Re: Moderator Term Limits.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:54 pm
Relevant posts are rotational already.
These are the forums for the GateWa.rs family of text-based space-centred PBBGs
https://talk.gatewa.rs/
It really does not. One could 'mistakenly' argue though, that spending less time with power and the camaraderie of your colleagues changes your moral compass to favour those colleagues and 'dislike' users as a consequence. Folly, of course.Eärendil wrote:How does it remove the 'bias' equation from a nonissue?
'biased'. Perpetuating the idiocy of Nimras' favourite typo is very unwanted. Think about me breaking your skull, next time you go make a thread about this.Tetrismonkey wrote:-Lowers the chances of a mod becoming bias
Elected? Only me and Psyko are. *glare* You are being personal?Tetrismonkey wrote:Yea, I hate my elected officals in goverment, being lifers and all. I'm sure other do to...
And yet, you list 'counter arguments', which by definition are reasons why this would be a bad thing..Tetrismonkey wrote:Anyways, I don't see why term limits would be a bad thing. Bring some new people through the ranks and structure.
That should be listed under "Cons", Tettie. Most of the other people here are .. focused on the games instead.Tetrismonkey wrote:-Helps rotate members of the community into new roles.
Team = Community. /argumentTetrismonkey wrote:-improves relations between the team and the community
This argument is not a 'Con'. This is something some mods might not like, but not an obvious 'bad thing'.Tetrismonkey wrote:-Requires some mods to resign or be removed from positions they have held for Months/years.
This is not true. The job of organising such a thing would fall to Amelia, as the sole fixed authority in the forum. Tssk, tssk.Tetrismonkey wrote:-More work for the mod team
Arbitrary structure. Bad.Tetrismonkey wrote:(These time limits reflect being in that position. Once they achieve this position, they have said amount of time in that position)
Admin Term-1 Year Term Limit
Global Mod- 1 Year Term Limit
Regular Mod- 3, 6, 9 months (review by the team for removal or replacement) 1 Year term limit
Ombudsman-6 months
Uh-huh. Now there is another bad idea. This is an infrastructural impossibility.Tetrismonkey wrote:So, these term limits stand as, well what they are. After said amount of time they are either remove/replaced or promoted.
I am in favour of reviews. They were done when I was GM.Tetrismonkey wrote:Regular mods-They will have every 3 months a review done, judging how they have done and if they they need to be placed. They max out at 1 year.
Uh yeah. Your turn.Tetrismonkey wrote:Fire away ladies.
Reason = Admin rules.Dovahkiin wrote:This idea has been proposed too many times to bother counting and was shot down everytime for the same reason.
ربهالنوع wrote:Reason = Admin rules.Dovahkiin wrote:This idea has been proposed too many times to bother counting and was shot down everytime for the same reason.
Tetrismonkey wrote:Keeping mods that are good at there job, but are horrible to users, hmm. I disagree Jack. There is more than enough people out in the community that would love for the chance to become a mod. Experience is only part of what makes being good at something. To make the bold statement of experience produces the best mods is utter crap. I work with people that have been doing there jobs for 30+ years, and they suck at there job.
I fail to see anyone produce a legitimate counter argument as to why this is a bad idea. The only problem that I truly see with this, is the fact that people are afraid they will lose there jobs. Well, get used to it. Move aside and let new talent in.
Duck Dodgers wrote:I am however, more curious to the transparency of forum staff and their state of relation to their jobs.
Users have warnings, and warning levels.
How does that work for the forum staff ? Do they have warning levels ?
Is there a threshold that does make them applicable for replacement ?
What are grounds for replacement ?
I'm not sure what you mean by most of that.Duck Dodgers wrote:I am however, more curious to the transparency of forum staff and their state of relation to their jobs.
Users have warnings, and warning levels.
How does that work for the forum staff ? Do they have warning levels ?
Is there a threshold that does make them applicable for replacement ?
What are grounds for replacement ?
Empy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by most of that.
Tetrismonkey wrote:After 1 year as a blue mod, if you can't progress to GM, then get out. Sitting in a position for years on end, only creating special groups within, protecting each other. Don't you dare say otherwise Jack, I was a mod once to, and saw first had the inner circles that developed in the team. Hell, I fought tooth and nail against those individuals.
Tetrismonkey wrote:Btw:Dovahkiin wrote: No one ever said that experience automatically equals great skill. What was said is that experience trumps inexperience. Firing the most experienced individuals to replace them with the most inexperienced is just plain stupid.Dovahkiin wrote:Reason = the best mods are the most experienced.
I hate all Governments, but I don't judge my Prime Minister too much as i've never done the job and i'm pretty damn sure that every British person that moans about our Prime Ministers would suck even more if they were in the job. Get my drift?Tetrismonkey wrote:Yea, I hate my elected officals in goverment, being lifers and all. I'm sure other do to...
Tetrismonkey wrote:Pros:
-Helps rotate members of the community into new roles.
-Lowers the chances of a mod becoming bias
-improves relations between the team and the community
Tetrismonkey wrote:Cons:
-Requires some mods to resign or be removed from positions they have held for Months/years.
-More work for the mod team
So would you expect someone like Bazsy to give up his position after 1 year? he's got a very technical role, but I know my way around forums like back of my hand too, i'm very technical. Would you be happy with non-technical people in such a role?Tetrismonkey wrote:Structure:
(These time limits reflect being in that position. Once they achieve this position, they have said amount of time in that position)
Admin Term-1 Year Term Limit
Global Mod- 1 Year Term Limit
Regular Mod- 3, 6, 9 months (review by the team for removal or replacement) 1 Year term limit
Ombudsman-6 months
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?Tetrismonkey wrote:Explanation:
So, these term limits stand as, well what they are. After said amount of time they are either remove/replaced or promoted.
Regular mods-They will have every 3 months a review done, judging how they have done and if they they need to be placed. They max out at 1 year.
Fire away ladies.
Exactly. However, my other question is what would the review be based on?ربهالنوع wrote:Amelia.