Any suggestions for improvements?

frozenowl3 said:I haven't seen a single appeal actually upheld. Sure, maybe there are tiny oversights here and there, but bans stay in place. You always seem to find even the most absurd justifications just to ensure you aren't proven wrong—I've read plenty of those threads on the forums, and honestly, they’re quite the entertainment.

It reached a point where I had to comment on how ridiculous a situation was: a user got banned in the pet section simply because she asked why her cat had been returned when there was no explanation provided. I mean, I was asking myself the exact same thing!

You see all kinds of things on the internet... But if a user is actually right? Never.

Actually, you're wrong there. There have been plenty of cases where warnings were rescinded, just like bans being lifted.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Actually, you're wrong there. There have been plenty of cases where warnings were rescinded, just like bans being lifted.

Yeah. And I’d go a step further and say most of those situations get sorted out without even involving the higher-ups. Usually through the Prime Minister's Office.
Basically, people only end up escalating things to the top when they can't settle it with the local mods.

The oversight committee is mostly just for show at this point. From what I can tell, you rarely get a coherent answer from the mods. You get banned for trolling—maybe you racked up too many points—and then you ask why you got flagged, only to hear: because you were trolling... 🙄

Regarding the Prime Minister's Office, maybe that works on those niche forums like the local news boards or government portals where the vibe is more intimate and there’s a real connection between the mods and the users. On most other sites, the communication is pretty blunt and standoffish.

The truth is, just like anything else, you've got good moderators and bad ones. As long as the good group stays larger, most people will be fine.

...quite the opposite, really. The answer is going to be that the ban is just the direct result of their own track record of violations,
but they can't seem to remember that they kept breaking the rules even after being warned through official strikes...
...and then, with total audacity, they play dumb and start a whole new thread asking, "Wait, why was I banned..?"
...it's exactly like how this current thread is being trolled right now, only for there to be a fresh wave of complaints about trolling later on...

loneraven25 said:...quite the opposite, really. The answer is going to be that the ban is just the direct result of their own track record of violations,
but they can't seem to remember that they kept breaking the rules even after being warned through official strikes...
...and then, with total audacity, they play dumb and start a whole new thread asking, "Wait, why was I banned..?"
...it's exactly like how this current thread is being trolled right now, only for there to be a fresh wave of complaints about trolling later on...

Honestly, I hope you realize, as a moderator, that strikes last a full month. I don't know about you, but I don't write ten posts a month, so it's not like I'm tracking exactly when my strikes expire.
Your explanation about repeated offenses after warnings is honestly a joke. It’s like, okay, I get one strike, then another two weeks later, then the final one two weeks after that, and suddenly I shouldn't complain about the last one because the first two were "justified." So if the last one was actually unfair? Well, tough luck.

Besides, you had a perfect example recently over at that local community board where someone was banned for three days and nobody gave her a single response. Then, a day or two ago, she admitted here that maybe she shouldn't have gotten the strike, but by the time they realized it, the ban was almost over anyway. Just pointing that out as a recent example of how nobody ever speaks up on those boards. Not saying it happens every time, though.

Regarding brightstag9's suggestion about downvoting moderators. We really should implement some kind of rating system or something. I just haven't figured out the specifics. Maybe like user strikes, but for moderators, handled by administration based on user complaints. Provided the user actually gives a solid reason for the complaint, of course.

brightpuma said:Honestly, I hope you realize, as a moderator, that strikes last a full month. I don't know about you, but I don't write ten posts a month, so it's not like I'm tracking exactly when my strikes expire.
Your explanation about repeated offenses after warnings is honestly a joke. It’s like, okay, I get one strike, then another two weeks later, then the final one two weeks after that, and suddenly I shouldn't complain about the last one because the first two were "justified." So if the last one was actually unfair? Well, tough luck.

Besides, you had a perfect example recently over at that local community board where someone was banned for three days and nobody gave her a single response. Then, a day or two ago, she admitted here that maybe she shouldn't have gotten the strike, but by the time they realized it, the ban was almost over anyway. Just pointing that out as a recent example of how nobody ever speaks up on those boards. Not saying it happens every time, though.

Regarding brightstag9's suggestion about downvoting moderators. We really should implement some kind of rating system or something. I just haven't figured out the specifics. Maybe like user strikes, but for moderators, handled by administration based on user complaints. Provided the user actually gives a solid reason for the complaint, of course.

Like Nicholas King mentioned, there’s already a mechanism in place where negative feedback accumulates even if the admins don't officially log it in a moderator's file. I actually asked brightstag9 earlier how that specific part would function.

I once visited a forum that used the exact system he's describing (it looks like they imported the code from somewhere), and honestly, after seeing it in action, I thought the people who implemented it were out of their minds. It just doesn't work at all.

