New Moderators - the reasoning

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

folks,

I know some people are having misgivings about some of the recent moderator appointments so I thought I'd give a brief description of the reasoning behind them.

Firstly though I would point out we can only appoint people if they apply.... So people who say 'but there are lots of excellent citizens to choose from' are missing the point; if they don;t apply we can't choose them.

When I joined the moderating team for the first time the team was vibrant and alive. This was primarily because there was a really good mix of people in it from old, old TWC (and pre-TWC) hands to brand new members (me included). It meant a wide range of vews and, just as importantly, a good flow of promotions up the scale.

Recently (and I call the last year recently) the moderator position has had its problems (it got heavily politicised at one point) and has also paradoxically sufferred from the dedication of a number of senior members (me, Sim, Mim, Gig, Halie, imb etc have all been around a while).

Therefore, what I wanted to do wasinject a crop of new moderators who would bring a fresh perspective into the moderating team. At the same time I have brought back two old hands with oodles of experience to balance it out.

I feel very strongly that we have a really good mix of old and new, experienced and new, dyed in the wool TWC and those with external views.

Will all the new moderators work? Maybe not, however all junior moderators are assigned as part of a Strats team and their work reviwed every two months. If people aren't up to the job they will be removed.

So, before you critisise too heavily I'd ask you to give the people a chance, accept that it is essential for the future of TWC that 'new' moderators are brought in and given a chance to develop and (maybe) volunteer yourselves the next time (it was a surprise and slightly saddening that the bulk of applicants were non-citizens) - it'd be great to have you

Tac, CoM

[Silver Guard]

Theres a big difference between new blood into the team and a 78 post member, thats like arming a still crying infant for war. Can we really expect such a member to understand the nuances of moderating, the policies, the scrum with certain more problematic members?

Is it possible to see who applied or is there some confidentiality in that?

[Shaun]

Theres a big difference between new blood into the team and a 78 post member, thats like arming a still crying infant for war. Can we really expect such a member to understand the nuances of moderating, the policies, the scrum with certain more problematic members?

Is it possible to see who applied or is there some confidentiality in that?

That member stated in their application form that they have moderated elsewhere and have many other useful skills. So yes we can. I do not know if there is any confidetiality in that, so I will leave it for Tacticalwithdrawl to answer.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Theres a big difference between new blood into the team and a 78 post member, thats like arming a still crying infant for war. Can we really expect such a member to understand the nuances of moderating, the policies, the scrum with certain more problematic members?

the CdeC feel they are good enough to be a citizen........

Anyway, in the case in question its a bit special as the individual has actually been around TWC for some years, but has posted/moderated primarily in teir mod-team forum. So, they are most definately not as new to TWC as the mere post-count might indicate.

Is it possible to see who applied or is there some confidentiality in that?

nope, its confidential

[iudas]

The CdeC lets everyone in.
There is no contribution of the member in question to TWC visible to anyone more than you.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The CdeC lets everyone in.
There is no contribution of the member in question to TWC visible to anyone more than you.

which, if true, would kinda blow out the whole argument about 'Citizens are special and therefore only citizens should be moderators' which everyone keeps parroting to me.

You can't have it both ways; either citizens are special and therefore any citizen is good enough to be a moderator, or citizens are not special and therefore any member can be a moderator.

[iudas]

which, if true, would kinda blow out the whole argument about 'Citizens are special and therefore only citizens should be moderators' which everyone keeps parroting to me.

You can't have it both ways; either citizens are special and therefore any citizen is good enough to be a moderator, or citizens are not special and therefore any member can be a moderator.

Yeah, it kinda blows that whole argument.
I'm pretty annoyed that the citizen rank is now meaningless. I would honestly prefer to be stripped of the rank than see every n00b and one-linerer become citizen. But then again, I am not a total n00b and I have contributed to the site enough to be in the position of claiming that a member with no contributions shouldn't be a citizen.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Yeah, it kinda blows that whole argument.
I'm pretty annoyed that the citizen rank is now meaningless. I would honestly prefer to be stripped of the rank than see every n00b and one-linerer become citizen. But then again, I am not a total n00b and I have contributed to the site enough to be in the position of claiming that a member with no contributions shouldn't be a citizen.

Then propose a bill to up the contribution required before someone can be a citizen.

Just don't take it out on people that have fullfilled all the criteria required, jumped through all the hoops and also volunteered to be moderators (not pointed at you personally by the by, more a general observation)

[iudas]

Then propose a bill to up the contribution required before someone can be a citizen.

I can't possibly do that; I would like the CdeC to be harsher on selecting citizens, but a bill can't change the thinking of the CdeC and I'm not even a member of it (and far from being able to enter it, I'm sure).

[Tom Paine]

The CdeC does not in fact let everyone in, it does not however announce when it fails someone. The ratio was for a long time held at around 1/3 of candidates were unsuccessful; this has now fallen to around 1 in 10, but that is something to do with the candidates being proposed being of higher standards.

[Ragabash]

The CdeC does not in fact let everyone in, it does not however announce when it fails someone. The ratio was for a long time held at around 1/3 of candidates were unsuccessful; this has now fallen to around 1 in 10, but that is something to do with the candidates being proposed being of higher standards.

There used to be higher standards to become a citizen in the past(longer patronization and 75% requirement), both, constitutionally and on personal aspect. This does not make old candinates more worthy, but gives us a pretty good view about the future of the rank.

[Erich von Manstein]

Overall some excellent selections were made. Really, the only appointment I am confused and a little worried over is that of Empress Meg. Of primary importance is her lack of activity at this site, with an average of 0.25 posts per day. This means that she is either a recent arrival who simply has been a registered member for some time (much as I was last December) or a long-time lurker. Either way, such a level of activity is concerning given the lack of moderator activity that Staff has been facing. While I completely agree that the moderator position is not a rewarding one (primarly because, unlike virtually every other forum on the web, a moderator's decision here is far but final and quite open to criticism), surely we can find people who post on the site more than once every four days?

Furthermore, while experience on other sites is a good qualification, it should never be the deciding one. I know of several prominent members of this site who have been suspended and/or permabanned on other gaming sites. While partially attributable to different sites using different rules, people also behave differently on different sites (although in at least one of the aforementioned examples, we're just more tolerant than other sites ). Now, when you have a member such as sapi who has experience as a moderator on another site but is also quite active at this site, that experience is a boon. Experience on another site is worthless without activity at this site, however.

As for citizenship, well, as Tac has recently pointed out here, citizenship isn't much of a prereq for being a moderator. Sure, her contributions to the modding community may qualify her for citizenship, but I'm more concerned about her activity level. Members have been offered citizenship within a few days of becoming active. Choosing moderators on the same basis is folly, however, as it is far more important to have active moderators than it is to have active citizens.

As I said earlier, however, that particular appointment is the only exception in an otherwise outstanding batch - and, it would seem, my concerns will be rendered moot by the Curia.

[Fabolous]

Choosing moderators on the same basis is folly, however, as it is far more important to have active moderators than it is to have active citizens.

My problem with your arguement is your basis for guaging her activity. You say just 73 posts, but what does that prove? That she doesn't post much. Not that she isn't active. I'm not aware of Empress Meg's habits, so I can't speak to them. I can however, speak to my own. If you look at my posts count, it is rather high. If you look at my posts per day rating, it is around 7.7, and hovers there. That is a rather misleading number. It used to be over 10, and for much of my time on the site was over 8. Peaked around 15. In my younger days here, I would sometimes get 100 posts in a day. In reality, that was about 2-3 hours of site time, not a full day (obviously... not my highest quality posting). But lets look at lately. Before this post, I have 4 posts today. 2 are in staff, and are nothing but hello's and the accompanying banter. 2 are brillaint essays that read "voterized." I've spent 3 hours here today. I was here 2 hours yesterday, I didn't post. The day before, about 2 hours, three posts, two were in the CDC, one reflecting a vote and the other a mild debate retort. The day before, I estimate another 3 hours on the site, with just three posts. One in the CDC, reflecting a vote. The two consisted of "word" and "voterized." Before that, I was away, and so hadn't posted for awhile. So, in four days I've spent 10 hours, not all that much. But in that time, I've managed just 10 posts. Thats 2.5 a day. Take out my one word posts. Now we're down to 6 posts. I could continue.

I'm sure I've lost anyone reading this... because no gives a damn about my posting habits, so I'll just move foward with my point. In the 10 hours I've spent here since my return, if I hadn't just rejoined staff and was a member of the CDC, it would be entirely possible that I would have no posts. I've gone a week without posting, or atleast without posting anything but "voterized" despite reading TW and CC for hours. Posting doesn't reflect the type of activity that moderators need most, which is time spent on the forums.

[Tom Paine]

My problem with your arguement is your basis for guaging her activity. You say just 73 posts, but what does that prove? That she doesn't post much. Not that she isn't active. I'm not aware of Empress Meg's habits, so I can't speak to them. I can however, speak to my own. If you look at my posts count, it is rather high. If you look at my posts per day rating, it is around 7.7, and hovers there. That is a rather misleading number. It used to be over 10, and for much of my time on the site was over 8. Peaked around 15. In my younger days here, I would sometimes get 100 posts in a day. In reality, that was about 2-3 hours of site time, not a full day (obviously... not my highest quality posting). But lets look at lately. Before this post, I have 4 posts today. 2 are in staff, and are nothing but hello's and the accompanying banter. 2 are brillaint essays that read "voterized." I've spent 3 hours here today. I was here 2 hours yesterday, I didn't post. The day before, about 2 hours, three posts, two were in the CDC, one reflecting a vote and the other a mild debate retort. The day before, I estimate another 3 hours on the site, with just three posts. One in the CDC, reflecting a vote. The two consisted of "word" and "voterized." Before that, I was away, and so hadn't posted for awhile. So, in four days I've spent 10 hours, not all that much. But in that time, I've managed just 10 posts. Thats 2.5 a day. Take out my one word posts. Now we're down to 6 posts. I could continue.

I'm sure I've lost anyone reading this... because no [one] gives a damn about my posting habits, so I'll just move foward with my point. In the 10 hours I've spent here since my return, if I hadn't just rejoined staff and was a member of the CDC, it would be entirely possible that I would have no posts. I've gone a week without posting, or atleast without posting anything but "voterized" despite reading TW and CC for hours. Posting doesn't reflect the type of activity that moderators need most, which is time spent on the forums.

That bolded line says it all. Either we must care about the posting habits of all, old hands such as Fab included, or none.

[Shaun]

It seems to me that the requirements are still the same as in they were 4 years ago. In the mean time the forum has grown 10x or more. Perhaps it is time for a change.

Well, you are a citizen, you may propose a bill to change it!

Overall some excellent selections were made. Really, the only appointment I am confused and a little worried over is that of Empress Meg. Of primary importance is her lack of activity at this site, with an average of 0.25 posts per day. This means that she is either a recent arrival who simply has been a registered member for some time (much as I was last December) or a long-time lurker. Either way, such a level of activity is concerning given the lack of moderator activity that Staff has been facing. While I completely agree that the moderator position is not a rewarding one (primarly because, unlike virtually every other forum on the web, a moderator's decision here is far but final and quite open to criticism), surely we can find people who post on the site more than once every four days?

I partially agree, moderators should be active members before getting promoted, rather than suddenly become active posters after promotion (like Empress Meg; she had around 75 posts before recieving rank, now has around 95). Although, that said, I also agree that Staff is facing a slight lack of moderator activity, although I think the biggest problem is staff not checking the reports often enough, this goes for Junior and Senior staff. The reports need to be checked a lot more often, as checking the reports and acting on them is part of what makes a good moderator. One does not need a high post count, or high level of activity, to be able to do this basic, but important, moderating task. I have no doubts as to whether Empress Meg will not become more active.

Furthermore, while experience on other sites is a good qualification, it should never be the deciding one. I know of several prominent members of this site who have been suspended and/or permabanned on other gaming sites. While partially attributable to different sites using different rules, people also behave differently on different sites (although in at least one of the aforementioned examples, we're just more tolerant than other sites ). Now, when you have a member such as sapi who has experience as a moderator on another site but is also quite active at this site, that experience is a boon. Experience on another site is worthless without activity at this site, however.

What other site is this, the dot org? We have members here in prominent positions suspended from the dot org?

Seriously: I do not think Empress Meg's exprience on other sites was a key factor in deciding her promotion, albeit it was an important one.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

no, but you are a citizen so you could propose a change - for example make minimum posts 100

[iudas]

no, but you are a citizen so you could propose a change - for example make minimum posts 100

That wouldn't affect it much. Members like grumpyoldman who revolutionise something in modding, for example, may not be too active but deserve citizenship right from the start... while some members contribute little at 1000 posts.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I agree, I'm just pointing out an example of how you, as acitizen, could influence things

[Muizer]

Right. I do not have any misgivings about recent appointments. I didn't know some of them, so I just reviewed their posting record to get an idea. That's not a bad thing per se. For Empress I just added up the join date and obvious experience in the modding scene. Based on that she should be acceptable to the modding forums, I'd say. Putting her in the CC would be a different thing, but I trust that won't be happening.

[Mímirswell]

Right. I do not have any misgivings about recent appointments. I didn't know some of them, so I just reviewed their posting record to get an idea. That's not a bad thing per se. For Empress I just added up the join date and obvious experience in the modding scene. Based on that she should be acceptable to the modding forums, I'd say. Putting her in the CC would be a different thing, but I trust that won't be happening.

That was my reasoning. In addition, she has experience as a great deal pf moderator/administrator of the Lordz site and if people bother to read her posts (instead of just focusing on the number), they will note that she does PR work and her responses are exactly the mannerisms you would demonstrate as an excellent moderator.