CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Moderator and Super-mod requirements/criteria

Moderator and Super-mod requirements/criteria

Started by placidmarlin3 · · 👁 4 views · 50 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants placidmarlin3mellowraven22Megan White4wiredangler5William Green4jadetrucker43Michelle Alvarez8Sophia Evans76Jessica Nguyen85John HillDrew Brooks8Henry Moore2ironbear6gentlecanyon92hollowdriver18feraltrucker5David Foster80
placidmarlin3 placidmarlin3 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Apr 2013
#1 ·
I’m genuinely curious about the specific criteria the leadership here uses to handpick
supermoderators and moderators.

Is this role handed out based on nepotism, romantic entanglements, or just being part of the right social circle, or does it actually require things like an ability to judge situations objectively, emotional stability, and a decent grasp of technical skills?

It’s quite fascinating, really—for instance, when a moderator responded to my own thread in the Pets section with total rudeness, essentially encouraging people to ignore American pet ownership laws, my response was wiped. Then, when I questioned the deletion and posted again to reiterate the actual legal standards regarding pets in the US, the highly sophisticated supermoderator mellowraven22 slapped me with a warning for "trolling."

What kind of power trip is that?
And it doesn't stop there!
Look at this: a moderator posts a thread, locks it, but then because of that very action,
I get flagged for trolling—just like that poor soul who got penalized for venting about their ISP or whatever else.

Honestly, what are you all playing at?
Come on, you’re dealing with actual human beings, not some avatars from Second Life.
Out of a community of 100,000 people, is there truly not a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who is mentally balanced and free from deep-seated frustrations, capable of leading this forum with objectivity instead of leaning into that whole "some are more equal than others" mentality?

Who are these rules actually meant for?
If this is how it works, just scrap the rulebook entirely and let tyranny reign supreme. Why bother pretending we have any semblance of democracy
when the reality is clearly nothing like it?
mellowraven22 mellowraven22 Active Member
105 messages
joined Jan 2007
#2 ·
placidmarlin3 said:Basically, it’s just wild how my own moderator responds so incredibly rude on my own thread in the Pets section—basically encouraging people to ignore US pet ownership laws, too. Then my reply gets nuked, and when I ask why it was deleted, or even try to repost the part about American legal regulations regarding pets, that "expert" supermoderator mellowraven22 hands out a warning for trolling?!

You're lying.

Here is the actual post you got warned for trolling on:

Who even gives you the right to delete my post?
What?
Since you can't be bothered to actually engage with what I'm saying, you just pull rank and deny everyone else their rights??
And YOU are lecturing ME about tolerance?

Where is your tolerance for MY OPINION??
Where is your tolerance for PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID OF ANIMALS?
Where is your respect for the laws of this country and the society we live in?

And this person is a moderator!
Someone who is supposed to set an example for everyone else.
Shame on you!

Delete this too and I'll call the admin to see what you're doing!

That right there is why you got a warning for trolling, though honestly, it could've been for harassment. If you don't put any real substance in your posts and just spend all your time being hysterically dramatic, you're gonna end up with a warning.
placidmarlin3 placidmarlin3 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Apr 2013
#3 ·
mellowraven22 said:You're lying.

This is the exact post you were flagged for trolling:

You got hit with a warning for trolling here, though honestly, it could have easily been for being insulting.

Insulting???
Where exactly is the insult or the trolling in this?

My post was deleted because I was responding to a moderator who’s accusing me of INTOLERANCE just because I pointed out that walking a pet without a leash is actually ILLEGAL!

So, we have someone who encourages people to let their pets roam free—blaming it on unruly kids or whatever excuse they want to use—acting like some kind of moral authority on an American pet forum. Instead of promoting respect for the laws that require owners to carry bags and keep their pets on a leash, she turns around and calls me intolerant. She also targets those of us in this community who might be wary of unleashed dogs, whether they belong to aggressive breeds or not. Personally, I think every single dog is potentially dangerous because you can never truly know what’s going through its head, regardless of how well-trained it seems, especially when dealing with certain breeds. Interestingly enough, you didn't delete or flag her comments, yet you went ahead and wiped my posts where I explained that owners of unleashed pets are the ones being intolerant toward small children, parents, and anyone else who might be frightened by animals running wild and lunging at leashed dogs or pedestrians!

