Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

New Moderator Requests

Page: (1)2

Happy Dave Has Left

15:08 / 14.09.07

Hello folks,

What with the New Dawn of Barbelith (TM) and a possible opening up of the board to new members, with or without various levels of initial posting restriction etc, I feel there's a case for new mods. So this thread is for asking if you can be made into a mod.

I would like to Mod in:

a) Switchboard - hopefully to nurture it toward productive and regular discussion - will understand if I'm denied on this, as it's an area that calls for cool heads indeed, and I've only been around a year and a half

b) Laboratory - another area I'd love to stimulate some discussion in

c)Books etc - cos I love books, innit?

d) Games and Gameplay - because I've got some good ideas for threads bubbling away, and I think I'd like to contribute to making it a positive space

e) Creation - cos I love it in there, and want to make sure that with the possible influx of new blood, we'd still have a solid space for critiques, encouragement and new ideas.

That's my lot.

jentacular dreams

15:40 / 14.09.07

Of course it's worth pointing out to nonmods and n00blets that you don't have to be a mod to start topics...

Happy Dave Has Left

15:42 / 14.09.07

Of course, when I say nurture I really mean troll-whispering and general mod cleanup duties. The Happy Campaign of New! Awesome! Posts! will come regardless of my status as mod or non-mod.

jentacular dreams

15:46 / 14.09.07

Cool. Looking forward to it. I've got a stem cell lab thread I've been working on, but it's looking for a stimulating angle at the moment.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:49 / 14.09.07

Would it be better to leave this for the moment? It's great that people are excited, but we are trying to work out how many active moderators we have, how many we need, how banning powers affect the distribution of moderators - I suggest giving people a week to register their ongoing existence, demodding the non-used mod suits, seeing how many we have in each forum, and then looking at where we need to fill gaps.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:39 / 14.09.07

That's true, but there's no real reason why both things can't take place simultaneously, given that they're just the creation of lists, basically. It'll probably only save us a day or two at the other end doing it this way, but at least we'll hit the ground running.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:12 / 14.09.07

In one sense that is certainly true. In another sense, there was a period where mod powers were given out to anyone who asked for them, essentially because being a mod was basically responsibility without power, or indeed all that much responsibility. I would like us to be a little bit more cautious, especially given that moderators now have the power to ban and, perhaps more importantly, the power to veto banning. However, no reason not to have a list of applicants here, as long as Tom doesn't jump the gun and whack them all in as moderators before we see how the board functions with the new methods.

17:35 / 14.09.07

Quads, you should use this format - it makes it easier on Tom.

User 2304

Start moderating: 3, 6, 8, 11, 15

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:30 / 14.09.07

Haus, that makes sense. If it's understood that the list isn't actually a no-questions-asked passport to modland, we should be cool.

18:41 / 14.09.07

Hey Tom, User 4427 here. I currently mod 1 and 15.

I would like to start modding 10 and 11 as well (Comics and Film, TV & Theatre).

Danke!

18:44 / 14.09.07

Well, if no-one objects too strongly, I'd quite like to mod the temple.
So:

User 5586
Start moderating: 6

18:54 / 14.09.07

My post above wasn't a request, by the way!

This is, however.

User 490
Start moderating 11

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:15 / 14.09.07

OK - so, does anyone want to think about criteria for being a moderator, apart from wanting to be a moderator? Or is that enough, and we can expect everyone to sort of balance out? I am slightly concerned about bannination - 8 is not actually that high a number, on one side, and two is not a high number at all, on t'other - we've got at least two named moderators so far who opposed the banning of the Fetch, for example - Protocols of the Elders of Zion and all.

Maybe we just have to let the system make its own mistakes, but we are already radically revising a set of functions; I can understand the desire to be involved in this exciting period, but it might lead to piling on another change to deal with and sort out.

19:27 / 14.09.07

I think that's a good idea. If people are going to have some sort of powers over others then it's a bit shit if "I want" is the only reason they get it.

I think the only real criterion would have to be that other members of the board where happy, in the majority, for an individual to get that power.

We could do a "sponsor" type thing. Each potential mod has to get a certain number of people to agree to their moderatorship.

Or we could do it the other way. People nominate themselves and, so long as their isn't a drama either way, they get it. If there is a major issue then their is a conversation and we think about it a bit more.

Or is this far too simple and lacking in nous?

19:28 / 14.09.07

There was a period where mod powers were given out to anyone who asked for them, essentially because being a mod was basically responsibility without power

I only wish I'd got my feet under the table when this was the case ...