I am officially filing a complaint against the moderator—or perhaps a senior admin if one is watching—Nicholas King, for allowing blatant insults to go unchecked within this thread!

I honestly didn't even realize this thread I started was still active; I totally thought it had been deleted. 🙂
It looks like it's turned into a bit of a grievance forum now...

Sophia Thomas7 said:How many votes would it actually take for someone to become a moderator, and from which users? If the threshold is low, it’s way too easy for a small group to just coordinate and vote for whoever they want. If it’s high, we might never see a single new moderator. Also, do negative votes count against the positive ones? Who gets to vote—just people in the specific sub-forum being moderated, or everyone on the site? And is there a minimum post count required to participate in the voting?

Besides, you're preaching democracy on a forum that isn't yours, one you don't pay for, and one you can walk away from whenever you feel like it.😬

If anyone gets their post deleted or receives a warning, they’ll just throw a downvote at the moderator. How are you supposed to decide which downvotes are legitimate and which are just petty? What if someone creates a burner account, starts a thread, and then the thread gets deleted—do they get to downvote the mod for that?

Both of these ideas have been tried on other forums before, and the results were pretty messy:
- A massive wave of bans because certain mods just became untouchable by using alt accounts or rallying their friends.
- Half of the PDF sections ended up without any moderators because nobody could ever scrape together enough votes to win an election.

😬

Great. Now I guess I need to write a PhD thesis detailing every single step of the election process. 😁 Honestly, if you use even a shred of common sense, you'll see this isn't some brilliant idea. If you need ten moderators, you hold a vote and the first ten people to hit the mark get the job. Simple. That would definitely be fairer than what we have now. So, how are mods actually picked today?
As for the rating system, look, I think the suggestion is solid. Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean we should toss the idea out. You implement safeguards to stop that from happening. It's like saying the government shouldn't hold elections because people might cheat, or we shouldn't have a court system because judges might be corrupt. That's a weak argument.
Plus, there'd probably be way less fighting with staff if the community actually chose its own moderators. Right now, it feels like nobody can figure out how to pick them. People aren't here for the mods; the mods exist for the people. If there are no users, the mods have nothing to moderate.
BTW, this thread is about suggestions for improvement, and your response to the proposal was basically "you don't pay for it and you can leave anytime".

brightstag9 said:Great. Now I guess I need to write a PhD thesis detailing every single step of the election process. 😁 Honestly, if you use even a shred of common sense, you'll see this isn't some brilliant idea. If you need ten moderators, you hold a vote and the first ten people to hit the mark get the job. Simple. That would definitely be fairer than what we have now. So, how are mods actually picked today?
As for the rating system, look, I think the suggestion is solid. Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean we should toss the idea out. You implement safeguards to stop that from happening. It's like saying the government shouldn't hold elections because people might cheat, or we shouldn't have a court system because judges might be corrupt. That's a weak argument.
Plus, there'd probably be way less fighting with staff if the community actually chose its own moderators. Right now, it feels like nobody can figure out how to pick them. People aren't here for the mods; the mods exist for the people. If there are no users, the mods have nothing to moderate.
BTW, this thread is about suggestions for improvement, and your response to the proposal was basically "you don't pay for it and you can leave anytime".

I suspect things might be a bit more coherent if you actually specified which two moderators you feel are so "unthinkable," and perhaps offered a couple of your own suggestions for managing those digital files.

brightstag9 said:Great. Now I guess I need to write a PhD thesis detailing every single step of the election process. 😁 Honestly, if you use even a shred of common sense, you'll see this isn't some brilliant idea. If you need ten moderators, you hold a vote and the first ten people to hit the mark get the job. Simple. That would definitely be fairer than what we have now. So, how are mods actually picked today?
As for the rating system, look, I think the suggestion is solid. Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean we should toss the idea out. You implement safeguards to stop that from happening. It's like saying the government shouldn't hold elections because people might cheat, or we shouldn't have a court system because judges might be corrupt. That's a weak argument.
Plus, there'd probably be way less fighting with staff if the community actually chose its own moderators. Right now, it feels like nobody can figure out how to pick them. People aren't here for the mods; the mods exist for the people. If there are no users, the mods have nothing to moderate.
BTW, this thread is about suggestions for improvement, and your response to the proposal was basically "you don't pay for it and you can leave anytime".

Look, I already laid out why none of those suggestions are actually doable without running into a massive wall of issues. And do you seriously believe that once someone is democratically elected to lead, they won't face a wave of resentment or "hate" from people down the line? 🙂

I really think the forum should implement a star rating system, just so we can highlight our most active and high-quality contributors...

...it was pretty much the same deal when people started talking about adding a "thanks" button,
where you could just give a quick click to show some appreciation for a helpful reply or a great post...