Truly objective work on your part; bravo!

Anyway, so we don't derail this whole thread just to focus on your disastrously arrogant moderation style, I’m actually interested in the question from the very first line. So, be a gentleman and let us actually discuss it.
mellowraven22 mellowraven22 Active Member
105 messages
joined Jan 2007
#4 ·
placidmarlin3 said:What do you mean, what kind of insult???
Where even is your sense of being insulted? Like, where's the trolling at? I don't get it.

Take a closer look. Seriously. What did you even write up there that actually belongs in this conversation? Besides one cheap personal shot, what was the actual substance? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Honestly, just a total waste of bandwidth.

So my post just got nuked. I was basically calling out the mod because she’s trying to label me as "intolerant" just because I’m pointing out that walking your pet without a leash is actually illegal. Like, seriously? It's not about being mean, it's just the law. Simple as that.

You’re lying again. Seriously. Don't make me go back and dig up that other post too. 😉

So, here we go again. We’ve got this one person acting like some kind of moral compass on that Pet Owners forum, you know? The same person who actually defends those off-leash dogs by blaming everything from unruly kids to whatever else, instead of just doing the right thing. Instead of promoting the actual laws—like, hey, grab a bag and clean up after your dog—she’s out here calling me intolerant. It’s wild. She’s labeling me and anyone else in this group as "intolerant" just because we might be wary of an off-leash dog. And look, I’ll say it straight: I think *every* dog without a leash is a risk. You can’t wrap your head around what’s going on inside a dog's brain, no matter how well-trained they claim to be. Especially when you're talking about certain breeds... but hey, she conveniently ignored all my points about that. Instead, she just went ahead and nuked my posts where I was pointing out the real issue. The truth is, owners who let their dogs run wild are the ones being intolerant. They aren't showing any respect for little kids, parents, or anyone else who might be nervous around a dog charging at them. It’s pretty simple, really. When you have animals running around uncontrolled, charging at people or other leashed dogs, you're the one causing the problem. Period.

Total lie. Seriously. Right after she dropped that perfectly decent post—which, by the way, you just decided you hated for reasons only you could possibly understand—you immediately went off on this massive tirade of insults and... Just straight up attacking someone personally instead of actually talking about the point... total ad hominem move. Typical.Look, instead of just banning you, I’m—well, I’m a total piece of work, whatever that means—I just went ahead and deleted that post. I was hoping you'd catch on to what you're doing wrong here.

Nah, you still aren't getting it, which is exactly why everything is hitting the fan.

Look, just so we don't derail this whole thing into a massive debate about your totally disastrous and arrogant way of moderating, I actually want to get to that question right at the top. So, be a decent human being for once and let us actually talk about it.

Cosmic injustice. Just... cosmic. And your paranoid conspiracy theories aren't even hitting right. Honestly, this is exactly my vibe. Just right..

Honestly, I’m done with you. Seriously. Once you actually learn how to have a decent conversation, maybe then hit us up. Until then, the mods are more than welcome to dig through your deleted posts and old threads to see exactly how you carry yourself in a subforum that’s actually trying to be helpful and straightforward. If you can't jump into a discussion without resorting to personal attacks, throwing total tantrums, or just straight-up being toxic, then we don't need you here. Period. Pets.

That’s me, done for the day. Over and out.
placidmarlin3 placidmarlin3 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Apr 2013
#5 ·
mellowraven22 said:You’re lying again; don't make me pull that post out of my back pocket too. 😉

And where exactly am I lying?
I’m with you on that one.
Go ahead, pull that one out too!
My post, which you saw get wiped away, was actually just a response to my previous missing entry regarding intolerance—I was simply calling for people to act with a bit more decency and order.
It’s always the same story, isn't it? You see people out for a stroll, walking dogs of every imaginable size and breed, but there’s always that one specific type of person—the ones who think they’ve mastered nature—who decides to let their "tough" breeds roam free without a leash. It’s like watching someone try to steer a runaway freight train with nothing but a polite suggestion; you just know that if things go sideways, nobody is prepared. There’s a certain level of recklessness in letting a powerful breed wander off-leash, acting as if the local park is some kind of unregulated wilderness rather than a shared space where everyone else is actually following the rules.

Honestly, I’m done with you. Once you actually learn how to hold a civil conversation, feel free to reach out, but until then, the moderators are more than welcome to dig through your archived and deleted posts to get a clear picture of how you behave in a subforum that’s actually trying to be productive and helpful. If you can't participate in a discussion without resorting to personal attacks, hysterical outbursts, and just plain verbal trash, then we don't have any use for you here. Pets.

In case you haven't quite caught on, the Pets subforum is my territory, specifically regarding this discussion about dogs and their ego-driven, often frankly nauseating owners. These people seem to believe the entire universe revolves around them and their mutts wandering through public parks and between apartment buildings, disrupting the lives of everyone else who might have allergies, phobias, or simply doesn't share this uninvited obsession. They’re out there flouting rules—and if they aren't breaking the specific guidelines here on the forum, they are certainly violating the local ordinances of the United States. A moderator should be aware of that, particularly the supermod overseeing the Pets section; if nothing else, for the sake of the animals and their owners, they ought to uphold those standards rather than accusing me of "intolerance" just because I’m calling for some basic decency from people who let their animals roam off-leash or fail to pick up after them. The conversation was actually heading in a perfectly reasonable direction until you decided to jump in, so it makes me wonder: who exactly is the redundant presence in the Pets subforum here?
I have a dog, and honestly, I find it perfectly normal when he decides to leave a little something behind while we're strolling past the local dog parks; that’s why I always make sure to carry extra bags and stock up on plenty of waste bags.
mellowraven22 mellowraven22 Active Member
105 messages
joined Jan 2007
#6 ·
placidmarlin3 said:Delete the post!

In this thread, quoting post number 2.

Where am I lying??
Highlight it!
Sure, delete that one too!

Interesting take from one moderator.
Instead of actually educating people, you’re out here defending stuff that breaks the law and just doesn't make sense.
And hey, before you start preaching about "intolerance," maybe ask yourself how incredibly self-centered you have to be to try and force your own little worldview—which totally ignores actual laws—onto everyone else. You talk about tolerance, but what about being tolerant of the rest of the world? Not everyone shares your extreme obsession with animals. Some people might even, get this, be afraid of them. Like, imagine having a panic attack because some massive dog, sized like a freaking pony, is bounding through a local playground or running through the fields between two apartment buildings. Where’s the tolerance there, oh wonderful, empathetic moderator?
I can see you're really getting worked up over this topic, so clearly you're one of those so-called "animal whisperers." You know, the ones who think they can predict every move a pet makes or practically swap souls with them. You probably think you know exactly how your dog will react at any second. Well, newsflash: that whole "spiritual connection" thing means absolutely nothing to me. And yeah, rest assured, I'm going to keep pushing and making noise until I see some actual action. I'm stubbornly persistent, that's just how I am. Don't worry, I won't stop until I'm looking at dogs that aren't muzzled. Because honestly, off-leash dogs in civilized neighborhoods are a total eyesore, and their owners? Usually just huge egomaniacs playing pretend doctor.
As for this twisted version of "tolerance," you might want to rethink it next time you're out walking your butt.

Again, noise-to-signal ratio in that post above is way too high for anyone to actually have a real discussion.

There's a line between attacking an opinion and attacking a person. One is fine, the other isn't.

Like I said, if you learn how to act decent and debate using logic instead of just venting emotions and throwing insults—and once you realize there's a difference—then sure, feel free to post on KLJ. But until you meet those requirements, don't bother.
placidmarlin3 placidmarlin3 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Apr 2013
#7 ·
I don't see anything remotely offensive in that post! It was written with quite a bit of flair,
which happens to be my style, though I’ll admit I wrote it a bit scattered since I was being accused of intolerance; however,
I am a human being, not some programmed machine, and I have emotions—that's just how people with actual blood pumping through their veins react. We
would probably be having this exact same argument in person, too, but I truly see zero insults in there. Everything I said is based on my own
personal experience dealing with those "off-leash" walkers whose dogs "could never..." One such guy has been walking around
my neighborhood for the last few months with a muzzle and a bad attitude; I don't need to point out how just a year ago he used to happily
sprint through the local parks while his owners were all like, "Oh, he'd never...", right up until one morning he decided to wake up
on the wrong side of the bed.☕