More seriously, unless there are gaping holes anywhere, wouldn't it be an idea to have a moratorium on the creation/coronation of new mods (ie people who haven't moderated anywhere) until a)the new banning/admission system's been finalised and b)everyone's had a chance to see how it's working out?

Regrettable Juvenilia

19:30 / 14.09.07

Surely now that moderators have a lot more power, we should be thinking about pruning before we add any more? The idea that some of the people who have somehow been given moderator status in, say, Games & Gameplay, can take part in decisions as important as banning worries me somewhat.

Shiny: Well Over Thirty

19:40 / 14.09.07

The criteria for who should be modded beyond wanting to be seem pretty bloody obvious to me. I'm thinking sustained contribution of value to the board over a reasonable amount of time, without showing signs of being more than averagely unstable.

It's how we go about judging that that's the fiendishly difficult and potentially terrifyingly controversial bit.

19:43 / 14.09.07

Moderators were always supposed to want to stimulate discussion in the fora they were responsible for. That never happened. I'd want to see that as one of the two main deciding factors in the appointment of any new mods.

HQ's opening post is a good model of how people should go about signalling their interest, I think.

20:19 / 14.09.07

If elected, I promise to use my powers to spread literacy, end crime and help world peace?

Campaigning seems a bit gauche. What else are people going to say? After a)I like the forum and b)I want to do good things in it, what else is there?

I think members generally already have an opinion on each other. A paragraph of I <3 forum x is probably a bit redundant.

21:06 / 14.09.07

Campaigning seems a bit gauche

I think so, yeah. What with everything else that's going on in the meantime, technical changes that presumably need some sort of decision, shall we perhaps not bother with this now?

There'll be lots of time later, I'm sure.

21:19 / 14.09.07

Er, did I mention campaigning? I simply want more evidence that you're interested in and have something worthwhile to offer a forum than

User x
Forum y

Because if you look at, say, G&G's mod list, it's full of people who don't give a fuck.

21:24 / 14.09.07

Sorry, I'm not trying to misreprepresent you.
But I just don't think there's any point in just *saying* you are interested. If you contribute then other posters will know you contribute.

What does a self generated blurb actually prove?

Happy Dave Has Left

21:29 / 14.09.07

Well, yeah, I ain't putting up yard signs (Vote Happy!) or owt. Just indicating which forums I'd be interested in modding, and why.

I understand that my (potential) new mod status carries with it the Heavy Weight of Authority, but frankly, I'm just interested in getting a bit more involved with the board, nudging the (to be realised) flood of new posts in a positive and worthwhile direction and adding my voice to the discussions, as well as OKing the odd post edit or other mod action.

I want to be more involved with the board, so am offering my services - nothing more, nothing less.

Whether this is 'the right time' or not - meh, thread's here. People can use it or they can wait til they think it's the right time, whatever.

On the more-useful-to-Tom format - dashed if I can work out what my user number is, but the forums I'm interested in modding are:

7, 5, 9, 15 and 13.

21:33 / 14.09.07

The idea that some of the people who have somehow been given moderator status in, say, Games & Gameplay, can take part in decisions as important as banning worries me somewhat.

If those people include me, then you don't have to worry. I know we hardly ever miss out on an opportunity to wind eachother up, and might not even like eachother a lot, but I don't fuck around if I'm modding. If it really bothers you though, just let me know and I'll request that I be demodded. It's not something that really bothers me, I just volunteered to do it because I thought it'd be cool to help out.

Happy Dave Has Left

21:58 / 14.09.07

The idea that some of the people who have somehow been given moderator status in, say, Games & Gameplay, can take part in decisions as important as banning worries me somewhat.

Also, Petey/Flyboy, this statement strikes me as needlessly arsey. How is a G&G (or any forum) mod less capable of casting a vote in a banning? Is it a case of longevity of forum, or are you simply saying teh gamerz/teh majicks/teh musos shouldn't be allowed to influence big decisions?

22:34 / 14.09.07

HQ: Your user number is 5378. It's the bit at the end of the URL when you either roll the pointer over or just click on your user name.

When I corralled up a handful of new mods for Lab recently, I basically got a bunch of volunteers all of whom I'd seen post around the board before in a productive way and who seemed interested in and capable of talking about science. That was all I was looking for, really. -Known -Productive -Interested in subject -Capable of discussing subject.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:36 / 14.09.07

Happy, to get your user profile you hover your mouse over your own name. Meanhwile, I'm not sure how you can identify Petey's statement as needlessly arsey and then ask what it means. Should this not go the other way?

