Re: Moderator approval ratings.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Haven't we gone over the fact that just because someone doesn't post much, doesn't mean they aren't doing their job? I do still check the boards, and I log in to moderate when necessary. Saying that I, or any other mod doesn't check the boards enough is **** near impossible. Yes, I don't post as much as other people, but I don't feel that means much. If you want me to make worthless posts like many of you, I can do that.
It allows members to say "oh yeah, they still come here". Otherwise they have to check your profile and see the last time you were on (which is accurate). And I have a feeling most don't bother with that.
Either way, one of the main factors of this rating is "taking into account things like interaction with other members". And if you don't post, that how can anyone take that into consideration? I don't know, it's good that you do your job, but usually the only way people know if someone's active is by them posting.
Posted by DexterMods should definitely interact in the community. Even if you do your job decently, without posting/contributing, why shouldn't we replace you with someone who can easily do the same job just as good as you but actually has interactions with and is well-known in the community? There are 5 mods to this one forum. That's more mods for this single forum than there are super mods for the entire board! I think we could easily remove 3 of the mods out of this forum and not feel a thing.
Eradicate Iris. I don't care if she's a girl. She is terribly unnecessary.
Posted by Jesse Smith
Quoting Dexter: Eradicate Iris. I don't care if she's a girl. She is terribly unnecessary.
Is that Amy da Pink Hedgehog??!! :D
Posted by Dexter:amy:
Klarth's surrounded by girls in this forum almost as much as I am in the romantic blog.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: It allows members to say "oh yeah, they still come here". Otherwise they have to check your profile and see the last time you were on (which is accurate). And I have a feeling most don't bother with that.
Either way, one of the main factors of this rating is "taking into account things like interaction with other members". And if you don't post, that how can anyone take that into consideration? I don't know, it's good that you do your job, but usually the only way people know if someone's active is by them posting.
But keeping a board free of spam and making decisions and ideas aren't changed by posting more in other boards. Someone doesn't need to see when I was last on to tell that the board is clean.
Quoted post: why shouldn't we replace you with someone who can easily do the same job just as good as you but actually has interactions with and is well-known in the community?
I don't see the reasoning there. Whether or not the second person is well known or not doesn't mean much. It's just extra information that really doesn't pertain to modship. It's about as effective as saying "why shouldn't we replace me with someone who can do just as good a job, but has a nice car?" The second person will still have that quality, whether or not they are made a moderator. As long as a moderator keeps their board clean and takes part in important discussions, I see no reason to get rid of them.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empirezol woosh on both points.
I was simply replying to your point, which was "just cause I don't post doesn't mean I'm not here". For most people, that's exactly what it means. And like I said in the second bit, isn't posting and being active within the community kind of a big part of being a mod?
As for Klarth's point, you definitely missed what he was getting at. A car has nothing to do with VGC... whatsoever. So that's a pretty horrible analogue. What he was trying to say, I believe, was: why not get someone who can do your job AND post frequently? That way you get the best of both worlds - someone who contributes while help keeping things in order.
I mean, most people become a mod because they post often and seem intelligent/responsible. So why should that change once you get the position? No one would become a mod if they weren't active within the community, nor should they stay one if they stop posting.
Et cetera.
Posted by IrisDexter, does this have anything to do with me not being part of the ZOMGDEXTORSMOD campaign? ;)
Besides, you're full of it if you think I haven't been part of the community.
Posted by Klarth[quote=Vampiro]What he was trying to say, I believe, was: why not get someone who can do your job AND post frequently? That way you get the best of both worlds - someone who contributes while help keeping things in order.
Vamp's right. AS ALWAYS.
[quote=Iris]
Besides, you're full of it if you think I haven't been part of the community.
You definitely *have* been, but not so much in recent days. What happened to the repwhoring Sango we know and love? :(
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: zol woosh on both points.
I was simply replying to your point, which was "just cause I don't post doesn't mean I'm not here". For most people, that's exactly what it means. And like I said in the second bit, isn't posting and being active within the community kind of a big part of being a mod?
But it's not the truth, which is the point I'm making.
And I am arguing that it's not a part of being a mod.
[quote]As for Klarth's point, you definitely missed what he was getting at. A car has nothing to do with VGC... whatsoever. So that's a pretty horrible analogue. What he was trying to say, I believe, was: why not get someone who can do your job AND post frequently? That way you get the best of both worlds - someone who contributes while help keeping things in order.
Having something to do with VGC is too broad. We're talking about things that have to do with being a good moderator. My argument is that neither have anything to do with being a good mod. Being an active member is nice, but it shouldn't make someone a better moderator.
[quote]I mean, most people become a mod because they post often and seem intelligent/responsible. So why should that change once you get the position? No one would become a mod if they weren't active within the community, nor should they stay one if they stop posting.
To become a moderator, you do have to show intelligence and responsibility, and that is done by posting. I agree with you there. But I think that the intelligence and responsibility are the qualities that are looked at, rather than how often someone posts. Once those qualities are shown, and the people vote for them, that person is given their duties as moderator. They can now show their intelligence and responsibility by doing their duties. Does an incumbent go out on the campaign bus all throughout his/her term?
Posted by IrisI'll admit I haven't been too common around here as of late, but if you haven't noticed, I've been trying to compensate for that.
Posted by Dexter
Quoting Iris: Dexter, does this have anything to do with me not being part of the ZOMGDEXTORSMOD campaign? ;)
Uhh, no. I haven't even noticed that. It's not like I have personal problems with you, Iris. You should know by now that I think you're fine. I've always spoke highly about you and nicely to you. I'm simply discussing your modship. I think you're the one with the personal problems and you seem to be dragging them into modding discussions.
Posted by IrisI apologize for have being busy lately. What kind of human being doesn't make room for VGC?
Anyhow, my outside life isn't ruining my moderation abilities, and I've been making up for the lost time, so let's play nice.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: But it's not the truth, which is the point I'm making.
But it is true. People judge activity by the amounts of posts they see from the person. If I see two posts in eight days I think that person is obviously uninterested or too busy to bother with the site. Whether you lurk or not, I really have no idea. I have no possible way to tell, other than catching your name at the bottom of the page or checking the last time you logged in. And both are inaccurate.
Quoted post: Having something to do with VGC is too broad. We're talking about things that have to do with being a good moderator. My argument is that neither have anything to do with being a good mod. Being an active member is nice, but it shouldn't make someone a better moderator.
A good moderator is someone who does their job well. ie someone who interacts with the community frequently while making level-headed decisions in hopes of maintaining a decent appearance in their board. It's the combination of the two, I think, that makes a good moderator. Since, hell, anyone can see spam and delete it.
Quoted post: To become a moderator, you do have to show intelligence and responsibility, and that is done by posting. I agree with you there. But I think that the intelligence and responsibility are the qualities that are looked at, rather than how often someone posts. Once those qualities are shown, and the people vote for them, that person is given their duties as moderator. They can now show their intelligence and responsibility by doing their duties. Does an incumbent go out on the campaign bus all throughout his/her term?
So, you think someone who makes fantastic posts once a week will become a mod? Activity plays a large part, before and after becoming a mod. You can come in here every day and clean your board up, but rarely posting shows that you lack interest. Whether you have nothing to add or whatever your reasons are, there's many people out there that DO have something to say.
But you're right, mods can show their intelligence in other ways, but that doesn't mean you should now abandon the main way of showing it. I don't see why we can't get someone who can do both.
Posted by AlastorAlternatively, you can become a moderator when Jesse goes crazy and puts an application form at the top of the homepage. That's how I got my job. :cookie:
Posted by DexterThat's how I got mine, as well. :cookie:
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: But it is true. People judge activity by the amounts of posts they see from the person. If I see two posts in eight days I think that person is obviously uninterested or too busy to bother with the site. Whether you lurk or not, I really have no idea. I have no possible way to tell, other than catching your name at the bottom of the page or checking the last time you logged in. And both are inaccurate.
You misunderstood. I agree that it's what people judge activity by. In fact, that's what I've been complaining about. What I meant is that it isn't always an accurate way to tell activity.
[quote]A good moderator is someone who does their job well. ie someone who interacts with the community frequently while making level-headed decisions in hopes of maintaining a decent appearance in their board. It's the combination of the two, I think, that makes a good moderator. Since, hell, anyone can see spam and delete it.
Any member can be active with the community. Any member can post a lot. That isn't why we make them moderators. It's just their activity that gives us a better description of their character. If we deem them responsible and intelligent enough, they are given a position as moderator.
[quote]So, you think someone who makes fantastic posts once a week will become a mod? Activity plays a large part, before and after becoming a mod. You can come in here every day and clean your board up, but rarely posting shows that you lack interest. Whether you have nothing to add or whatever your reasons are, there's many people out there that DO have something to say.
I never said that. I'm saying that intelligence and responsibility are more important than posting frequently. It just happens to be that intelligence and responsibility are demonstrated through posting, here, and without posting, we can't determine their intelligence/responsibility.
[quote]But you're right, mods can show their intelligence in other ways, but that doesn't mean you should now abandon the main way of showing it. I don't see why we can't get someone who can do both.
Main way? Are you saying that neglecting moderating duties is less important than not making frequent, intelligent posts as a moderator?
Posted by AntVamp, it's pointless to argue with Kodachi. Just give it up.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Alternatively, you can become a moderator when Jesse goes crazy and puts an application form at the top of the homepage. That's how I got my job.
Er, on places that AREN'T run by a wacko. I guess I should have specified that =P
Quoted post: You misunderstood. I agree that it's what people judge activity by. In fact, that's what I've been complaining about. What I meant is that it isn't always an accurate way to tell activity.
I know what you meant. I just twisted your last few sentences to elaborate on my points. What you believed to be wrong had nothing to do with what I believed to be correct. I know.
Quoted post:
Any member can be active with the community. Any member can post a lot. That isn't why we make them moderators. It's just their activity that gives us a better description of their character. If we deem them responsible and intelligent enough, they are given a position as moderator.
But clearly not every moderator can do both. I just don't understand your reasoning. It seems like you're saying some mods think "well, im a mod, no need to post anymore LOL".
Quoted post: I never said that.
Pretty much. You said it mainly came down to quality, rather than quantity. And though I agree, it isn't JUST quality. Which was my point. It's also about quantity. You're not going to become a mod if you make one quality post once a week.
Quoted post:
Main way? Are you saying that neglecting moderating duties is less important than not making frequent, intelligent posts as a moderator?
The main way you show someone you're smart is by entering into a conversation. Another way, though not main, is showing that you're a hard worker who makes good decisions for your company by following the rules and demonstrating that you can understand those rules and abide by them.
What I'm saying, and have said before a few times in this thread, is that it SHOULD be important to do both. Show you're a hard worker and a valued member within the community - by entering into conversations and adding information and insight into problems and situations. It's all about balance, I believe. I may be wrong in thinking that a mod should do both, but I don't think so. Maybe you disagree, but I'll say you're wrong.
Speaking of which, my my, don't we argue fairly often? It's almost starting to get tiresome in fact. I enjoyed it before, but now it's just getting repetitive. I didn't mind the back-and-fourth, repetition of points and counterpoints, but now I sort of do. oh well.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Vamp, it's pointless to argue with Kodachi. Just give it up.
yeah I know. Like I said in my last post, she has a tendency to repeat herself. And due to that, so do I. Which is why our arguments are so boring. It's the same thing just in a different dress.
NEVA GIVE UP!
Posted by s0ul
Quoting Vampiro:
NEVA GIVE UP!
Trust your instincts! [spoiler]do a barrell roll[/spoiler]
Posted by DexterVampiro is right. Mods should participate. It is better to have mods that participate in the community instead of simply lurking in the background. If you desire to be a better mod, then you should realize that it does help to participate in discussions. Maybe you don't think it matters, in which case it is simply a difference of opinion.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: I know what you meant. I just twisted your last few sentences to elaborate on my points. What you believed to be wrong had nothing to do with what I believed to be correct. I know.
Oh, lovely.
[quote]But clearly not every moderator can do both. I just don't understand your reasoning. It seems like you're saying some mods think "well, im a mod, no need to post anymore LOL".
You're taking it a bit too far, though. I'm not saying that it is fine to give up posting entirely. There still does need to be a bit of participation, because many important things do go on that need comments or at least comprehension. I just think that it's not the first responsibility of a moderator to make lots of posts.
[quote]Pretty much. You said it mainly came down to quality, rather than quantity. And though I agree, it isn't JUST quality. Which was my point. It's also about quantity. You're not going to become a mod if you make one quality post once a week.
As in just about every quality vs. quantity argument, quantity can't be neglected entirely. You just decided to put an exact number on something I was more vague about. Once again, I didn't say it.
Honestly, I think you repeat you're the reason I repeat myself in our arguments. I went over that last sentence already.
[quote]The main way you show someone you're smart is by entering into a conversation. Another way, though not main, is showing that you're a hard worker who makes good decisions for your company by following the rules and demonstrating that you can understand those rules and abide by them.
"Actions speak louder than words."
[quote]What I'm saying, and have said before a few times in this thread, is that it SHOULD be important to do both. Show you're a hard worker and a valued member within the community - by entering into conversations and adding information and insight into problems and situations. It's all about balance, I believe. I may be wrong in thinking that a mod should do both, but I don't think so. Maybe you disagree, but I'll say you're wrong.
And what if there is someone with just a personality that doesn't click with the majority of us? What if there is someone who just doesn't have much to say always? That doesn't really make them stupid and irresponsible, but it might make them a member that people don't like much. I'm not saying I'm like that, but I think it shows that someone can be able to moderate well but just not be as active as other people.
[quote]Speaking of which, my my, don't we argue fairly often?
NO WE DON'T! YOU'RE WRONG :mad2:
Posted by GameMiestroI'd like it if mods at least logged in every once in a while... seriously, Pete hasn't even been here for the past two months. Not that the Virtual Boy board needs much moderation, it just the principle of the thing that counts.
Posted by PhlyntheKTI used to be here all the time and follow every rule and
I was told then I could become a moderator because I
asked. Seriously WTF was up with 2003, I had both
quantity and quality posting efforts and as far as I know
I wasn't even considered. I'll try again this time around.
Posted by maianI post a lot, people just don't notice. =/
I don't have the time to spend four hours a day here and post 20 times each day, like some other people. :)
Posted by IrisPhlynthe, just following those requirements is no gurantee of becoming a moderator. :-/
Besides, quality posts? Roflwtf
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: You're taking it a bit too far, though. I'm not saying that it is fine to give up posting entirely. There still does need to be a bit of participation, because many important things do go on that need comments or at least comprehension. I just think that it's not the first responsibility of a moderator to make lots of posts.
I think it should be completely equal. Both are important, in my mind, as, though you're now a mod, you're still a member of the community. If you care to listen to my business-world analogue again: it's a lot like being a hard worker, you can do the best job in your entire company, but chances are, if you have poor social skills, you're not going to go very far. Your work will be appreciated, but you'll eventually lack the ever important personal connections to your associates. So, though it's nice to see one post ever five or so days while you're doing your job of deleting others, I think it's necessary to also speak your mind on a more frequent basis.
Quoted post:
Honestly, I think you repeat you're the reason I repeat myself in our arguments. I went over that last sentence already.
Nah. It's a vicious circle. You repeat yourself because I repeat myself and I repeat myself because you repeat yourself. Though, I will say, I never have this problem with other people I argue with ;)
Quoted post: "Actions speak louder than words."
"Taken out of context."
Quoted post: And what if there is someone with just a personality that doesn't click with the majority of us? What if there is someone who just doesn't have much to say always? That doesn't really make them stupid and irresponsible, but it might make them a member that people don't like much. I'm not saying I'm like that, but I think it shows that someone can be able to moderate well but just not be as active as other people.
If someone doesn't click with the rest of the members, for whatever reason, nor do they ever have anything to say, I think they're investing their time in the wrong forum. They may be able to do a great job as a moderator, but clearly they don't connect with the members at all, so I think they'd make a horrible choice. Why? Because there are those that can moderate while being respected and highly liked - those that are able to think of things to say and DO click with the majority. Your example is the type of person that really shouldn't be here.
