Page 2 of 3
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:39 am
by Clarkey
Psyko wrote:What intrigues me the most about this topic is what sparked a request such as this. Did something mod-related happen in the past few days that I've missed while in computer purgatory?
What has caused you (Tetris) to believe a term limit should be instituted on staff members who were, in a sense, hired and not elected?
Tetris initially mentioned it here,
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=190458
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:44 am
by Quina Quen
I've had many a run in with almost all of the moderators but I wouldn't wish for any of them to have their responsibilities revoked as in fairness to even the most annoying ones (no names mentioned
) they put up with a lot of crap and I would rather it be them than me. There doesn't need to be a system of rotation.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:45 am
by Psyko
Clarkey wrote:Psyko wrote:What intrigues me the most about this topic is what sparked a request such as this. Did something mod-related happen in the past few days that I've missed while in computer purgatory?
What has caused you (Tetris) to believe a term limit should be instituted on staff members who were, in a sense, hired and not elected?
Tetris initially mentioned it here,
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=190458
Ah-ha. Thank you.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:28 am
by Clarkey
Tetrismonkey wrote:Psyko wrote:Clarkey wrote:Psyko wrote:What intrigues me the most about this topic is what sparked a request such as this. Did something mod-related happen in the past few days that I've missed while in computer purgatory?
What has caused you (Tetris) to believe a term limit should be instituted on staff members who were, in a sense, hired and not elected?
Tetris initially mentioned it here,
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=190458
Ah-ha. Thank you.
I'm having my once a week walk in and say something moments now that I don't play GW anymore.
No, I mean what bugs me about this whole thread is that everyone challenges me about this idea, instead of for just one moment, discussing and building on the idea to make it work. Instead it becomes "Get out of here with your ludicrous ideas". What a shame.
Try coming up with some real pros and cons then. If someone is really doing their job really well then why should they have to give up their post after a fixed amount of time?
And as I said what will these reviews be based upon?
It seems that you ignore the tough points and just moan that people aren't supporting your idea.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:43 pm
by [BoT] Jason
Nice people give up there time to keep this forum family friendly and all you do is complain
**Filtered** logic
As in business enviroments staff turnover causes more hassles than long term staff. In the essence that you don't need to train old staff and better you know your staffs weaknesses than learn the new ones from trial and error
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:15 pm
by Clarkey
Clarkey wrote:So Tetris, who would do these reviews? Who would be the most neutral to do them, because if Admins are to review the GMs and it's come to their time limit then the option for the GM is to quit or get promoted therefore the admins (or one of them) doing the review is then to have to leave? So who is best suited to do these reviews? And what would the reviews consist of? How would mods be judged?
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:04 pm
by Psyko
Tetrismonkey wrote:Psyko wrote:Clarkey wrote:Psyko wrote:What intrigues me the most about this topic is what sparked a request such as this. Did something mod-related happen in the past few days that I've missed while in computer purgatory?
What has caused you (Tetris) to believe a term limit should be instituted on staff members who were, in a sense, hired and not elected?
Tetris initially mentioned it here,
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=190458
Ah-ha. Thank you.
I'm having my once a week walk in and say something moments now that I don't play GW anymore.
No, I mean what bugs me about this whole thread is that everyone challenges me about this idea, instead of for just one moment, discussing and building on the idea to make it work. Instead it becomes "Get out of here with your ludicrous ideas". What a shame.
It is my opinion that the experienced mods/admin/GM are valuable because they can provide new staff members with their knowledge and experience. Instituting a term limit for positions would remove that asset from the staff.
I also think many Mods are satisfied with their role in the community and do not wish to be GM or Admin. Requiring they be promoted or let go after a short term would make 90% of Mods lose their jobs, and that's only if any of them were promoted to one of the few GM spots. The forum doesn't have that many active users who wnat to or can be Mods.
I don't see the pros of a term limit for any forum staff position aside from Ombudsman. So no, I've not been contributing to finding a way for it to work, because I don't think it can.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:49 pm
by Clarkey
Tetris, here's some questions on the idea.
1) Who would be best suited to perform the reviews you speak of?
2) Would the reviews be based solely on length of service, or performance too?
3) Who's responsibility would it be to remember when specific reviews are due?
4) Would it be fair for certain Mods and GMs that are doing a great job to have to quit because their 1 year is up because no-one in the usergroup above them is at their 1 year and therefore no position to fill, all because that Mod got the short straw at the time they got recruited?
I think these questions are reasonable.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:59 pm
by The Doctor
I'm gonna answer these, even though they were addressed to Tetris
1) Who would be best suited to perform the reviews you speak of?
Amelia would be the best option. Given what her position entails, she would be best qualified for it.
2) Would the reviews be based solely on length of service, or performance too?
I would say performance as well. Why get rid of a mod if they are doing a brilliant job, just because their time is up?