Princess: Well, there are some other considerations. One of those is "does the forum need more moderators". Temple, for example, has nine moderators, of whom about five are regularly active, so there's a case for more moderators there, I'd say.

However, there's a degree of complexity extending therefrom. The first issue being that Moderators are now no longer responsible only for tidying up in their own fora, but also for approving or vetoing moves to ban users who may never even have posted in their fora. So, think there's an argument for taking some tim to work out how that changes the balance of responsibility that moderators have, and the criteria under which we appoint moderators.

23:00 / 14.09.07

You raise a wider issue, Dave; is it going to be all right for moderators in, say, the Head Shop to have a casting vote with regard to discussions in Comics, for example, or vice versa?

I'd argue perhaps not.

23:07 / 14.09.07

I'd agree.
But maybe that needs to be spoken about over in one of the banning threads.

Tryphena Absent

23:12 / 14.09.07

If we do get round to doing this then I'd like to return to Policy because I really do love it, it's the forum I always read even when I'm not engaging with the rest of barbelith. You're essentially two down since I went and wasn't replaced and Ganesh locked himself out of barbelith and you'll probably need someone extra if you open registration up and people ask questions so...

User 882, forum 2.

Regrettable Juvenilia

00:37 / 15.09.07

Also, Petey/Flyboy, this statement strikes me as needlessly arsey. How is a G&G (or any forum) mod less capable of casting a vote in a banning?

It's no slight on Games & Gameplay. I think it's safe to say that nobody cares more about that forum than Honolulu, and he's just said the same thing: the requirements of moderators as demonstrated by the people who are moderators in that forum are pretty minimal, not even extending to an active let alone proactive presence in that forum.

Happy Dave Has Left

04:42 / 15.09.07

You raise a wider issue, Dave; is it going to be all right for moderators in, say, the Head Shop to have a casting vote with regard to discussions in Comics, for example, or vice versa?

This is a good point - it's the Barbelith equivalent of the West Lothian Question.

With mods having banning powers now, is there a case for cross-board mods (with the ability to contribute to ban votes and forum mods (with the 'old capabilities')? Or are we getting into the beginnings of unwanted heirarchy?

Apologies for the needlessly arsey comment about you being needlessly arsey Fly/Petey, that's what a whole day reading Policy and a couple of pints will do. I understand your point about the complete dearth of a) activity and b) passionate mods in G&G, but that's one of the things I'd want to try and change, if only to help out Randy with the seeding of new threads and contributing to older ones - it's also something I see changing if we have an influx of new members - while Haus often alludes to lots of new people wanting to talk about majick and the Invisibles, I think it's fair to say that the open/way less restricted membership options on the table at the moment will lead to an uptick across all fora, and you'll need enough mods in that case that someone is likely to be online 80% - 90% of the time.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:04 / 15.09.07

No, Petey and Honolulu are making fair comment on G&G- I've been fairly remiss myself, though recently that's been more to do with an overwhelming sense of pessimism- "if you build it, they probably won't bother coming"- about the board in general, which appeared to be dying a death. I had a pretty good thread-starter a couple of weeks ago spinning off from an earlier thread, about whether freedom in games is over-rated, but in the end I figured it would be a waste of time. I'll try to get that up this weekend now things are looking a bit more lively, and so there's more stuff for new people to look at when they get here.

16:40 / 15.09.07

That chimes with how I feel, Mr S.

I don't think people who don't give a fuck accurately describes me, though, despite my lack of posting in the forum. A combination of pressing real world concerns and general bad feeling when posting over the last few months here has disinclined me to post generally, but I do certainly give a fuck.

I can however appreciate your frustration, and I'm happy to have my name taken off that forum if you think it appropriate, Mr. H. If you feel I should not be a GnG mod, say so and I will request my removal when I am next online.

I will also happily continue to read and decide on moderator actions as I have been doing if you do not.

20:13 / 15.09.07

User 774
Start Modding: 6, 9, 12

I think that the more power that Moderators have, the more important it is to get more Moderators, to distribute decisions across a larger portion of the board's population.

That said, This is my, admittedly embarassing in parts, Barbelith resume. Please bear in mind I've been posting for a while now, so some of that stuff is pretty cringeworthy.

Page: (1)2