FANDOM


  • Mystreve
    Mystreve closed this thread because:
    This isn't going anywhere, so I'm closing it.
    12:47, November 7, 2014

    Yeah, another idea to try and make this dysfunctional place work, but hear me out. Right now we have too many mods. Not only that, but we have mods who don't do their duty. They're afk when they need to be watching, they take part in drama, they choose what rules to enforce, and I've even heard a tale of one mod threatening a user with a ban if a certain demand wasn't met. It's clear we need to do something.

    But what?

    I have an idea. We need a council. Un-biased, probably older, trusted members form a little council. They'd re-evaluate the mods, and cast their votes. Either with majority rules, or until the entire council agrees, that mod either stays, or is demoted. Of course, if this raises complaints, the council will take them into concern. We can work out the fine details of this later.

    Part two: Get rid of applications. These can be twisted in one's favor, cheated on, or given support because "He's a cool dude" or "He's my friend, mod him pls". The council would meet every time one mod applicant was suggested, and discuss it. If positive, we could give them a trial, or we could mod them then and there. Provided with their permission, of course. Again, details can be worked out.

    The fact that this even need be suggested is sad, and we need something to change. I believe this system is fair, and all complaints and ideas are welcome.

      Loading editor
    • I agree Support Support -

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - The only issue is choosing who is both old enough to be trusted and unbiased enough to speak on the community and sites' behalf.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - MAYBE this could work. However, for those who were here in July, remember how Natural Election was a disaster, and this seem to be a version 2.0 of that. I believe a simple private discussion is needed to solve the problems. But sure, I agree that we have WAY too many useless mods.

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - I have the exact same fear James has

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

      I can support this. It is a well thought out system and it seems as though it is something we need now days. Things are getting out of hand and a new system could definitely benefit the chat. I don't have any more time to come up with a more well thought out response, but here is the gist.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -- I like this idea because it will calm down the chat. We probably have the most mods out of any NORMAL wikia.

        Loading editor
    • Eyeless Jack wrote: Support Support -- I like this idea because it will calm down the chat. We probably have the most mods out of any NORMAL wikia.

      Wait, we're normal? When did this happen. Also, even though I wrote this thread, I'm gonna give my two sense. Support Support -

        Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral - I'm on James' and Anna's side on this one...

        Loading editor
    • The main worry here is that this will become another "natural election." The end product of that was questionable as to whether it did anything or not. What's not as questionable is that a fair number of people were unhappy with it.

      An equally big problem is choosing this council. In reality, un-biased and trusted people who know chat should already be mods. So, how do we find the people for this council?

      The app thing isn't a bad idea, but I don't know how needed it is. When reviewing apps, we don't consider votes that boil down to "he's cool" or "he's my friend." If someone doesn't have a good reason, it doesn't register. Also, it's good to hear a wide range of opinions. Maybe someone had an encounter with a candidate no one else had or they remember something everyone else forgot.

      Mainly, my issue is with the feasibility of finding this council. We already have trouble finding good mods, it's going to be harder to find people we can trust to be an oversight council for those mds.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - I sense only more chaos will come from this.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -  This sounds like a really good idea, we should put it on a trial run.

        Loading editor
    • ImGonnaBeThatGuy wrote: The main worry here is that this will become another "natural election." The end product of that was questionable as to whether it did anything or not. What's not as questionable is that a fair number of people were unhappy with it.

      An equally big problem is choosing this council. In reality, un-biased and trusted people who know chat should already be mods. So, how do we find the people for this council?

      The app thing isn't a bad idea, but I don't know how needed it is. When reviewing apps, we don't consider votes that boil down to "he's cool" or "he's my friend." If someone doesn't have a good reason, it doesn't register. Also, it's good to hear a wide range of opinions. Maybe someone had an encounter with a candidate no one else had or they remember something everyone else forgot.

      Mainly, my issue is with the feasibility of finding this council. We already have trouble finding good mods, it's going to be harder to find people we can trust to be an oversight council for those mds.

      I was originally gonna make a thread about the council itself if this thread got a lot lot of support, I'm personally still thinking of ideas on how to get the council members, my only current idea being chat be a council itself to choose the members. I'll keep thinking, and post any more ideas here.

        Loading editor
    • Nommehzombies wrote: Oppose Oppose - I sense only more chaos will come from this.

      We already have plenty of chaos. While I can certainly see where you're coming from, I think this would be the lesser of two evils. But a key point I'd try to hammer in is to pay attention to all feedback, positive or negative, so if say, a council member isn't acting as he should, they can undergo an investigation and possibly eject him from the council. The council isn't supposed to be tyrannical.