So, what exactly is offensive about any of this??
Find me ONE SINGLE POST in the pet section where I am actually being INSULTING!
JUST ONE!
This is my first time starting a thread in the pet section in a long, long time, and honestly, I even
tried to "moderate" my own topic to prevent it from veering off course into stupid arguments about kids versus animals, but I learned long ago
that you shouldn't pick fights with moderators because they are "always right." Since I'm naturally quite an empathetic person, go ahead—
feel free to let me have it!👍

Now, I am actually curious about the criteria for moderators and supermoderators, and what the actual selection process looks like!
This isn't directed at you specifically, but I'm asking generally because I've noticed how many romantic or friendly
relationships seem to result in someone landing a spot as a supermoderator or moderator, so I'm just wondering if there are any extra requirements
beyond that?
Megan White4 Megan White4 Active Member
121 messages
joined Dec 2007
#8 ·
Of course, my post was deleted because people will tolerate just about anything except the truth... ☕
wiredangler5 wiredangler5 Active Member
54 messages
joined Mar 2013
#9 ·
Megan White4, you’ve been spamming and trolling the PZK complaint threads with stuff that has nothing to do with you. I’ve already had to clear out your posts from three or four different topics, but you just keep at it. You filed a complaint, it was handled, and that’s the end of it. Stop trolling in complaint threads that don't involve you. This is your final warning; I’m not going to spend my time constantly deleting the same thing over and over.
William Green4 William Green4 Member
32 messages
joined Feb 2010
#10 ·
placidmarlin3 said:I’m genuinely curious about the specific criteria used by the leadership here at this forum when they decide to appoint
supermoderators and moderators.

!

While a certain subset of our mods and supermods are clearly top-tier, performing their duties with real skill, I can't help but feel that others seem to be selected through a process that feels as arbitrary and disorganized as how squad leaders were picked back in the old days of the US Army...
jadetrucker43 jadetrucker43 Active Member
168 messages
joined Dec 2018
#11 ·
Basically, we start looking for new mods whenever a specific subforum needs some extra muscle. It usually happens because an old mod has either moved on or just gone ghost—or sometimes the traffic spikes so much that we actually need more hands on deck to keep things from spiraling.
When that happens, the current mods for that section (along with any other active mods hanging out there) will toss out some names for potential replacements. We aren't just picking people at random, obviously; we’re looking closely at their track record with warnings, how they carry themselves in discussions, their general vibe, and whether they actually know their stuff regarding the topics in that subforum. Once we have a candidate in mind, we reach out via PM to see if they're even interested. Some people jump at the chance, while others... well, they pass.
William Green4 William Green4 Member
32 messages
joined Feb 2010
#12 ·
jadetrucker43 said:knowledge regarding the topics within this subforum and such...

Aha, so you're saying it all comes down to subject matter expertise...
It seems like that’s the primary benchmark here, at least from what I can gather...
In some instances, that assessment hits the mark perfectly, but there are definitely cases where simply knowing the technical details isn't really the deciding factor at all...
jadetrucker43 jadetrucker43 Active Member
168 messages
joined Dec 2018
#13 ·
If someone isn't already a moderator before they step into a fashion role, then they really ought to be an active presence in that specific subforum—contributing, hanging out, actually knowing what makes that community tick.
But let’s be real, there are times when you just can't find a candidate who fits that mold, so you end up pulling an existing moderator from a different section of the site instead. When that happens, you run the risk of having a mod who doesn't actually have a clue about the day-to-day vibes or the specific knowledge held by the regulars in that particular corner of the forum...
William Green4 William Green4 Member
32 messages
joined Feb 2010
#14 ·
It seems to me that a certain number of the moderators here possess absolutely no fundamental understanding of the topics we discuss...
They appear to be present solely to pad the numbers, which only serves to frustrate the regular community members...

Please, don't ask me to name names, because I'd rather avoid sparking a massive flame war in this thread...
Megan White4 Megan White4 Active Member
121 messages
joined Dec 2007
#15 ·
William Green4 said:it seems certain mods have zero grasp of the topics they're supposed to be overseeing...
they're basically just filling seats and aggravating the community...

I find myself in agreement with that assessment.
mellowraven22 mellowraven22 Active Member
105 messages
joined Jan 2007
#16 ·
placidmarlin3 said:I don't see anything offensive in that post at all. It’s just colorful, written in my usual style,

Nah, there’s nothing offensive here. But look, judging a post isn't just about whether it's rude or not. There's way more to it than that. A good post needs to be constructive and complete. You gotta actually bring some arguments to the table instead of just dropping a kneejerk reaction that's nothing but a straight-up personal attack.

honestly, I wrote it kind of scattered because people were calling me intolerant, but hey,
I'm a human being, not some bot. I have feelings. That's just how people react when they've got actual blood pumping through their veins. And honestly,
we’d probably be arguing this out in person too, but I really don't see any insults in the post.

Quick tip—forum discussions are actually better than arguing in real life because you actually have time to pause, think, and shape your point. You don't have to snap back in the exact same second like you do when you're face-to-face with someone. So, before you hit "quote" or "post reply," just stop and think about what you want to say. If something really gets under your skin on the forum, don't rush to reply immediately. You have the advantage here because, like I said, a forum is a written discussion where response time doesn't matter that much. Basically—think before you click quote.

Find me ONE SINGLE POST in the pet section where I am being INSULTING!
JUST ONE!

Check out the quote in post number 2. There is zero difference between calling someone an "idiot" and saying "I don't think you have enough cognitive ability to understand anything more than peeling a banana." It's the same thing, just more words.
placidmarlin3 placidmarlin3 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Apr 2013
#17 ·
mellowraven22 said:A little piece of advice—online discussions actually have a massive advantage over face-to-face debates because you actually have the luxury of pausing to process things. You can take a beat to weigh your options and polish your argument instead of being forced into a split-second rebuttal like you would be if you were sitting across the table from someone at a Starbucks. So, before you hit "quote" or "post reply," just take a second to consider your angle. If something online really gets under your skin, don't rush into the fray immediately; you have the distinct benefit of knowing that an internet forum is a written medium where response time isn't nearly as critical as it is in person. In short: think twice before you click quote.

Fair point.👍
I'll certainly try to keep that in mind!😉
mellowraven22 mellowraven22 Active Member
105 messages
joined Jan 2007
#18 ·
placidmarlin3 said:Fair point👍
I'll definitely try to keep that in mind!😉

All good, glad we're on the same page. 👍
Michelle Alvarez8 Michelle Alvarez8 Regular
299 messages
joined Nov 2015
#19 ·
mellowraven22 said:Look at that quote from post #2—there's honestly zero difference between calling someone an "idiot" and saying they "lack the cognitive capacity to grasp anything beyond peeling a banana," other than how many words you use to say it.

I was told that having my own opinion isn't against the rules here—though, mind you, that was only after a moderator basically told me she thought I was a moron! But hey, it’s fine—it doesn't bother me, and I'm not really phased by people twisting the rules just to suit whatever the admins feel like doing today.😁
Sophia Evans76 Sophia Evans76 Member
43 messages
joined Dec 2003
#20 ·
mellowraven22 said:You're lying.

Here’s the exact post you got flagged for trolling:

Since when do you have the right to delete my posts?
What?
Just because you can't be bothered to actually engage with someone more deeply, you decide to pull rank and strip away everyone else's rights just because you have a little bit of authority??
And YOU are going to lecture ME about tolerance?

Where's your tolerance for MY OPINION??
Where's your tolerance for PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE?
Where's your respect for the laws of this country and the society we live in?

And this is a moderator!
Someone who is supposed to set an example for everyone else.
Shame on you!

Delete this too and I'm calling the admin to see what you're up to!

You got flagged for trolling on that one—though honestly, it could've been for harassment. If you're going to post nothing but hysterical whining instead of actual content, expect a warning.

Sorry, but I didn't see any insults in placidmarlin3's post, nor do I think she was trolling at all! 😕 She was just politely asking for some clarification, and you jumped down her throat like some power-tripping deputy! 🙄

God, look what this forum has turned into with mods like this. 👎 It's a total disaster. 🙄

It's pretty obvious that you moderators are just miserable, pathetic losers in real life—because there's clearly no other reason why an adult would spend their free time playing hall monitor in a virtual space for free, unless it's for a cheap dose of a power trip.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads