| |
|
I had various ideas along this line, and Tannhauser, Sax and Rothkoid have pretty much expressed them (instant temporary action followed up with more considered, greater-moderated permanence if voted for) in one way or another.
But I think rather than adding to the already relatively satisfactory number of top-level moderators, perhaps extending some moderation capabilities to a larger number is an idea to consider. Four forum-specific moderators per forum is about enough to catch most things in the bud. But for these more serious moderator powers we're considering, I think greater numbers required for votes is a fair balance. And so perhaps a system of "floating mods" - not attached to any specific forum, but able to chip in wherever a decision is made.
This is moving towards that ultimate goal of no moderators, all users with equal power, total democracy (and something I'm a little sceptical of). But a move in that direction isn't a bad idea. We've got a good idea what WE want to be able to do re: moderator power, to stop problems such as we've had, and to keep the forums in check like we do already. What we ought to consider is the moderation system, and consider it from the ground up - don't base the new version on what we have, necessarily. This works. But that doesn't mean something entirely different won't work better.
I think. I had a post for here all thought out, and it's been pretty much said already; so that's me ruminating. Hope it makes some sense. |
|
|
