As far as inactivity, he can't get online all the time at this moment because of technical problems, but once those problems are resolved, he should be back on again. However, we've got each others phone numbers and we are in contact; he also has the website information and other certain things accessible to him (one reason why Amadeus was chosen as Admin was because I wanted to make sure that if I got hit by a bus or something, the website would still manage to go on; this wouldn't happen if I had exclusive access to the site, accounts, etc).

 

One of the requirements of moderators on here, is to keep me up-to-date as to what they're doing, when they're away, etc. TOG dropped off the face of the earth, he didn't let me know what was going on (real life stuff, etc.) so thus after we had our moderator performance reviews, some mods got a slap on the wrist, some were praised, one was demoted, and the moderators were given much more responsibly as to what's expected of them.

 

IRC is a bit of a messy situation right now. When I promoted one member to a moderator in there, I asked them, "Are you prepared to enforce the rules, moderate when you're around, and be hated by everyone?" I see them complained about in various channels before, and called some nasty things (I'm sure Alba has seen it too, he has that spy-account).

 

This is because, as I said on the main chat page, #tulpa.info has a stricter moderation team, and I have instructed my moderators to moderate strictly. I actually wish some in there would moderate MORE strictly. The result is, when a moderator takes action against members, members start to dislike the mods. If a moderator tells them to stop being off-topic, they'll usually take offense to that.

 

Thus, moderators that are doing their job in IRC would end up being 'voted out' and replaced with moderators that wouldn't be doing their job (until I put undue effort into making them do so, which would result in those mods being hated and, well... The list goes on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a moderator tells them to stop being off-topic, they'll usually take offense to that.

 

You mean the mods take offense to being told they're off-topic, right?


The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Albatross_

Amadeus is an admin for a few reasons.

 

No shit. The point was that we don't know what they are.

 

IRC is a bit of a messy situation right now. When I promoted one member to a moderator in there, I asked them, "Are you prepared to enforce the rules, moderate when you're around, and be hated by everyone?"

 

Mods aren't necessarily hated because they are mods.

 

I see them complained about in various channels before, and called some nasty things (I'm sure Alba has seen it too, he has that spy-account).

 

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that I'm the one saying the nasty things? I try to keep criticism to a semi-professional level.

And yah, do have spy account.

 

This is because, as I said on the main chat page, #tulpa.info has a stricter moderation team, and I have instructed my moderators to moderate strictly. I actually wish some in there would moderate MORE strictly. The result is, when a moderator takes action against members, members start to dislike the mods. If a moderator tells them to stop being off-topic, they'll usually take offense to that.

 

No. While members do indeed take offense, that is not the problem.

There are several problems with moderation in the IRC.

 

1) It is inconsistent. There is often zero moderation during times when many users are active. Then, at around 3 in the morning EST, when 3 people are having a conversation about the use of psychoactive drugs for enhancing imagination, they get told to move to off-topic. I don't care how politely you ask, on-topic discussion is on-topic and should be allowed in an on-topic channel.

 

2) It is arbitrary. The IRC rules are vague enough to give moderators basically free reign over what they enforce and how strictly they enforce it. That should not be the case under any circumstances.

 

3) Favoritism and prejudice. I have no reservation saying that I am muted far more than I ought to be, and I believe it is because many, many members hold prejudices against me because of my views/past actions. Now, I couldn't care less about the members. It's when the members are moderators, and when those moderators act on their prejudices, that there is a problem. Moderators will mute some people for using "fuck" but others will come in and make comments like "Large white penises" with absolutely zero consequences. While moderators are active.

Note that I see it with other members as well, not just me.

 

Thus, moderators that are doing their job in IRC would end up being 'voted out' and replaced with moderators that wouldn't be doing their job (until I put undue effort into making them do so, which would result in those mods being hated and, well... The list goes on).

 

I'm betting your definition of "doing their job" is different from mine (as outlined above).

 

 

Also what Sands said. Moderators like to mute people for semi-offtopic discussion but then turn around and start having off-topic discussions themselves.

 

For example, myself and several other members were having an intriguing discussion on the parts of the brain that tulpae might be located in. Tesseract devoiced only me for being off-topic and told the other members to move to #tulpa_ot.

Twenty minutes later the topic was on a certain type of Pokemon.

 

I have no log, so take that at what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[[

 

You're wasting your time, Albatron. Pleeb gets it. He knows. He knows all too well. He just doesn't know the solution. He doesn't know how to make a set of rules that overcomes The Human Element of moderation. He's not going to get it because he's not in the right mindset. He understands everything you've said, and agrees, for the most part, but he doesn't really grasp how severely true what you're saying is. Even I didn't get it until Sahirah blurted it out in front of my eyes. It's so simple, and so trivial an argument to make, but I know no matter how well it's argued, it's not going to have the severity of sway necessary to have been very effective at all. When you're in that mindset of being a moderator (or, God forbid, an full-on administrator), it's just not going to really occur to you. It takes a pretty cataclysmic event to really let you know how backwards your thinking is. And even after that event, I still didn't get it fully until Sahirah blurted it out.

 

It's obvious what's going to happen here. Pretty clear a mod election isn't needed right now, so this thread is going to go nowhere on that front. (Which is a good thing.) But supposing there were a sudden well-argued nomination spike, there's pretty much no way the nominations I've given would make it to the digital (read: actual) poll. (Again, good thing.) They'd be dismissed as the joke they are. It's not like it'd matter, because none of the tulpa I've nominated would get elected even if they were listed. (Probably a good thing too.) That's actually an argument for their inclusion, but w/e.

 

Except I'm only half joking.

 

]]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Albatross_

You're wasting your time, Albatron.

 

I know. I look over my huge posts and wonder why I even try.

 

tumblr_mbp3niWz0f1ro326o.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the mods take offense to being told they're off-topic, right?

Pleeb meant the people chatting taking offense to being warned because they are off topic.

 

1) It is inconsistent. There is often zero moderation during times when many users are active.

We have our top programmers and AI guys on this issue and we should soon have AIs that are active 24/7, are able to recognise when people are breaking rules and can punish them equally.

 

But seriously: Do you expect us to be watching the chat all the time without any breaks? That's pretty hard to achieve.

 

If actual moderation is required, then just ping mods and they will look at chat and deal with the situation, but don't complain about no moderation being present at some times if you do nothing to help it.

 

Then, at around 3 in the morning EST, when 3 people are having a conversation about the use of psychoactive drugs for enhancing imagination, they get told to move to off-topic. I don't care how politely you ask, on-topic discussion is on-topic and should be allowed in an on-topic channel.

Give logs of it.

 

2) It is arbitrary. The IRC rules are vague enough to give moderators basically free reign over what they enforce and how strictly they enforce it. That should not be the case under any circumstances.

Most of the rules are same as on the forum, so I don't see how they are vague, unless you also mean that the ones on forum are vague as well.

 

3) Favoritism and prejudice. I have no reservation saying that I am muted far more than I ought to be, and I believe it is because many, many members hold prejudices against me because of my views/past actions. Now, I couldn't care less about the members. It's when the members are moderators, and when those moderators act on their prejudices, that there is a problem. Moderators will mute some people for using "fuck" but others will come in and make comments like "Large white penises" with absolutely zero consequences. While moderators are active.

Note that I see it with other members as well, not just me.

Prejudice means judging that isn't based on experience with the person (e.g. judging by race, sex, age etc.) What you seem to mean is that mods judging people based on their past behaviour and I don't see how that is bad. If a person broke a rule in the past, then it should be expected that the mods will take note of that and look out for him more.

 

Can you give logs of what you say mods do? One important thing to note is that some mods are less strict than others and even though it might be great if all mods were as strict as the other ones, it's nearly impossible to achieve.

 

Moderators like to mute people for semi-offtopic discussion but then turn around and start having off-topic discussions themselves.

The only one that I can think of doing this is Pleeb and he just hops in, posts something something about offtopic and then soon gets out again and the conversation that was there before he joined continues. If you know of more mods that do this, then give logs.

 

For example, myself and several other members were having an intriguing discussion on the parts of the brain that tulpae might be located in. Tesseract devoiced only me for being off-topic and told the other members to move to #tulpa_ot.

Twenty minutes later the topic was on a certain type of Pokemon.

Give logs.

 

I have no log, so take that at what it's worth.

If you don't keep the logs, then how do you expect us to believe what you claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.