• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Official Suggestions Thread

Mases

Lord of the Flies
Administrator
Site Staff
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
West Dundee, IL
I am going to make a post that really speaks to Mandy's point on the Mod Chats. I have been recently informed, not naming any names, that there is only one non-staff in the Skype mod chat right now. I know who it is, but out of respect for this person, and before they think I have an issue with them, I deeply respect them as one of the best members on the forums, I will not mention their name. All of the staff members and this person know exactly who I'm talking about.

I'm fully aware of the reason why this person was added to the chat, but ultimately they were not promoted and have been in this chat for a long time. I think it's ridiculous that someone who is not a staff member is allowed in the chat if you ask me, and I think they should be removed. I know this user is going to think I am overreacting, but I think it's unfair to have non-staff in the mod chat and I think others agree with me.
There are 9 people in the Skype Mod Chat at the moment. All are current forum staff members and 1 prospective staff member that is helping out.

In general, the forum Skype chat has always included people who's opinion I value with the direction of the forum. We've had past administrators like Mosley, Justin, and Kybyrian, who remained involved with the forum long after they officially stepped down and didn't have their rank. Furthermore, in the past I've added people like Matt, Axle, or Hanyou, who weren't staffers at a particular time, but depending on the issue at hand, I valued their opinion and they contributed to the discussion.

I'm bothered by the fact that information from a moderator chat is becoming public knowledge, but equally bothered about why there is such animosity towards who is involved, or what is said in a Skype chat. These seem like very frivolous complaints.
 

Jamie

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Gender
trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
Oh, wonderful. I am bothered by numerous things yet the administration has skipped over it time and time again. Welcome my world.
 

Kybyrian

Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Location
Amherst, MA
Gender
Didn't I already answer this one?
I'm with Mases. Like I said, there have been numerous non-staff members in the forum Skype chat over the years. Matt was one that did not even come to mind when I thought about who had been involved in the past. I don't and never did think that having people with valued opinions in the chat is an issue. It seems like the complaints that have come out about having a Skype mod chat over the years have been superficial ones with the assumption that some sort of evil must be going on behind the scenes to disregard or devalue the views of others or to undermine the community.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
Furthermore, in the past I've added people like Matt, Axle, or Hanyou, who weren't staffers at a particular time, but depending on the issue at hand, I valued their opinion and they contributed to the discussion.
Yeah, for about four minutes. And as I recall, my opinion was about thread necromancy and I was completely disregarded as irrelevant until the policy just fell into irrelevance and disuse with time on its own anyway.

I'm bothered by the fact that information from a moderator chat is becoming public knowledge, but equally bothered about why there is such animosity towards who is involved, or what is said in a Skype chat. These seem like very frivolous complaints.
You're bothered by the fact that details, or rumors, of your chat are getting out and people are complain about who supposedly not in them, but you're not bothered by the fact that you're overworking your only admin, refusing to hire a more appropriate number of admins, that you over work your mods and don't get enough of those (and make very weird decisions of who to be a mod, making very poor choices) and that you ignore the forums then make snap decisions based on next to no information just to quiet those who complain? You have some mixed up priorities.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
You're bothered by the fact that details, or rumors, of your chat are getting out and people are complain about who supposedly not in them, but you're not bothered by the fact that you're overworking your only admin, refusing to hire a more appropriate number of admins, that you over work your mods and don't get enough of those (and make very weird decisions of who to be a mod, making very poor choices) and that you ignore the forums then make snap decisions based on next to no information just to quiet those who complain? You have some mixed up priorities.
To be fair, he's only had to hire mods because I failed to do so. It should be my responsibility.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
To be fair, he's only had to hire mods because I failed to do so. It should be my responsibility.
And... it was still odd choices. Considering that none of them want to touch the hairier areas of the forum with a ten-foot pole. And what about the number of admins. For a forum this size you need a bare minimum of three. One person just can't do everything necessary. And you do avoid problems on the forums you're not comfortable with. You could do that with less consequences if there were more admins.
 

Kybyrian

Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Location
Amherst, MA
Gender
Didn't I already answer this one?
Matt said:
And... it was still odd choices. Considering that none of them want to touch the hairier areas of the forum with a ten-foot pole.
I would like to remark that there was recent conversation (a couple weeks old) among the mods about finding members who are more apt to visit certain areas of the forum (MD was one in particular that was brought up) and would be willing to be moderators focusing on those sections; however, nothing ever came of it, and the idea went away without being brought up again. I agree that it's something that should be looked into.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
I would like to remark that there was recent conversation (a couple weeks old) among the mods about finding members who are more apt to visit certain areas of the forum (MD was one in particular that was brought up) and would be willing to be moderators focusing on those sections; however, nothing ever came of it, and the idea went away without being brought up again. I agree that it's something that should be looked into.
Also it was odd picking people who were rather likely to resign. In particular people who have been gone for a while, or that were relatively new. Dedicated members would be more logical choices.
 

Herman Cain

you touch her butt and she moves away
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
I'm gonna suggest that we change the Article Writer's color. While there are only a handful of Article Writers left, it's still hard to look at this yellow. Orange has been freed up for God knows how long, and I think that would look much nicer.
 

Kybyrian

Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Location
Amherst, MA
Gender
Didn't I already answer this one?
Also it was odd picking people who were rather likely to resign. In particular people who have been gone for a while, or that were relatively new. Dedicated members would be more logical choices.
I don't think it's particularly odd to pick newer users, but it is probably a bit of a misfire to bring someone on who had just started visiting the forums again after a long absence. That shows what could be a lack of dedication, whereas a new member is more of an unknown. When needed, newer users can still be helpful. Also, it seems that they usually resign for reasons that don't really have to do with dedication, but rather with circumstances in real life that limit their time (like Curmudgeon going for his Master's degree, I believe). Old members who come back after a long leave are more likely to find something they don't like about the forums, indicative of the change over time that would probably hit someone who has roots in the past pretty hard.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
I don't think it's particularly odd to pick newer users, but it is probably a bit of a misfire to bring someone on who had just started visiting the forums again after a long absence. That shows what could be a lack of dedication, whereas a new member is more of an unknown. When needed, newer users can still be helpful. Also, it seems that they usually resign for reasons that don't really have to do with dedication, but rather with circumstances in real life that limit their time (like Curmudgeon going for his Master's degree, I believe). Old members who come back after a long leave are more likely to find something they don't like about the forums, indicative of the change over time that would probably hit someone who has roots in the past pretty hard.
This is a big reason why I think there needs to be two, or three times as many mods as we have right now (four). So the pressure on each one is less. So they don't have to take such a big bite out of their personal lives to do it. Spread the burden over more people so they feel less pressured and less likely to quit if is too much for them. Honestly, four is just an unacceptably low number for a forum of this size and it shows. There's too much to do and not enough people to do it.
 

Kybyrian

Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Location
Amherst, MA
Gender
Didn't I already answer this one?
This is a big reason why I think there needs to be two, or three times as many mods as we have right now (four). So the pressure on each one is less. So they don't have to take such a big bite out of their personal lives to do it. Spread the burden over more people so they feel less pressured and less likely to quit if is too much for them. Honestly, four is just an unacceptably low number for a forum of this size and it shows. There's too much to do and not enough people to do it.
I always liked there to be at least 6, but more can only help. There's no real downfall to putting more mods on the team than you need. It not only spreads out the work and makes it so that you don't have to feel like you're constantly patrolling when you want to enjoy the forums, but also opens up discussions when those take place among the moderators, because a lot of ideas are shot through the mod chat before put into place. Hiring even what may seem to be a huge number of mods compared to what we've always had (like 12, for example), would actually be a great idea.
 

Mases

Lord of the Flies
Administrator
Site Staff
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
West Dundee, IL
Yeah, for about four minutes. And as I recall, my opinion was about thread necromancy and I was completely disregarded as irrelevant until the policy just fell into irrelevance and disuse with time on its own anyway.

You're bothered by the fact that details, or rumors, of your chat are getting out and people are complain about who supposedly not in them, but you're not bothered by the fact that you're overworking your only admin, refusing to hire a more appropriate number of admins, that you over work your mods and don't get enough of those (and make very weird decisions of who to be a mod, making very poor choices) and that you ignore the forums then make snap decisions based on next to no information just to quiet those who complain? You have some mixed up priorities.

Matt, you were in the mod chat for several months a few years back but were never a moderator. I don't remember the necromancy incident that you refer of, but I take your word that you were added for just a few minutes.

Regarding the administrators, I don't think 3 administrators are needed, but I do think Locke is overworked, due to his involvement with other sectors of the website. The quantity of administrators is irrelevant. I'm involved only rarely with administrating the forums, but from what I've learned from my activity in the last few days, we currently have 3 administrators with Locke, Thareous, and A Link in Time. Is it it absolutely necessary to have these 3? Maybe? Do we need a 4th? Maybe? Could it be done with just 2? Maybe? There are plenty of variables.

I also do not agree at all with your statement that the latest moderator promotions have been poor choices. Furthermore, I also reject the idea that these were solely my choices. No current or recent moderator were appointed by me without staff approval and I have not made any executive decisions on moderators for several years now. It is true that I have suggested several moderators in recent history, that the moderation team avidly rejected, and thus, they were not promoted.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
Regarding the administrators, I don't think 3 administrators are needed, but I do think Locke is overworked, due to his involvement with other sectors of the website. The quantity of administrators is irrelevant. I'm involved only rarely with administrating the forums, but from what I've learned from my activity in the last few days, we currently have 3 administrators with Locke, Thareous, and A Link in Time. Is it it absolutely necessary to have these 3? Maybe? Do we need a 4th? Maybe? Could it be done with just 2? Maybe? There are plenty of variables.
A Link In Time and Thareous are not forum administrators. They're community coordinators. They're not responsible for moderation like Locke is. You need three administrators tasked with maintaining that part of the forums.
You barely take any notice at all of what's going on on the forums, like you just said just now. What's your basis for thinking it doesn't need more admins? These forums are much too large for just one. And it's not fair to Locke to put it all on him. You do not like hearing about problems on the forums. Please do not deny this, you and I both know it's true. You think it's bothersome and would rather not hear about it. Then why not hire some more admins who will handle it themselves so people stop bothering you about it? Also a larger moderator staff so they can better keep things managed without big issues flaring up like they do now because the current team is ridiculously overworked.

I also do not agree at all with your statement that the latest moderator promotions have been poor choices. Furthermore, I also reject the idea that these were solely my choices. No current or recent moderator were appointed by me without staff approval and I have not made any executive decisions on moderators for several years now. It is true that I have suggested several moderators in recent history, that the moderation team avidly rejected.
Considering only ONE of the recent appointments is still there... I'd say that they were not the best choices. Moderators should be picked from members who have shown a more active interest in the goings on that will not just up and leave when the pressure gets too high or if there's too much for them to handle and they have personal life stuff that is more important and they just don't have that kind of time.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

  • Top Bottom