Administration needs

Hey Fab don't joke about that. I am a woman and I am easily offended at some of the content on these forums. My fragile mind can't handle it.

lololol

anyway, i nominate myself or failing that throw in another vote for noxid and/or WoC

inb4 "you want it so you cant have it"

 

It doesn't seem like we would need to count a lot of votes, either. It seems like there's only really one small group of people on the forums that actually care about the administration.

Really, most of MG is either that group of people, or some new people here and there that aren't entirely educated on the forum's condition.

Then again, I'm probably entirely wrong since I only go on the IRC.

But that aside, who would be the candidates for moderator, anyway?

A forum mod/admin shouldn't be extremely active like me or fab or whomever checks New Posts all the time as well ("speak for yourself, wr!"). He should be active, yes, but not extremely. Why? Because he could see every little offence.

I'd vote for Noxid also, even though as DT said he only has passion for the mods section. What I like about him is his reasoning and maturity compared to us. I think it would be better naming people who shouldn't, be mods/admins.

I'm a fan of dictatorship, forum wise at least, so I say we should have little power over voting for whomever actually gets the spot. I know I know this sounds crazy for americans who had been living in capitalism for the last 200 years. But hear me out. We should have SOME power, like being able to give advice and opinions, even votes, to the authorities which are DT and...Well...DT. But as captain fab said, DT should ultimately have a veto. Although it doesn't sound grammatically correct.

 

Other problem is I think you're like me; i.e. you don't really have much passion for the site outside of the mods section. And really you end up having to deal with a lot of drama. Bets are you suddenly become a lot less popular after you actually get the position.

I think one of the big reasons you have lost popularity after becoming a mod is that you rarely explain your moderating decisions. A lot of people have accused you of being overly thread-lock-happy (I've thought this myself several times, though I can't recall having said anything about it). You've defended your position by saying things like:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you. Still, it would be better if, when you lock a thread, you mention and/or quote the user that requested the lock. If the user wishes to remain anonymous, simply say that: "I am locking this thread at the request of a user who wishes to remain anonymous."

 

Okay
a) I don't see the point in explaining things if I'm going to be ignored or especially if it's just going to elevate the drama,
b) I haven't been as lock-happy for a long time now, and I might have gotten a bit over-eager but it's not as though I really hurt anyone,
c) Holy shit that conversation happened forever ago,
d) Fire never did explain what it was he was specifically bothered about (and still hasn't), and
e) Stop telling me how to do my job :< It's not my job to babysit, and I've mentioned at every turn that if someone has something they want to discuss they can do it over PM. I have to make decisions on a macro basis, and trying to please everyone would just end up worse.

Also I was never popular and never tried to be. I just don't wanna see someone like Noxid suddenly copping flak for things they never did >:

 

a) Why would explaining things elevate drama? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, explaining would decrease drama. When you don't explain, it kinda makes you look like some big bad tyrant that goes around doing whatever he wants. I'm not saying you are a tyrant (I know you're not), but you kinda look like one when you communicate poorly, especially to newer members who don't really know you, and you can't really blame people for getting pissed off when they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are being governed unfairly.

b) fair enough

c) true; it was just the best example I could find atm

d) true but irrelevant

e/f) I was merely trying to help you, the forums, and mostly any soon-to-be moderator by pointing out that becoming unpopular isn't necessarily a consequence of becoming a moderator.

 

Wow, this thread got a lot of traffic in one day o:
I'm pretty sure that's a sign that people want something done, right?

Anyway I vote for noxid.

 

A forum mod/admin shouldn't be extremely active like me or fab or whomever checks New Posts all the time as well ("speak for yourself, wr!"). He should be active, yes, but not extremely. Why? Because he could see every little offence.

Uh, no. It shouldn't be to the point that he sees every little offence because there are a lot of little offences, every member on the forum should be able to behave themselves and follow the rules without a staff member telling them so.

And on the note on Noxid. Honestly, no offense to him. But I don't think he would make a very good Mod solely because I think he would be a little soft handed (It's an assumption so I could be wrong) and the last thing this forum needs is another soft handed staff member. While we don't need a complete hardass who is going to warn the members for every little thing, we need a staff member who is at least a little more firm handed than SP, DT or Andwhy has been.



inb4WildDesucallsmeanuptightcunt

 

the last thing this forum needs is another soft handed staff member. While we don't need a complete hardass who is going to warn the members for every little thing, we need a staff member who is at least a little more firm handed than SP, DT or Andwhy has been.

I don't really see why this is the case. Explain?

 

We don't need another idiot like me who leaves the forums because some users are giving him shit, because they suck.

 

We don't need another idiot like me who leaves the forums because some users are giving him shit, because they suck.

And I most certainly don't need your bitterness in my thread where we are actually trying to get something done.

We need someone who:

•is online often
•can and will enforce the rules
•is as close to unbaised as possible
•will listen to and take into account the opinions of the other members of this forum
•is not a dickhead

that's my list, I dunno about everyone else's, but I'd say that's a good start.

 

The only needs I see are someone who actually comes here and someone who doesn't abuse it.

And seriously, you guys make everything WAAAAAAAAAAY more complicated than it needs to be. You're treating DoubleThink like he's a conspirator against the forum, whereas he's trying to do the best job he can, while you guys get butthurt because you don't know every little detail about stuff you shouldn't even care about.

/endrant

 

This also reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from the Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy of five.

The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

 

I don't really see why this is the case. Explain?

What in the world is there to explain? SP, DT and Andwhy never have really done any real actual moderating. Heck, Andwhy went and demoted himself because I called him out and told him to start enforcing the rules better.

 

I'd nominate myself, except that I don't post enough (even though I'm online far more than could be considered healthy, I'm a bit shy), haven't been on the forums long enough, would be too embarrassed to lock threads when appropriate (once again, shy), and don't really want to do it in the first place.

Wait, what was the point of even saying that?

What in the world is there to explain? SP, DT and Andwhy never have really done any real actual moderating. Heck, Andwhy went and demoted himself because I called him out and told him to start enforcing the rules better.

I think you must have just not noticed all the moderating SP did. Besides, I don't think that the forums should be ruled under a dictatorship, I'm perfectly happy with how DT has been moderating.

 

a) Why would explaining things elevate drama? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, explaining would decrease drama. When you don't explain, it kinda makes you look like some big bad tyrant that goes around doing whatever he wants. I'm not saying you are a tyrant (I know you're not), but you kinda look like one when you communicate poorly, especially to newer members who don't really know you, and you can't really blame people for getting pissed off when they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are being governed unfairly.

This is traditionally the pattern that such discussions tend to take:

"I have some accusations here."
"I shall address these."
"Oh yeah well have this fresh batch of NEW accusations!"
*Continue ad nauseum*

It often feels (and has often proved true) that I'm going to get the same response regardless of whether I explain myself or not, because people have already got it into their heads what's right and what isn't. In such a case the only difference is that not-explaining myself saves me a bunch of work.

And seriously, you guys make everything WAAAAAAAAAAY more complicated than it needs to be. You're treating DoubleThink like he's a conspirator against the forum, whereas he's trying to do the best job he can, while you guys get butthurt because you don't know every little detail about stuff you shouldn't even care about.

/endrant

You wouldn't like to run for mod by any chance would you?

 

Alright so this is pretty sweet.
I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with this, really, so lets go ahead and get it done before the forums sink into a state of chaos.

I suggest having a small list of people who meet the requirements that cultr1 made, and then putting those names into a poll. Whomever has most votes on the poll within, say, 3 days, will be nominated for a position of power. It would be anonymous to prevent any "drama". If they refuse then we go to whomever came second would be nominated etc.

But first we'd need the users to go into the poll. Does anybody know anyone that would be suited besides Noxid? Perhaps DragonBoots? (although he can be a bit immature at times he can be very patient, understanding, and wise when he wants to be.)

 

You wouldn't like to run for mod by any chance would you?

Lol, I'll run, just to see if anyone would even consider having one of the newer users being a mod over someone like Noxid or WoC.

Edit:

a) Why would explaining things elevate drama? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, explaining would decrease drama. When you don't explain, it kinda makes you look like some big bad tyrant that goes around doing whatever he wants. I'm not saying you are a tyrant (I know you're not), but you kinda look like one when you communicate poorly, especially to newer members who don't really know you, and you can't really blame people for getting pissed off when they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are being governed unfairly.

Look at it this way; if you heard that "X and Y broke up" there obviously wouldn't be any drama if you didn't ask any questions, because, as you know, X and Y are both complete whores. If you asked what happened, and were told "Y slapped X while in public with her friends", then drama ensues.

Point being: If it's as feeble as locking a thread, or banning someone who would've been banned tenfold on any other forum, asking silly questions about stuff that is already assumed to be common knowledge to active forum go-ers is generally retarded. (And non active forum go-ers shouldn't give two shits.)

 

Lol, I'll run, just to see if anyone would even consider having one of the newer users being a mod over someone like Noxid or WoC.

Well so far the current list of potential new mods appears to look like this:

-Noxid

Not much point in holding a poll yet.

Point being: If it's as feeble as locking a thread, or banning someone who would've been banned tenfold on any other forum, asking silly questions about stuff that is already assumed to be common knowledge to active forum go-ers is generally retarded. (And non active forum go-ers shouldn't give two shits.)

Marry me

 

I think I would consider Wedge of Cheese to be a candidate; He's level-headed and seems to care. Perhaps a bit too forgiving at times, but eh.

 

Marry me

Maybe later.

As stated earlier, Noxid's passion is set towards the hacking section (and I don't blame him, he's one of the best ones here) but if he has no real interest in other types of threads, then I feel he might be working a bit against his will by checking every other thread for potential problems. Edit:

I spend so much time mashing the New Posts button that I threw a fit when it got the 60-second timer :eek:
Granted, I was already having a pretty rotten day, but still.

This is me analyzing the situation. I still think Noxid deserves the adminmodship well over me since I haven't even been into Cave Story for a year, and not to mention he's done more to mod hacking and this forum in general it's almost an insult that he hasn't been rewarded in such a feeble way as a modminship.