StarGateWars Forums

Well, seeing all this flaming and such it got me thinking - The Mods are chosen by admins right? and as it is are currently also reviewed by them....

So with the spirit of the game I started thinking about a way to solve this problem.

Many people are unhappy about the way they are chosen/supervised so why not have a community elected body to take care of the 'reviews and diciplining' (terms used lightly) of the moderators.

I mean, surley the community should have a say in who moderates them it is after all their community.

So, every month there are big elections to elect a group (perhaps 5 so that there are no tie breaks - or 6 so that if their is a tie break the forum admin can make the deision) And have them review any concerns community members have with the moderators and take APPROPRIATE action (no insta mod remove + ban ).

They would have no moderator powers.

Of course this might not work, so I prepose that there is a 1-3 month trial period (in which the forum admin ahs the right to veto any decision made - only in the trial period) and after that a decision made.

What do you think?

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph

Jack wrote:It's a hotel and though it may be occupying a room it's not your hotel

I'm not sure quite what you mean by that, but, whilst no the players/forumers do not OWN the game - they have contributed to it ( and in fact MAKE the game what it is) so it does make sense in how they experience the game.

to use an anology like yours - the hotel owner does not care what you do with the room, as long as you foot the bill.

^--- True Storie!

~Neph

it be a popularity contest plain and simple.

Lets think of this, as Jack said, a hotel. Now your customers aren't happy with the service so you appoint some people to find whats lacking. A poll said replace your staff or add new ones. Now if you don't trust yourself and appoint a little panel of guys to check you want people who KNOW what their talking about and can address issues. Not voting though, people in groups can be very silly.

Mr. Brown wrote:it be a popularity contest plain and simple.

Lets think of this, as Jack said, a hotel. Now your customers aren't happy with the service so you appoint some people to find whats lacking. A poll said replace your staff or add new ones. Now if you don't trust yourself and appoint a little panel of guys to check you want people who KNOW what their talking about and can address issues. Not voting though, people in groups can be very silly.

On the contry, It would not be apointing someone to find the problem, it would be to asses If there is a problem, and what action to take.

You forget it is a VERY small proportion of the community (look how many members there are) that are actualyl complaining - however they are still important.

If there genuinly IS a problem then there can be no harm done, and the issue rectified..

If there ISN'T a problem, then again no harm done

Just saying it could be an answer, and if it does turn into a popularity contest then thats why in the trial period you have the forum admin veto anything done. (thats why its a trial)

Obviously there are things that need to be discussed in a lot more detail and the creases ironed out but just the basic principle.

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph

When people start posting that mods are despicable theres a problem.

^--- END OF STORIE!
~Appy

Mr. Brown wrote:When people start posting that mods are despicable theres a problem.

^--- END OF STORIE!
~Appy

Of course, because n one has personal vendettas, friends to back up, ambition or personal Bias.....

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph

I had the same idea earlier, but then I remembered the fact that...

1) Everyone here is biased, they like this person over that, this issue makes a difference to them more than that, etc..
2) This would be a complete popularity contest
3) While it is a community forum, the final decsions rest with the admins.

I say no.

Why?

The psychological aspect of having a group deciding what happens.

Individual opinions are over-ruled by the general sway of the group, also called Majority Influence...

R3B3L wrote:I say no.

Why?

The psychological aspect of having a group deciding what happens.

Individual opinions are over-ruled by the general sway of the group, also called Majority Influence...

but they are elected by the majority because the majoprtiy feels that individual can represent their views the best. Surley that is the basis of a democracy....

Obviously you can't please evryone. But a hapy medium needs to be maintained.

Also they wouldn't be deciding much at all, just addressing any problems that individuals have with a moderator - and to see fi they are founded or not

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph

System Lord Nephthys wrote:

R3B3L wrote:I say no.

Why?

The psychological aspect of having a group deciding what happens.

Individual opinions are over-ruled by the general sway of the group, also called Majority Influence...

but they are elected by the majority because the majoprtiy feels that individual can represent their views the best. Surley that is the basis of a democracy....

Obviously you can't please evryone. But a hapy medium needs to be maintained.

Also they wouldn't be deciding much at all, just addressing any problems that individuals have with a moderator - and to see fi they are founded or not

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph

You fail to grasp my point.

also, read the below quote from a post by Forum:

Forum wrote:*No mods are being replaced by public vote. Pookie is the lead mod, mod admin, or call it what you will. Complaints about mods can be PM'd to him. He will be able to use all the PMs, his own judgement, and make a decision. That is what he is there for, amongst other things.

R3B3L wrote:

System Lord Nephthys wrote:

R3B3L wrote:I say no.

Why?

The psychological aspect of having a group deciding what happens.

Individual opinions are over-ruled by the general sway of the group, also called Majority Influence...

but they are elected by the majority because the majoprtiy feels that individual can represent their views the best. Surley that is the basis of a democracy....

Obviously you can't please evryone. But a hapy medium needs to be maintained.

Also they wouldn't be deciding much at all, just addressing any problems that individuals have with a moderator - and to see fi they are founded or not

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph

You fail to grasp my point.

Please elaborate, the point of a group is to minimalise bias, thus if an individual opinion is in the minority then it is more likely that there is a problem if the majority of people feel the same.

Zeratul wrote:also, read the below quote from a post by Forum:

Forum wrote:*No mods are being replaced by public vote. Pookie is the lead mod, mod admin, or call it what you will. Complaints about mods can be PM'd to him. He will be able to use all the PMs, his own judgement, and make a decision. That is what he is there for, amongst other things.

There would be no public vote to remove a mod, it would be a select few of publicly voted for representatives, who of course would have to be approved by forum (but not to the extent of just saying no - I mean they would have to have a 'clean' record of sorts).

Jack wrote:*cough* Bush *cough*

Oh please, go troll somewhere else. It's people like you who just moan and can't be bothered to think of a solution that cause half the problems in the first place.

^--- Tru Storie!

~Neph