|
Post by 𝕡𝕖𝕡𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕥 on Jul 29, 2016 19:32:21 GMT -5
I haven't seen any ads yet... Me either, thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by luna on Jul 29, 2016 19:37:04 GMT -5
sore wa chigau zo!! ..sorry had to say that. basically, i know why the boards have no ads;
|
|
|
|
Post by Turtleshell on Jul 29, 2016 19:44:55 GMT -5
What does that mean? Hero paid so there are no ads? I hope not, Hero shouldn't do that for us...What else can it be?
|
|
|
Post by luna on Jul 29, 2016 19:48:27 GMT -5
it was gifted to us by a user named roswell, actually! it says right there.
|
|
|
Post by Turtleshell on Jul 29, 2016 19:49:45 GMT -5
Oh okay! That's so awesome, thanks Roswell!!! I hope they didn't have to pay though!!!
|
|
❆αυяσяα
remember that scene from up with the old man? Yeah. Sad.
|
Post by ❆αυяσяα on Jul 29, 2016 19:52:41 GMT -5
Ahhh, good! No ads..
|
|
|
Post by needleflight on Jul 29, 2016 20:20:00 GMT -5
I haven't seen any ads as of late; maybe they'll pop up later, Roswell told us that it only blocks ads for Tomo.
|
|
❆αυяσяα
remember that scene from up with the old man? Yeah. Sad.
|
Post by ❆αυяσяα on Jul 29, 2016 20:26:32 GMT -5
Oh, well I'm assuming its only for the first week or so that we won't have any ads. Rats.
|
|
Bisexual
#ffc5c5
Official Queen of Fan Clans
Name Colour
ʀᴀɪɴʟᴇᴀғ 🍁
Official ThunderClan & ElmClan Leader
Easing back in
|
Post by ʀᴀɪɴʟᴇᴀғ 🍁 on Jul 29, 2016 21:00:39 GMT -5
Adding on to Vala's post..
Waiting a few days to a week or two would also help with seeing how many mods we may possibly need. It may also be a good idea to assign a certain type of mod instead of general mods in case of power abuse. For example, we could have a mod that solely moderates The Clans and The Cats.
I feel like that would be better per say over random people. The person would need some type of level of expertise in that category to also help forumers in general because mods aren't just there to delete, suspend, ban, and the negative things, but also help people.
|
|
|
Post by needleflight on Jul 29, 2016 21:02:57 GMT -5
^ That's actually a really good suggestion imo.
|
|
|
|
New mods
Jul 29, 2016 23:44:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by [~Ghost Writer~] on Jul 29, 2016 23:44:59 GMT -5
I'm surprised my little thread got a lot of replies
|
|
|
New mods
Jul 30, 2016 10:27:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Northstar3213 on Jul 30, 2016 10:27:15 GMT -5
Personally I think whoever can do the job best should get to be a mod. Obviously old farts like myself who have been around on the original WCF are candidates that should be considered, as we've seen the original site evolve. But the problem with that is that not everyone can do the job without a bias, especially with the site becoming so massive as the mass exodus from the original site is taking place. Now a smaller site is easier to run as everyone has a mutual respect for what should be appropriate and what shouldn't be. And there in lies the rub, this is a massive site already and while mods will be necessary for things to run smoothly. Mods shouldn't have as much power as an admin, and should report to the admin what precautions should be taken (such as new rules) but ultimately that decision lies with the admin. If anything there should be an application process which people who would like to be considered to be a mod should send in a resume and an application to the admin and they pick whatever candidates they deem worthy. Now to prevent any bias where they would pick friends, if a friend of the admin wants to be considered, their application should be directed to a neutral third party.
|
|
|
New mods
Jul 30, 2016 10:31:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Northstar3213 on Jul 30, 2016 10:31:09 GMT -5
Also I must say that page numbers don't show up on mobile for threads
|
|
Asexual
ᴛᴜᴇsᴅᴀʏ
do you walk in the valley of kings? do you walk in the shadow of men who sold their lives to dream?