        Loading editor
    • I think when looking for council members we should look for users who go above and beyond their call of duty; be them mods, users, or even admins and bcrats. So far we are looking at this as something for chat; but it could potentially be useful for the whole site.

      Where I'd start for now though as users who stand out as trying to better the site or chat actively. Users like Callie(Steam Phoenix); with her constantly finding flaws we have and trying to fix them could be useful. However (And I mean no slight to Callie, she's a good friend of mine), Callie seems to be a bit immature and short sighted. Of course, that doesn't mean she hasn't been an extremely valuable asset to this site.

      Other users that come to mind are Ryan (Kill1mes) and myself (As self righteous and in-humble as that sounds, most of the things I do and the decisions I make are based around what's good for the site and users.) as well as Mystreve and Guy.

        Loading editor
    • Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.

      We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.

      The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.

      Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.

      Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

        Loading editor
    • Really all we need to do is demote the medicore mods we have, and change our election system a bit. Instead of applications, we should have nominations. Users who stand out in chat can be nominated by the community.

        Loading editor
    • Oppose Oppose - sounds like it's gonna be bias as fuck despite what was said about neutrality

        Loading editor
    • @Ecu: First off, thank you. And yeah, that's the idea.

      @Streve: Fuck that picnic blanket, didn't like it anyways. But demotion threads are a good idea. I never thought of that. That would be a far better to approach that.

      @Ecu again: Well fuck, even if we disregard my entire idea, we can come across other good ideas like this. And if one doesn't work, we can consider the other. That could work out nicely.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support - Hopefully this'll work out.

        Loading editor
    • Kill1mes wrote:

      Eyeless Jack wrote: Support Support -- I like this idea because it will calm down the chat. We probably have the most mods out of any NORMAL wikia.

      Wait, we're normal? When did this happen. Also, even though I wrote this thread, I'm gonna give my two sense. 

      We're normal in a sense that we aren't just giving out modship to whoever joins the wikia (Though it kinda feels like we are right about now)


        Loading editor
    • Eyeless Jack wrote:

      Kill1mes wrote:

      Eyeless Jack wrote: Support Support -- I like this idea because it will calm down the chat. We probably have the most mods out of any NORMAL wikia.

      Wait, we're normal? When did this happen. Also, even though I wrote this thread, I'm gonna give my two sense. 

      We're normal in a sense that we aren't just giving out modship to whoever joins the wikia (Though it kinda feels like we are right about now)


      Yeah, about that... But that's some real loose criteria to be seen as normal for, just saying.

        Loading editor
    • Stay on topic please. We still don't have a clue where we're going with this.

        Loading editor
    • Well, if this gets enough support, I plan on making a follow up thread discussing all the little details of this, and trying to cover every angle. Right now I'm just waiting to get a strong enough support or dislike count.

      Actually, how much support will we need to consider this idea as something we'd go through with?

        Loading editor
    • Didn't we JUST re-evaluate staff?

        Loading editor
    • Mystreve wrote:
      Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.

      We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.

      The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.

      Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.

      Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

      1 Project:Demotion Policy. This was already a community voted thing. Not allowing them? When did that happen?

      2. "Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread." I hate to be the crier of unfairness, but if you're going to have someone demoted via thread, they have the right to defend themselves. Say the person providing the screencaps used "Inspect Element"? Or just took a cap of an incident intentionally out of context? Why should someone who gets a demotion thread be deprived of the ability to counter said "irrefutable proof"? Just a small pointer.

        Loading editor
    • Steam Phoenix wrote:

      Mystreve wrote:
      Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.

      We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.

      The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.

      Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.

      Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

      1 Project:Demotion Policy. This was already a community voted thing. Not allowing them? When did that happen?

      2. "Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread." I hate to be the crier of unfairness, but if you're going to have someone demoted via thread, they have the right to defend themselves. Say the person providing the screencaps used "Inspect Element"? Or just took a cap of an incident intentionally out of context? Why should someone who gets a demotion thread be deprived of the ability to counter said "irrefutable proof"? Just a small pointer.

      I'm all ears for your better ideas, Callie.

        Loading editor
    • Here's an idea. No demotion threads. If multiple user has an issue with a mod (causing drama, breaking rules, and other grounds for demotion; be they minor or large), then they take it to a Bcrat. That Bcrat will then take the mod aside and talk about with them privately, to get their side of the story. Then the Bcrat makes the decision from there. They can either decide to demote them, leave them be, or "shadow" them for a few days to see how they handle problems, and make a decision from there.

      The pros of this are that there is no thread and little drama. Since the mod gets to defend themselves and also prove themselves, if they are demoted it will be on better terms instead of a thread that is pretty much a guaranteed demotion because of the herd mentality of voting, and the ever present drama and bashing that seems to occur in every thread.

      Short on time, so I can't list any cons; but I'm sure there are some. Feel free to point them out.

      Note: This was literally just an idea of the top of my head. If it won't work, then that's fine. I'm trying to get some discussion going on how we can handle demotions without causing shit and making everyone pissed.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, demotion threads really aren't the way.

      Taking it to a Bureucrat should be more appropiate.

        Loading editor
    • Mystreve wrote:

      Steam Phoenix wrote:

      Mystreve wrote:
      Not sure about this. It just seems like another tiny implosion, waiting to happen, in an already shaky house of cards. I thought the admins/crats were trusted members of the community. Weren't we all voted in as such? Anyhow, while I was reading this, an idea popped into my head. Hear me out.

      We allow demotion threads again. Only with a limited scope.

      The main part here is that the person starting the thread needs irrefutable proof that the mod in question needs to have the rights removed. No drama. No idiotic story behind the thread. Just a summary, along with the main reason, and proof. Multiple screenshots over several instances/time-spans is a great way to gather evidence to start the thread. This allows us to isolate anomalous incidents from the ones that really matter to make our decision for a demotion. To expound on this, other users could be encouraged to present damning evidence (i.e. their own screenshots) along with their support/oppose vote. Otherwise, no proof? Go away.

      Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread (or their right is instantly stripped) and people cannot leave remarks on the way people vote, their reasoning, and so forth. I thought about why those demotion threads sucked so hard when we allowed them, and the drama gave birth to drama with people leaving replies, etc etc. The mod in question would then continue to fan the flames; it was enough to make one want to start taking out hostages.

      Anyway, sorry if I may have pissed on your picnic blanket here, Kill; just trying to figure out different angles.

      1 Project:Demotion Policy. This was already a community voted thing. Not allowing them? When did that happen?

      2. "Another parameter is that the person in question cannot reply in the demotion thread." I hate to be the crier of unfairness, but if you're going to have someone demoted via thread, they have the right to defend themselves. Say the person providing the screencaps used "Inspect Element"? Or just took a cap of an incident intentionally out of context? Why should someone who gets a demotion thread be deprived of the ability to counter said "irrefutable proof"? Just a small pointer.

      I'm all ears for your better ideas, Callie.

      Honestly, I'd be content with this council idea if it could be ensured that the members found were really not biased and this idea didn't have the capability of easily blowing back up in our faces.

      But, to be honest. Put an idea in play and demote the mods, the mods who get demoted will complain. Don't put an idea in, users will complain about bad mods. Put the idea in play, and eventually it won't matter - the mods we do select will eventually be singled out as "bad mods" by some user or another for some particular reason. If there was a way to break the cycle of complaining and drama, I'd be all for it.

        Loading editor
    • Steam Phoenix wrote:

      Honestly, I'd be content with this council idea if it could be ensured that the members found were really not biased and this idea didn't have the capability of easily blowing back up in our faces.

      But, to be honest. Put an idea in play and demote the mods, the mods who get demoted will complain. Don't put an idea in, users will complain about bad mods. Put the idea in play, and eventually it won't matter - the mods we do select will eventually be singled out as "bad mods" by some user or another for some particular reason. If there was a way to break the cycle of complaining and drama, I'd be all for it.

      I'd love that just as much as you would, but the only thing I can say is we'd have some strict rules in place for the council. As for them being biased or not, we'd go with the opinion of the masses. Let me give you an example. I'd say overall, a large portion of of chat would say Nick is un-biased. He tells things as they are (and he's proven he can handle power, too). I can see a voting poll maybe, for his admission. Every support would be welcomed, and all oppositions would be looked into.

      But for users who maybe haven't handled power before, we can run a trial. Make them mod for a week. Closely watch them. See if they change, ect.

      As for your second point... Well yeah, users will always find reasons to complain. But we'd take the criticism as best we could, talk it over, and try and improve as best as we could. There's no way to guarantee 100% success, or success at all, but if humanity kept that mindset, we'd never go anywhere. we'd just stay in little clans and die out.

        Loading editor
    • Too many mods? Why not Zoidberg?

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.