3) Who's responsibility would it be to remember when specific reviews are due?
Admins/Amelia? Or maybe directly after every second ombudsman election (they're every 6 months, so it makes it simpler to remember). That way, no one specific has to "remember", as it is at a set time.
4) Would it be fair for certain Mods and GMs that are doing a great job to have to quit because their 1 year is up because no-one in the usergroup above them is at their 1 year and therefore no position to fill, all because that Mod got the short straw at the time they got recruited?
I would say no to this.
Think of it as a workplace. Would you fire the best employee you have, just to get fresh blood in? Or would you go based on performance, and fire the guy who turns up late, doesn't do satisfactory work, and replace them with a (hopefully) better employee?
The second one is basically how it is run now. If a mod doesn't do a good job, becomes inactive or is found to be biased or unreasonable with their modding, they get removed and replaced.
That is a far better option than "yup, your time is up, get lost"
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:33 pm
by Clarkey
Clearly Tetris is ignoring my questions, which just goes to show he has no answers.
But Haz, you say Amelia is best placed to do the reviews and that they should be based on performance. Are you saying that Amelia is kept informed of our personal performances or she is observing us all the time? You feel that she has complete awareness of every Mod individually to carry out a performance review?
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:37 pm
by The Doctor
Clarkey wrote:But Haz, you say Amelia is best placed to do the reviews and that they should be based on performance. Are you saying that Amelia is kept informed of our personal performances or she is observing us all the time? You feel that she has complete awareness of every Mod individually to carry out a performance review?
It would be very hard for her to keep track of every single mod, imagine how many posts and threads per mod she would have to read through to ensure the review would be as fair as possible. Perhaps not Amelia straight away? Section GMs perhaps could review "their" mods and pass a list of those who aren't performing up to standards to Amelia, who then checks on the shorter list of mods?
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:34 pm
by deni
I am kinda surprised by this thread.
Mod reviews have been and continue to be done on a regular basis by the Administration with the help of the GM. Usually such reviews preceed every call for new mods - to judge how many new mods are needed, one needs to evaluate the performance of the current staff
Sure, the reviews are not visible to the public (and I hope they will never be - it is a review after all and no public trial), but they are done.
As for the original topic: Fixed terms for blue / green mods are a bad idea imo. The argument that fixed terms will help give people a chance to be a mod is mute, as the administration always tried to give
everyone who has applied a chance to do the job - maybe not in the first time they have applied though, but definitely if they showed persistance. Even you, Tetris
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:42 pm
by Psyko
Haz wrote:Clarkey wrote:But Haz, you say Amelia is best placed to do the reviews and that they should be based on performance. Are you saying that Amelia is kept informed of our personal performances or she is observing us all the time? You feel that she has complete awareness of every Mod individually to carry out a performance review?
It would be very hard for her to keep track of every single mod, imagine how many posts and threads per mod she would have to read through to ensure the review would be as fair as possible. Perhaps not Amelia straight away? Section GMs perhaps could review "their" mods and pass a list of those who aren't performing up to standards to Amelia, who then checks on the shorter list of mods?
As I recall, none of this was ever meant to be Amelia's duty/problem on the forum. I honestly doubt she'd be all for a semi-annual period where she has to drop everything in her life and babysit the forum staff to make sure they are doing their jobs. Honestly, would you even want an Admin change every year?
I stand by the points I made previously. It is a ridiculous notion that would not work in any way to better the forum. While sometimes change is necessary to revitalize something, constant change incites chaos.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:16 am
by Clarkey
Tetrismonkey wrote:Clarkey wrote:Clearly Tetris is ignoring my questions, which just goes to show he has no answers.
But Haz, you say Amelia is best placed to do the reviews and that they should be based on performance. Are you saying that Amelia is kept informed of our personal performances or she is observing us all the time? You feel that she has complete awareness of every Mod individually to carry out a performance review?
Obviously.
On a side note, i'm to busy to deal with your needs right now Clarkey, perhaps a teddy bear will comfort you while you wait for my reply.
My needs? Tetris you are the one that started this thread with your bright ideas. Clearly you had enough time to post a childish remark.
The fact that you have visited this thread and made several posts since I first asked the question just goes to show that you don't have issues with time but you are ignoring my posts because they are made by me.
Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:52 pm
by Clarkey
Tetrismonkey wrote:After 1 year as a blue mod, if you can't progress to GM, then get out.
This is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread and you've said many dumb things in this thread. You do realise that there are like 17 blue mods compared to 5 green mods. So basically in 1 year 5 of those blue mods can progress to green mod if the green mods go or move but the other 12 blue mods "get out" because they were the unlucky ones.
Jeez no wonder this thread is so stupid you walked straight in with your foot in your mouth. I wonder why this didn't get any support.