|
Post by ᴛᴜᴇsᴅᴀʏ on Jul 30, 2016 10:34:17 GMT -5
i think we should apply with a form via pm. obviously, those who demonstrate patience and politeness as well as experience and maturity should be chosen. no popularity contests. those can turn corrupt. this would be my suggestion. mods should demonstrate both a strong sense of maturity and helpfulness, not to mention a desire to actually be a mod. you don't want mods who feel like they'd been burdened with the job, even if they're an ideal candidate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕡𝕖𝕡𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕥 on Jul 30, 2016 10:43:46 GMT -5
If an application were to be done, maybe the applicant should have to be meet a certain criteria. For example:
*Must have been on the old forums for X amount of time. *Must have been on the new forums for X amount of time. *Must average a minimum of X posts a day. *Must be at least X years old. *Must be of X rank. *Ectetera.
This is just an idea, but I think it could work, and help weed out the unworthy candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Brownie on Jul 30, 2016 10:48:42 GMT -5
i think we should apply with a form via pm. obviously, those who demonstrate patience and politeness as well as experience and maturity should be chosen. no popularity contests. those can turn corrupt. this would be my suggestion. mods should demonstrate both a strong sense of maturity and helpfulness, not to mention a desire to actually be a mod. you don't want mods who feel like they'd been burdened with the job, even if they're an ideal candidate otherwise. This is the way we pulled mods for the other wcf sites and it worked rather well. There was a form that could be pm'ed to the admin with some questions on it (such as age range, time zone, but also scenarios like 'what would you do if a forumer posted inappropriate images?' and 'what if this offence was committed multiple times from the same forumer?' ect. as well as general questions about the site they'd be expected to answer "where is --" "how do you -- on these forums" ect.) Using this, the admin(s) could see how the mods would be able to work and handle the job: if they're too loose or too strict on the rules or don't know enough of the site themselves to be of help to members. cx With this, Wonder and Tues put up good points on patience, politeness and maturity in the position. I don't remember who brought up the neutral third party issue, but that's also something to touch on. Because moderators would also be using the site, we would have friend here too. There should be a range of moderators from different. . . circles, for lack of a better word -- so that if an issue comes up concerning bias towards certain forumers, another moderator could moderate fairly. Or if all moderators seem to have bias, they could work together (introduce a mod-only access pm group or forum if possible?) to come up with a fairer solution to the problem. Keeping everything fair and safe would be the goal of the moderators here. Fair and safe.
|
|
|
Post by Fuzzymask on Jul 30, 2016 10:52:37 GMT -5
I haven't seen any ads yet... Me either, thankfully. Same!
|
|
|
Post by luna on Jul 30, 2016 12:30:49 GMT -5
If an application were to be done, maybe the applicant should have to be meet a certain criteria. For example: *Must have been on the old forums for X amount of time. *Must have been on the new forums for X amount of time. *Must average a minimum of X posts a day. *Must be at least X years old. *Must be of X rank. *Ectetera. This is just an idea, but I think it could work, and help weed out the unworthy candidates. oooh, i like this. definitely nothing too harsh though
|
|
|
Post by Sorrelcloud on Jul 30, 2016 13:07:50 GMT -5
I'm sure we can all trust Tomorrow's Hero's judgment in this regard. I'd leave it up to them. I have to respectfully disagree with your suggestion of having the majority vote for the new mods, though. As much as I understand where you're coming from, like others have said.. I can foresee it becoming a huge popularity contest and a lot of feelings may be hurt.
|
|
|
Post by needleflight on Jul 30, 2016 13:26:55 GMT -5
If an application were to be done, maybe the applicant should have to be meet a certain criteria. For example: *Must have been on the old forums for X amount of time. *Must have been on the new forums for X amount of time. *Must average a minimum of X posts a day. *Must be at least X years old. *Must be of X rank. *Ectetera. This is just an idea, but I think it could work, and help weed out the unworthy candidates. The problem with this is that some of us haven't been on the forums a very long time, but we know the ins and outs, are polite, calm, and helpful. Same with the age thing. Even at a younger age, I've seen forumers with a continuously optimistic and reasonable personality.
|
|
|
Post by Auransky on Jul 30, 2016 13:37:05 GMT -5
The problem with voting is that there's a high likelihood it will turn into a popularity contest. I will take a moment to agree with this. ^^ While voting/mentioning older members would be a good idea. It is also usually a high probability that popularity contests arise because of popular demand, and people get in on it. When I used to be in the marching band, one thing our band director would always let us pick the most, 'honorable band student." HOWEVER she always told us that it would turn into a popularity contest. Which it usually would, as she explained to me one day when we were sitting around filing music. Another forums system I joined just added "Honorable counsel" We had to go through an application process, explain who we are, how long we been following the content/lore. Personal achievements/related content achievements/things we know on how to help benifet the system then lastly how long have we been with the site. They picked a few out of many applicants, and looking to later expand.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 14:39:21 GMT -5
If an application were to be done, maybe the applicant should have to be meet a certain criteria. For example: *Must have been on the old forums for X amount of time. *Must have been on the new forums for X amount of time. *Must average a minimum of X posts a day. *Must be at least X years old. *Must be of X rank. *Ectetera. This is just an idea, but I think it could work, and help weed out the unworthy candidates. For age, I think 18+ would be good. These people are adults and likely have been using the original forums for a while now. It's also the age the government legally believes you can make your own choices (as in, voting) The whole idea of the original mods were to protect the community minors and keep the service safe for all ages. If it was minors like myself guiding/protecting other minors I think things could end up messy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 14:47:31 GMT -5
On the subject of bias, it'll be very concerning if mods are hired that have a clear vendetta against another user. Some people asking to be mods here I have caught talking behind my back, and I know we are to let go of personal grudges who knows how that'd go down once they were given power. For that reason, a sort of discussion group for mods would be good before choices are made.
The forums have also proven that group mentalities are common. When one person says something, many begin to flock and agree with them without questioning things themself. A good trait for moderators would be the ability to think for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by luna on Jul 30, 2016 14:58:28 GMT -5
ages.. really don't matter. like i said, it matters more about maturity.
adults can be just as argumentative and rude and biased as children.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 15:09:48 GMT -5
ages.. really don't matter. like i said, it matters more about maturity. adults can be just as argumentative and rude and biased as children. I know, I'm just going off of the base there's a reason many forums make the mininum age to become a mod 18. Mods are like guardians in a way, and a levelheaded adult seems like the best candidate. Even 17 or 16 would be fine, but I do think an older person is better than somebody who is likely still dependant on their parents. Nearly all members here have had a past on the forums and a bias. We've all had instances of being rude, I don't think we can escape that with any selection.
|
|
|
Post by Shrike on Jul 30, 2016 15:11:56 GMT -5
ages.. really don't matter. like i said, it matters more about maturity. adults can be just as argumentative and rude and biased as children. ^ on this topic, it's also difficult to verify ages, and if there WERE to be an age rule, there would need to be a form of age verification to go along with it. i've caught members on the old forum going from saying they were 12 years old one day to 21 the next (sadly, not an exaggeration). it's better, most likely, to mix age and maturity when it comes to deciding on moderators, and not rely on age alone.
|
|
|
Post by needleflight on Jul 30, 2016 15:12:38 GMT -5
ages.. really don't matter. like i said, it matters more about maturity. adults can be just as argumentative and rude and biased as children. Agreed. ^ I feel as if maturity isn't defined by age?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 15:14:55 GMT -5
I did some reading and apparently there can be some legal issues with having minors be moderators? I'll read more on this as it could possibly just be when a moderator is being paid for their service.
|
|