Self Moderation of the On-Topic Forum

Question is: who's going to pick the moderators? Hell, do we even have people who want the job?

Eddie and the current mod staff seem pretty compitent to me at picking their mods.

I wouldn't mind being a mod, though I'd have to take notes from Bobby on how he can have the mod cap on one second and be a regular poster the next, he's pretty good at that, as is Maddy.

Barkey and Tuefel are both consistently sensible and consistently present.

" That's precisely what we're asking for. Thank you. The number of threads spun off because they threatened a derail has increased, and it's great. We need more of it. What we're asking now that you guys call us in when a problem is a smouldering ember instead of waiting till it's a raging forest fire."

Then what's the problem? The majority of derails get spun into new threads or dropped so I'm incredibly confused now.

Tuefel and perhaps Barkey work well.

If this gets passed, I'd like to ask some time about dedicated moderators for the RP forums. >_>

@Madrugada: Rereading that post, it came off quite a bit stronger than I had intended. I think my frustrations with work spilled over. Sorry! There was, I thought, an undertone of that in the conversation, so that's what I was trying to respond to.

Also, I'd support Barkey for a mod.

I'm not even sure what the problem is. Before we go trying to elect mods let's first reach a consensus on what exactly is causing this issue. So far all I can understand is "what you're doing now, but more so."

edited 23rd Sep '11 4:43:14 PM by thatguythere47

Meh, Tuefel gets in a lot less fights than I do. He's not half as opinionated as I am, as much as my fiery vitriol amuses some folks.

I would not make a good mod in my opinion. Lets go back to more effective ways of self policing.

Honestly I have seen a more concerted effort collectively speaking of stopping derails, encouraging spin offs to end derails which has proven effective, and reporting legitimate trolls vs folks who have contradictory opinions.

There are some people with some opinions that stir things up, but I believe they are not out to do it intentionally. Some of our more unusual posters may rile someone new to OTC but the experienced posters know better.

As has been mentioned a clear line between On topic drift and a derail would be very helpful.

OT drift: It still has a direct relation relevant to the discussion but this can lead to derail if taken too far. This is when spin off threads come in handy. Derails seem to occur most when a particular venue of discussion has been exhausted. Other then the painfully obvious what are some of the more subtle signs a thread may starting for a derail woucl be a good question to answer.

There are a number of regular posters in OTC who are almost guaranteed to turn any thread into yet another forum for them to rerun the same damn argument all over again. Obviously, each of us is most likely to notice and be annoyed at those among that group whose opinions differ most drastically from our own.

This bedevils pretty much anywhere I've seen on the Internet that deals with topics that are at all political, for example. Generally a small number of people with too much time on their hands, extreme views, and extreme stubbornness basically kill it off for everyone else.

This is not helped by tropers' natures, which seem to frequently be of the self-Flanderizing kind. Please try not to be a goddamn caricature and have some depth, OK? You don't have to get stuck inside some rigid forum persona that involves being a giant ass.

I'd support Barkey for mod. Great poster, much more even-handed than most people here.

I like Barkey, but I wouldn't support that decision. Not because I feel that he's inept or biased, but that his own brand of what is acceptable and what is not clashes with the existing forum rules, which I find to work fine.

If we absolutely must think of new moderators, I would nominate Drunk.

edited 23rd Sep '11 6:21:24 PM by kashchei

I agree that emphasizing self-awareness of what to do is important, like rerailing and creating spinoffs as needed. If we find ourselves being devoted to a new topic that originated from the current one, we should not have problems asking the participants if we want to make a new thread and doing so if they want that.

I want to address this: if the theme of the section is on-topic, but the actual problem of the section is, say, behavior, we may need to adjust the theme or add a new related guideline to address that problem.

edited 23rd Sep '11 6:21:15 PM by abstractematics

To be honest, I'm not sure this is the best thread for suggesting formal moderators. Aside from the fact that readership is likely to be more or less the usual OTC crowd, suggestions in such an environment are likely to be partially skewed by the poster's tolerance for the political views of potential candidates, since that will often impact upon their overall tolerance of said candidates generally.

If that makes sense.

Well we may want global mods that emphasize in OTC.

Ideally, mods should differentiate between a discussion post and a moderation post, but you have a point.

They get thsoe nifty Mod hats and the post is in pink or something, too.

I'm so jealous.

Although I'm still trying to figure out how Fighteer gets away without needing a hat, with his usual avatar being what it is.

I mean the conduct. Mods should not use their powers to force their points in discussions.

When have the mods ever done that?

I don't think either of the people nominated would do that. Of course I don't know Barkey all that well, so maybe that's why I think that.

Anyway, I've dropped my two cents into the piggy bank here, and I've got something to do. So, later all.

Here the mod posts and discussion posts are distinct, but it's a concern I've had in some other places.

Never. Thats what we want to continue.

I'm as left-wing as it goes, and I'd support Barkey as mod: I don't think he's going to stifle dissenting views, and he's generally reasonable.

edited 23rd Sep '11 6:42:18 PM by SavageHeathen