Quoted post: NO WE DON'T! YOU'RE WRONG
NO YOU'RE WRONG :mad:
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro]I think it should be completely equal. Both are important, in my mind, as, though you're now a mod, you're still a member of the community.
I believe you just proved that they are separate things. The fact that I think they should be treated as so should come naturally.
[quote] If you care to listen to my business-world analogue again: it's a lot like being a hard worker, you can do the best job in your entire company, but chances are, if you have poor social skills, you're not going to go very far. Your work will be appreciated, but you'll eventually lack the ever important personal connections to your associates. So, though it's nice to see one post ever five or so days while you're doing your job of deleting others, I think it's necessary to also speak your mind on a more frequent basis.
I'd rather not listen to it again. It actually seems to prove my point further. Yes, I know that people with more charisma may get promoted instead of better workers, but it's kind of illogical. (I've become an emotionless, soulless machine) When there is a job that needs to be done, I'd pick the person who works hardest rather than the person who is pleasant to talk to, any day. It gets things done, and it gets them done well.
[quote]Nah. It's a vicious circle. You repeat yourself because I repeat myself and I repeat myself because you repeat yourself. Though, I will say, I never have this problem with other people I argue with :
We probably just disagree on too many things.
Or, we've just been having stubbornness competitions this entire time.
[quote]"Taken out of context."
How so? You just told me that speaking, rather than making good decisions and working harder, is a better way to show responsibility. Anyone can simply pretend to be responsible and just tell you things you want to hear. Actually living up to those things is different.
[quote]If someone doesn't click with the rest of the members, for whatever reason, nor do they ever have anything to say, I think they're investing their time in the wrong forum. They may be able to do a great job as a moderator, but clearly they don't connect with the members at all, so I think they'd make a horrible choice. Why? Because there are those that can moderate while being respected and highly liked - those that are able to think of things to say and DO click with the majority. Your example is the type of person that really shouldn't be here.
That's rather cruel. It also leads to trendwhoring and cliques running VGC. We've already had this problem a while ago. There was a time when we were just voting all of our friends onto mod positions, whether or not they were actually good at moderating. It turned out bad.
[quote]NO YOU'RE WRONG :mad:
k :(
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: I believe you just proved that they are separate things. The fact that I think they should be treated as so should come naturally.
I didn't prove anything, as I lack evidence for either case. It's just a simple opinion in how I feel that they're equal.
Quoted post:
I'd rather not listen to it again. It actually seems to prove my point further. Yes, I know that people with more charisma may get promoted instead of better workers, but it's kind of illogical. (I've become an emotionless, soulless machine) When there is a job that needs to be done, I'd pick the person who works hardest rather than the person who is pleasant to talk to, any day. It gets things done, and it gets them done well.
And I'd pick the person who works hard and who is pleasant to talk to. Seeing as how being a moderator isn't that tough of a job, I'd also pick the person who was pleasant to talk to, rather than the hard worker, since it really isn't that hard of a job (talking from experience LOLOL).
It's much rarer to find someone who has great social skills than someone who's capable of deleting various posts.
Quoted post:
How so? You just told me that speaking, rather than making good decisions and working harder, is a better way to show responsibility. Anyone can simply pretend to be responsible and just tell you things you want to hear. Actually living up to those things is different.
"Actions speak louder than words" means that you should back up your words with actions. It's the same as "if you talk the talk, you should walk the walk". You're basically saying, in the context of the debate, I believe, is that it's better to be a mod who deletes, rather than one who's a good talker and enjoys entering into discussions.
I could be wrong since I don't remember most of the argument anymore and I don't care to look back, but that's what I meant by out of context. Since, really, it was.
Quoted post:
That's rather cruel. It also leads to trendwhoring and cliques running VGC. We've already had this problem a while ago. There was a time when we were just voting all of our friends onto mod positions, whether or not they were actually good at moderating. It turned out bad.
it's not cruel. Why even bother coming here if you don't click with anyone? These are obviously not your type of people. It has nothing to do with being a trendwhore... at all, nor voting for only friends and whatnot. That's something completely different than "clicking" with the members.
Quoted post: k :(
im sorry :(
Posted by Echo
Quoting Alastor: Alternatively, you can become a moderator when Jesse goes crazy and puts an application form at the top of the homepage. That's how I got my job. :cookie:
Heh, I got my job because Jesse's a bit dumb.
One issue with the whole thing about not seeing mods post is that not everyone visits everywhere. I occasionally post in GGC (which I visit nearly daily to mod), but very rarely post in the Off-Topic boards, so there is a good chance many of the more "senior" members won't ever see the few posts I make.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: I didn't prove anything, as I lack evidence for either case. It's just a simple opinion in how I feel that they're equal.
They are, in terms of being a good member who is a moderator, but they are separate things.
[quote]And I'd pick the person who works hard and who is pleasant to talk to. Seeing as how being a moderator isn't that tough of a job, I'd also pick the person who was pleasant to talk to, rather than the hard worker, since it really isn't that hard of a job (talking from experience LOLOL).
At this time, take note of how 99% of the moderators(maybe more, but I don't feel like checking) didn't get perfect scores in this thread.
[quote]It's much rarer to find someone who has great social skills than someone who's capable of deleting various posts.
[quote]"Actions speak louder than words" means that you should back up your words with actions. It's the same as "if you talk the talk, you should walk the walk". You're basically saying, in the context of the debate, I believe, is that it's better to be a mod who deletes, rather than one who's a good talker and enjoys entering into discussions.
I could be wrong since I don't remember most of the argument anymore and I don't care to look back, but that's what I meant by out of context. Since, really, it was.
I believe you were saying that talking proves responsibility and intelligence better than doing the job they were assigned as a result of proving that responsibility and intelligence by speaking.
[quote]it's not cruel. Why even bother coming here if you don't click with anyone? These are obviously not your type of people. It has nothing to do with being a trendwhore... at all, nor voting for only friends and whatnot. That's something completely different than "clicking" with the members.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everything they say is worthless.
[quote]im sorry :(
NO YOU AREN'T :mad2:
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: They are, in terms of being a good member who is a moderator, but they are separate things.
1 and 3 are two separate numbers, yet they equal four. Never said they weren't separate... I just believe that they're both needed to equal "moderator".
Quoted post: At this time, take note of how 99% of the moderators(maybe more, but I don't feel like checking) didn't get perfect scores in this thread.
They don't have to get perfect. But take note that those who did a good job AND posted more often were rated higher.
Quoted post: I believe you were saying that talking proves responsibility and intelligence better than doing the job they were assigned as a result of proving that responsibility and intelligence by speaking.
Yeah, I said it was the main way. Another way was to do your job as a moderator. But the mods shouldn't abandon the main way just because a new option is open to them.
That was my point. And now I'm confused LMAO!
Quoted post: Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everything they say is worthless.
According to your example, the majority doesn't like the person. Not just me. And since everyone usually hates someone unanimously, the majority will probably mean everyone.
Quoted post: NO YOU AREN'T
no seriously, I am.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: 1 and 3 are two separate numbers, yet they equal four. Never said they weren't separate... I just believe that they're both needed to equal "moderator".
And I think that there is a difference between between being a good moderator and being a good member that happens to be a moderator. I think the two things you are trying to add equal the latter.
[quote]They don't have to get perfect. But take note that those who did a good job AND posted more often were rated higher.
If it was such an easy job, though, why is nobody doing that well? It's much harder than you think. Pleasing everyone is just impossible.
[quote]Yeah, I said it was the main way. Another way was to do your job as a moderator. But the mods shouldn't abandon the main way just because a new option is open to them.
(see, it's your fault we have to repeat, because you don't remember things >:o :( )
I'm not saying they should abandon the other way. I'm saying that when we give them the chance to prove themselves by their actions, doing so would now become their main way.
[quote]That was my point. And now I'm confused LMAO!
And I'm just bored :(
I think it would be more fun if it was in the flame board and I was arguing against someone I dislike.
[quote]According to your example, the majority doesn't like the person. Not just me. And since everyone usually hates someone unanimously, the majority will probably mean everyone.
I meant "you" in general.
[quote]no seriously, I am.
nuh uh :(
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: And I think that there is a difference between between being a good moderator and being a good member that happens to be a moderator. I think the two things you are trying to add equal the latter.
So... is this a case of "agree to disagree"? because neither of us seem to be able to provide any decent evidence to sway the other's opinion.
Quoted post: If it was such an easy job, though, why is nobody doing that well? It's much harder than you think. Pleasing everyone is just impossible.
Well, here's the problem: Most don't do their jobs, and the rest do exactly like you just said - they try to please everyone. It's easy if you abide by the rules (or the unwritten "accepted ones" that every forum has) rather than what you think will please a certain group, or the entire site for that matter. Or maybe you're all just incapable of doing your jobs properly. I don't know.
Quoted post:
(see, it's your fault we have to repeat, because you don't remember things >:o )
oh shi- I think you're right. Though, I can't help it :( these arguments go on for so long...
Quoted post:
I'm not saying they should abandon the other way. I'm saying that when we give them the chance to prove themselves by their actions, doing so would now become their main way.
Disagreed. I believe the main way will always be through personal conversation, with actions being a way to reinforce it.
Quoted post: And I'm just bored
I think it would be more fun if it was in the flame board and I was arguing against someone I dislike.
Completely agreed. I think we might have finally reached the end of this debate. Emphasis on the "might"?
Quoted post: I meant "you" in general.
Point stands though. Personal biases aside, if someone is "disliked" (can't think of the proper word [unfavoured?]) by the majority then they're wasting their time in the wrong forum.
Quoted post: nuh uh :(
uh huh :(
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSThere is a difference between a good mod and a good member. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: There is a difference between a good mod and a good member. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I never said they were the "same". They just combined to make a "good" moderator (one plus three thing I did).
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSThat's not what I meant. It's possible to be a good mod and a awful member - while you don't get the respect (because you're a tit), you do your job well. A good member and a bad mod would generally be liked, but wouldn't be as effective - and would tend to be voted in over the other guy who actually did his job.
If you're good at both, then hic-a-doo-la. But obviously if you're not a popular/frequent poster, does it mean you're not a good mod.
Also, it wasn't really directed at you, Vamp. All my posts now tend to be one-off, whoever hears it type things.
Posted by Lord of SpamSeems to me that being a mod means being part of the community. If you arent posting, you're not an active part of the community, since most members arent really going to pay too much attention to the little things that modding entails. You can yell "LOL BUT IM DOING JOB JSUT FINE!" all you want, but the point remains that if someone who is able to to your job better comes along, there is no reason not to give it to them.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireWhich was my main point.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSAnd mine, pretty much. That's why the good mod/good member combination wins out. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with being a mod and not posting at all.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireAgreed. I just believe that to be a truly good mod, you should be a combination of both.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSAnd they would be the sheriffs; the non-posting mods, the deputies.
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Wings: And mine, pretty much. That's why the good mod/good member combination wins out. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with being a mod and not posting at all.
Unless of course a person comes along who is both a good mod AND a good member. At that point, its time for the torch to be passed on.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSI don't see why both mods can't work together.
Posted by Lord of SpamI suppose, but after a while, you'd end up as many mods as members.:/ Hell, look at the off topic boards. There is no need for that many mods, yet nobody cares to do anything about it.
Posted by WILLETH FOR MONTHSOh, obviously if there's a surplus then the better ones get the job. But just because a new one is appointed there's no reason to bump someone off. One would have thought that the reason for appointing a new mod would be to handle an increasing workload; dismissing someone immediately is, therefore, chooting yourself in the foot.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireYeah, there would be no need for it, true. But if it's a less visited board, then I think it would be called for.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Vampiro: So... is this a case of "agree to disagree"? because neither of us seem to be able to provide any decent evidence to sway the other's opinion.
Sure, why not?
[quote]oh shi- I think you're right. Though, I can't help it :( these arguments go on for so long...
dont blame your problems on me >:o
[quote]Completely agreed. I think we might have finally reached the end of this debate. Emphasis on the "might"?
Not that I couldn't respond, I just think we're at the point where everything will just get repeated. Of course, there is still one thing I won't give up on.
[quote]uh huh :(
nuh uh times infinity :mad2:
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireFINE YOU WIN! :mad: