we need a moderator - Page 2

kathykd2005 · #16 09-11-2007, 05:29 PM

No, there aren't really problems, but sometimes it would be nice to know that if there are, we can do something about them. There have been a few arguments lately that have carried over to this board, and this thread, actually.

SmartBlondeGPhB · #17 09-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

No, there aren't really problems, but sometimes it would be nice to know that if there are, we can do something about them. There have been a few arguments lately that have carried over to this board, and this thread, actually.

There are "super mods" who are able to take care of any problems if necessary.

kathykd2005 · #18 09-12-2007, 04:46 PM

That's still not really an excuse for a forum not having a moderator, if someone would like to fill the position. Even the super mods can't be in all places at all times...

AlexMack · #19 09-13-2007, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDAngel

Is there ever really problems on the KD boards? Now I know there was drama like a two years ago, but do things really happen that we don't see? Or is the mod just a precautionary thing?

Sigma Kappa didn't really need a mod until everyone's favourite troll came and started sh*tting all over our forum because she was post-stalking certain members. Oh, and Rudey and Bobby dropped by too. There will come a day when poor Kappa Delta will suffer the same indignities and I hope that you get a mod before that day, otherwise it will probably be immortalized on your forum forever.

KDAngel · #20 09-13-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Sigma Kappa didn't really need a mod until everyone's favourite troll came and started sh*tting all over our forum because she was post-stalking certain members. Oh, and Rudey and Bobby dropped by too. There will come a day when poor Kappa Delta will suffer the same indignities and I hope that you get a mod before that day, otherwise it will probably be immortalized on your forum forever.

I hear ya.

And P.S. Alex Mack was the greatest show ever.

Unless of course your name is really Alex Mack.

kdonline · #21 09-13-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Sigma Kappa didn't really need a mod until everyone's favourite troll came and started sh*tting all over our forum because she was post-stalking certain members.

It has happened at least twice. And thank the gods that we had a trustworthy moderator who was on top of it, rather quickly, I might add.

SydneyK · #22 09-17-2007, 01:22 PM

Do we know WHY it is so hard to get a mod? If I knew why (and that reason was legitimate), I'd maybe understand what the hold-up is, but without an explanation... well, it just doesn't make sense. Am I the only one confused by this?

#23 09-17-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Do we know WHY it is so hard to get a mod? If I knew why (and that reason was legitimate), I'd maybe understand what the hold-up is, but without an explanation... well, it just doesn't make sense. Am I the only one confused by this?

Don't waste your time being confused by it. It's not worth it.

I'm not John, but I'm going to throw in my two cents based on my past experience as a moderator. Even if a group of XYZs unanimously approve one of their own to act as their moderator, it doesn't mean isht if the existing mods tell John they don't want her. After all, there's the sanctity of the mods' corner to preserve.

They don't like to let too many newbies in!

Or John probably doesn't think that ya'll are high priority at the moment.

Drolefille · #24 09-17-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTW

Don't waste your time being confused by it. It's not worth it.

I'm not John, but I'm going to throw in my two cents based on my past experience as a moderator. Even if a group of XYZs unanimously approve one of their own to act as their moderator, it doesn't mean isht if the existing mods tell John they don't want her. After all, there's the sanctity of the mods' corner to preserve.

They don't like to let too many newbies in!

Or John probably doesn't think that ya'll are high priority at the moment.

I haven't actually figured out the whole "mods corner" thing. I get why it's necessary, but at what point does it become just an excuse to keep others away. One might say elitist. The members best know who suits them for a moderator, SK got a great one, but I don't see why all of the other mods get a veto. Perhaps it should be more of a "remove the person if they do a bad job" and less of a "oh we can't have him/her, what about the MOD'S CORNER"

#25 09-17-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I haven't actually figured out the whole "mods corner" thing. I get why it's necessary, but at what point does it become just an excuse to keep others away. One might say elitist. The members best know who suits them for a moderator, SK got a great one, but I don't see why all of the other mods get a veto. Perhaps it should be more of a "remove the person if they do a bad job" and less of a "oh we can't have him/her, what about the MOD'S CORNER"

97% of the time, if an existing moderator has a problem with a mod nomination/suggestion -- they usually express dissent via PM directly to John.

I wasn't around when John did his recent Moderator Review, but my guesses is that all discussion took place via PM because the mods who got the boot didn't even see it coming and to this day still haven't received an explanation from John as to why.

33girl · #26 09-17-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The members best know who suits them for a moderator, SK got a great one, but I don't see why all of the other mods get a veto.

I don't know where you heard or surmised this, but the other mods do NOT get a "veto." A veto implies that their negative opinion settles the matter and overrides everyone else's vote, and that most assuredly is not the case.

Drolefille · #27 09-17-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't know where you heard or surmised this, but the other mods do NOT get a "veto." A veto implies that their negative opinion settles the matter and overrides everyone else's vote, and that most assuredly is not the case.

I don't mean that any moderator has a literal veto. Just that they, collectively or not, can overrule the wishes of the forum members. Perhaps more transparency in the whole matter would make it clearer for everyone.

It sounds like the channels of communication are not there for either the average member or the moderators.... at least those who find themselves on the wrong end of the boot. If PM is the common method of discussion, why even bother having a forum. Have an area of locked threads (which IMO should be viewable by everyone, not just moderators) and leave it at that.

33girl · #28 09-17-2007, 03:29 PM

There are plenty of locked threads that are still viewable to everyone - I don't know quite what you're talking about with that one.

And no, the mods CANNOT overrule the wishes of the forum members as to who they want appointed. The only person who can appoint a mod is John. The most mods can do is offer opinions, but in reality, this is John's site. If he wants to delete all my posts for no reason, or do something else capricious and arbitrary, he can.

Drolefille · #29 09-17-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl

There are plenty of locked threads that are still viewable to everyone - I don't know quite what you're talking about with that one.

And no, the mods CANNOT overrule the wishes of the forum members as to who they want appointed. The only person who can appoint a mod is John. The most mods can do is offer opinions, but in reality, this is John's site. If he wants to delete all my posts for no reason, or do something else capricious and arbitrary, he can.

I mean ones that are moved instead of locked and left. I think moving all threads locked for flaming, etc. to a single forum instead of either locked and left or moved to an area where they are unseen by the rest of the forum would be preferable. Perhaps this area would only be viewable to members who are logged in, if that would satisfy others.

I'm well aware John makes the final decision, but a moderator's protest, or multiple moderator's protests appear to strongly influence his position. And I know full well that moderators have their own grudges just as much as regular members do. The fact that KD may internally agree on who the best moderator would be and this person would not be chosen, (in fact no one may be chosen) makes no sense to me. I'd like to see more transparency in the whole process, making it less of a drama. It's a moderator of a forum. It shouldn't take months to decide.

(And for the record, I'm not talking about me. I only volunteered because SK didn't have a moderator, and now we do, and she's great. Just thought I'd clear the air on that one)

SydneyK · #30 09-17-2007, 03:47 PM

You see... this is the reason I think we need a mod. No one is being obstinate, but clearly people have differing opinions. If there's no mod, then the likelihood of posts getting out of hand significantly increases.

Sure, there are supermods, but as kathykd2005 pointed out earlier, that doesn't justify intentionally keeping a group from having a mod (if the group wants one).

I'm afraid I've stirred the pot just by pointing out the fact that we no longer have a mod. It's a catch-22. If I hadn't said anything about it, people (aka John) would assume we don't need/want one. But since I did say something, it seems like now there's kinda an unwelcoming air about the place. And that makes me sad.