The Key to Staff

LesBionic - Archosaur wrote: »

Snipped for length.

I've always been known as a harsh forum poster around here, and that has nothing to do with my position on other forums. That's just how I am. If you don't like it?

... Sorry to say, don't read. I can't help how you, or that person next to you, or the person five rows behind you, thinks I come across. That's how you choose to interpret my words, that's your opinion of me. To be honest, I'm not bothered. If you think I'm hostile? Then you think I'm hostile. I won't sit and talk about pretty rainbows and how beautiful flowers are to try and make you think otherwise. Your opinion of me is your own and you've just spent an entire post seemingly telling me how horrible it is or how you don't approve of it. Welps, sorry, it's going to stay that way. It's just how I post. Much like a moronic troll is liable to make moronic troll posts, or a smart and calm poster will tend to make smart and calm parts, I'm generally brutally honest when I'm being "harsh" for the most point.

My tone should not technically undermine what I have to say, although you greatly suggest otherwise.

Reds was not asked to be a moderator. Anybody who has spoken to or heard her offsite will know this, including myself. Technically you're right, if somebody is asked to be a moderator and they decline, they won't talk about it on here. But, they do talk about it elsewhere, and from that I can tell you Reds was not asked to be a moderator. Much like I know somebody else who was, and he declined.

But this post was not about "OMG REDS FOR MOD" and I'd appreciate if you took that somewhere else. This post was a suggestion I put forward about the now, and since Reds isn't here now that makes a good part of your post redundant. You're reminiscing on what you would have liked to see, and this topic is putting forward a suggestion for what could happen in the future.

And if I was asked to be a moderator? You're joking.

Firstly, I'm not about to asked to be a moderator. I've said it before and I'll say it again, by all rights I should have been banned by now. Why I'm not, I have no idea. In fact, nobody does. But that's a little besides the point. I have not been asked and will not be asked to be a moderator.

On a similar note, if I ever was asked, I'd probably decline. I have no reason to moderate such hostile and violent forums, particularly when a good part of it's member base is (or at least, was) calling for my ban. Certainly a good portion of players posting here do not like me and find my opinions too direct or too harsh. Oh hey, in fact, you seem to be one of the latter, given your huge complaint about my posts.

There was very little to not understand about my post, you have merely decided to ask questions not related to it and make statements that didn't need to be made here.
1) My posting style is my posting style. It won't change just because you don't like it or you fail to understand something I post.
2) Reds is gone, please go reminisce over the idea of her being a mod in a different thread. Not in this one, which focuses on the now as much as possible.
3) I'll never be asked to be a mod, and if I was I probably wouldn't take it. Simple as.

And none of the questions you asked had anything to do with my original post, which is probably why you're so confused.

Lenn_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

time for some constructive criticism!

intro they teach you in american english, never ever put your thesis in a layman's explaination with i. example: 'there are flaws in our national government, and in the following points i will explain why.' which can be better worded as such. 'there are a number of flaws in our national government which need to be adressed.' first person is always a nono in theses.:v

Your problem is assuming I am American. I come from England, and as such, while I may not make perfect arguments and may mention things you deem unnecessary, I try and formulate constructive posts, like my first one, based on my experience in my years in a debating team throughout all my years at school.

As of yet, it has not failed me before.

try to avoid these when providing an argument, these falls under the logical fallacy of exaggerated credentials. logic follows, "i have (insert credential: phd, experience, doctorate, etc) therefore i have the experience to make informed decisions." as well put together as any argument can be, these are no-nos. im just saying.

See above. Again, I appreciate the helpful feedback, I merely argue and state points in the ways I have always done so in the past. And aside from that, while I agree stating credentials may seem like trying to exaggerate, on these forums right now anything anybody has to say tends to get ignored if they don't show they have any kind of experience.

After all... how many people do you see calling names to the low levels when the low level tries to make a coherent post? In fact, I've done it myself.

We are a society that judges on the numbers and avatars we see. Giving the judgemental nature of this forum, I would have suffered just as much to not mention my past experience as staff as much as you point out I may suffer for stating it. I would have 'lost' this battle either way, if you will.

now to cut into the meat of the argument:

this, in my opinion, can have positive and negative repricussions. as we have seen before, some people can end up becoming favorites with that administrator and end up recieving information firsthand before they are supposed to. of course this can lead to a well maintained fan site; it's also a no-no in a large number of gaming corporations contractual obligations. revealing any kind of information to players before an official statement has always been a big company no go policy.

though, on a positive light, this can also lead to a connection with players. connection can aways lead to trust and respect, thus more of a chance they will follow the rules in a peaceful manner. dual edge sword that works both ways.

I think you perhaps take that statement too literally, though I could be wrong.

Influence and favouritism will generally appear everywhere. For example, all the people calling for RedsRose to be a moderator were heavily influenced by the way in which she posted, and if she had become mod it would be very easy for others to say "favouritism" would it not?

I more so meant that a moderator needs to be able to act as a member in their own way. This doesn't mean posting on every possible thread to make a show of themselves, or trying too hard to blend in, but merely to... well, post every now and then. While it can seem very unprofessional, it also helps to make a moderator less threatening. I see it from this point of view:

Pretend I am a moderator, and that I am as harsh and sarcastic and as nasty as people have seen me to be on these forums. It can be quite a threatening image, when it comes from a moderator. If somebody had an issue, do you think they would PM me, the big threatening moderator who appears liable to snap at them, or the other moderator Bob who can enforce the rules and be firm when he needs to be, but can also be quite placid and is a small but friendly member of the community outside of his moderation duties?

The answer is Bob. A moderator that can be part of the community will seem less threatening and more approachable, and right now we need approachable staff. Staff who can have discussions outside of PM, unlike Shelly. This is one of my main concerns with Shelly as a moderator; she has explicitly told people that she will answer any question in PM, but... only in PM. It's not threatening, but it doesn't seem all that friendly either. If somebody wants to ask her what her favourite class is, why should they have to PM her for a friendly discussion?

Admittedly I can understand why Shelly does this right now, because the forums are all on edge. But maybe if she stopped demanding people PM her for a simple, pleasant discussion, it would loosen up a bit. She treats us like we will kill her if she steps on these forums, and right now many people well. A cool and level headed moderator would be able to take this in their stride to the best of their ability, ignoring the flames and locking and moving topics while taking part in a pleasant topic if it's addressed to them. If you see what I am saying.

You are right. It's a double edged sword. But favouritism can happen regardless. Friendly mods cannot if they refuse to participate.

not quite sure if this is a universal truth, in the first paragraph. some people may love their job, in many different ways. although one can be a part of the crowd, there is always going to be a bad apple to make your job difficult and not fun.

I never denied somebody would make your job hard, I'd have been foolish to do so. That's a fact, and it's something you need to expect if you sign up for a moderator position.

second statement: arrogant and cocky are subjective; whereas power abuse is evident. i had always believed hawk and andracil to be both, yet they did their jobs without power going to their heads.

I suppose this is, as you said, subjective. I personally have found that cocky and arrogant staff are the more likely kind to abuse their power, particularly when a situation turns bad. On a similar note, I never found Hawk to be cocky or arrogant. Andracil I did not have the pleasure of speaking to, that was a bit before my time posting.

no comment, how the hell did this guy even get noticed to even be a moderator. no one's seen this guy outside the picture thread spam, let alone hes not even over 65. how can he have a single clue about what's what in all the pw changes if he hasnt experienced a single one.

Grim got mod because he PM'd a certain CM and asked for it.

True story, not a word of a lie.

from some forum posters have stated, she was a mini mod, and a bit of a busy bee on the FW forums. apparently she wanted to be helpful, we should give her a few more weeks to get integrated into the community. she may be inexperienced now, but shes also the only one of the (former 3, now 2) that seems to bother trying during this imbecilic mess. think, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maaaaybbbeeeee it can start to be a duck in a few weeks.

Perhaps so, perhaps so. But as the situation stands right now, it would seem a better option for Shelly to step down and let more experienced moderators take over. Face it, this forum is in no state for an inexperienced mod to use it as their personal training grounds.

this statement, i believe really had no place here at all. they have lives too, no one -said- they had to be on each and every hour of each and everyday. that really isnt our place to judge how much time they put in on the weekends, if you haven't noticed 'no gms work on the weekends either.'

Untrue.

If you volunteer as a moderator you need to be prepared to sign in once every day. With a large enough team, you only need to be signed in for an hour, an hour and a half on a forum like this. This is counting on their being a large enough team of moderators for this forum with the ability to, in general, keep the peace. No moderator needs to be on all the time and I never said they had to be.

One and a half hours each day is most certainly not all the time.

Frankie has a paid job. This means he can take Saturday and Sunday off and nobody will fault him for it, because his job is five days a week. If he signs online at the weekends, it is his decision to do so.

A moderator is not paid. They volunteered to help at these forums. People are on these forums every day of every week. This means moderators, whose care lies with forums and forums only, need to be prepared to log in at least once every day for a period of time to make sure things are in working order. You cannot compare the job of a GM, who is paid to not just oversee a forum but is paid for other work as well, to the unpaid job of somebody who volunteered to help.

My grandfather had an appropriate saying:
"If you are going to do a job, you might as well do it properly, otherwise you might as well not do it at all."

I thank you for the constructive response, as brought up a lot of good points and it gives everybody something to think about. It was a pleasure to read and respond to, disregarding how horribly long this post now is.

haybails wrote: »

Airyll, you're taking it very literally as meaning 'not at all at the weekend'. A bit too literally, I would suggest.

Not particularly. I've seen a PM somebody gave me where Shelly basically complained she had to do some moderation on the weekend and she posted in a thread somewhere claiming how it was "her weekend too" as if people should be behaving perfectly just because it's her weekend.

trollfacee wrote: »

hey guys, shelly locked this thread pretty quick

http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=882672

and promptly deleted my slander about her in less then 30 seconds.

do i need to post **** for my post to get 106 pages to?b:cry

Hey guy, I don't care

Deleting slander about her is her choice to do so and I don't see why you bothered to spent 30 seconds complaining here, aside from trying to get this thread locked maybe.

You do need to grow a brain, I would suggest, if you want a thread to survive, and you could start by stopping with the slander of moderators if you want a thread to live. Now GTFO you little troll, and find a different thread to whine in, k?

But seriously let's stay on topic.

If you have nothing good to say here, don't say anything at all, and go spam somewhere else kthnx.

-edit-

And thanks for the post, setentasrose. I agree, I don't think that this will be listened to, but it's worth a shot. Besides, so many people say we complain and never offer a solution. Welps, here's a solution. It's not the best, but at this point there is no "best" solution that could be used.