Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 04-13-2016, 07:18 PM

If they're not long-term members of the forum community, that doesn't make any sense to me.

I think we should be moving to permanent moderators.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Roavin*** · 04-13-2016, 08:18 PM

Having permanent moderators seems sensible to me as well. Still giving ministers moderation powers over their respective departments also seems sensible, at least to sticky/unsticky threads, lock pure announcement threads, and similar things.

Some loose mod guidelines may be helpful, not necessarily to restrict or guide mods but as a statement as to how the moderators will typically respond to violations of conduct. That way, it's harder to legitimately claim mod abuse - if the mod acted according to the guidelines, there's nothing to argue about.

Finally, I noticed in reading through many older threads that one tool that is not used often is splitting threads when the discussion derails. That's a tool that should be used more often (particularly in debate forums like the assembly), and I would suggest this concept features prominently in such a guideline.

***Tsunamy*** · 04-14-2016, 11:31 AM

(04-13-2016, 07:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: If they're not long-term members of the forum community, that doesn't make any sense to me.

I think we should be moving to permanent moderators.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I imagine, in practice if not in law, the delegate is still going to be a long-term member of the forum community. Especially if the forum community keeps veto power of the candidates.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 04-14-2016, 11:34 AM

I'm not so sure about that, really. Given its in-game role and the intense desire by some to see more power on the game-side, I think being a bonafide RMBer will probably be some kind of litmus test for Delegate.

***Tsunamy*** · 04-14-2016, 11:38 AM

(04-14-2016, 11:34 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I'm not so sure about that, really. Given its in-game role and the intense desire by some to see more power on the game-side, I think being a bonafide RMBer will probably be some kind of litmus test for Delegate.

Interesting. I'm not sure I agree that's how it'll work in practice, but I could see the potential there.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 04-14-2016, 02:09 PM

(04-14-2016, 11:31 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 07:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: If they're not long-term members of the forum community, that doesn't make any sense to me.

I think we should be moving to permanent moderators.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I imagine, in practice if not in law, the delegate is still going to be a long-term member of the forum community. Especially if the forum community keeps veto power of the candidates.

I imagine that a presence on both the forum and the RMB will be required; I certainly expect that if an election comes down to someone with a presence on the RMB versus someone without one, that the person with the RMB presence would come out ahead.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 04-14-2016, 02:19 PM

Let's be real though. The kind of person who has enough "RMB presence" isn't the kind of person who's enmeshed in the forum community. About the only player I think who has ever qualified for both is Aram, and he pretty much thinks the forum government is illegitimate.

It's much more likely the kingmakers of TSP will look at who the rising stars of the RMB world are, and then decide they should be nominated in the forum round of voting. (Just as we've done for other Cabinet and judicial positions, btw.) Those people might be encouraged to join the forum (I'm assuming they'll need 'citizenship' to be nominated), but I don't think they'd be a good fit for moderating here. It should be long-standing members, and not based on political elections or appointments.

Who is the moderator doesn't really matter, though, if the community doesn't allow them to moderate. We have to agree to let moderators exercise their power, without throwing around accusations of oppression or bias. Admins haven't moderated since these forums were made exactly because we had to deal with those accusations when we tried. Will a Delegate-as-moderator face the same attitude towards actual moderation?

**Belschaft** · 04-14-2016, 02:52 PM

A Delegate is elected, and can be removed. If they abuse their power as Chief-Moderator then they face consequences.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 04-14-2016, 03:26 PM

"Abuse" is a flexible word that tends to mean "do something I don't like" rather than "do something that is objectively inappropriate."

This whole community has an issue with accepting moderation. Granting those who face the punishment of a moderator the ability and permission to start a witch hunt against them is the opposite of what we need, in my opinion.

People just need to accept that others have power over them, and sometimes you're going to be forcefully silenced if you're being ridiculous and disruptive. That's how online forums have always worked. If they don't accept that, then we should show them the door. There is no God given right to participate in our community, and we've been making a big mistake acting as if there is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk