You're aware that moderators of these kind of sections are not prepped in any way right? You're aware that there is no actual set rule against it, much like your set rule for contribution, right? This stuff is common sense.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. It's sociologically and psychologically proven that a larger group of people will make every member in the group feel less responsible. It's called diffusion of responsibility, look it up sometime. My point is that with so many more moderators, none of them will feel the need to be good moderators, ESPECIALLY since I don't feel that the amount on this forum is even necessary in the first place. A few good moderators are more effective than a bunch of mediocre ones, for the simple fact that having less will make the few feel more responsible. On the other end of the spectrum however, having too few will give them a sense of too much responsibility, and they start to worship the rules.

Using what you said in the current context, do you believe that on these forums corrupt actions are gone unnoticed, and how exactly would one abuse their "power" on a forum that publicly ousts the staff as soon as they do something wrong? I can't imagine that being hard to track.

Yeah you're right, 25 people per each section of the forum would be pretty ridiculous in terms of resources, let's narrow it down to 10 people for one section.

Guess who. >_<

Zone forums only need one mabye at most 2 mods, seriously Most forums only have 1-2 mods for the whole thing not 5 per section roughly half the zone playerbase is a mod..

oh gawd >_<

It seems that the people that manage the moderators are the ones that have the problem.

Heh, I'm not sure what inconceivably spotless record you'd have to have to become a moderator these days.

Any thoughts? I know I'd never pull it off and I only have two infractions :P

This is the second and last time that I'm going address you on the topic, because you don't seem to be accepting the circumstances, and regardless of how many people keep telling you the same thing, you fail to realize the reasoning behind everything.

The Zone forums does not need five moderators. Now that we have that aside, let's address the fact that there are five moderators:

Does it hurt to have five moderators moderating one section of the forums?
Not if they're all doing their jobs without stepping the boundaries of their power.

Now that we've established that in an ideal situation having five people moderating a section of the forums would not hurt, let's address whether the current case falls into the ideal situation:

Are all of the moderators doing their job diligently, without crossing the boundaries of their powers and stepping into the realm of corruption?
Well, I can't answer this question, but this isn't the point of the thread, so this question should be dismissed off the bat. If you have a problem with an individual moderator, then you can take your claims with the forum administration about it.


Now that we have all of that aside, let's get into your logic (I'm going to summarize your points, I know that it's not word-for-word or anywhere near):

Rufus: A lack of moderation leads to an inactive forum.

This statement is false. Just because you're a moderator and your name is green in the active users list does not mean that people will suddenly gain interest in posting in the forums that you moderate. People gain interests on certain parts of the forums based on user activity. If a certain section of the forums is dead, then people won't be interested in it.This leads me to my next point: you don't need to be a moderator to promote discussion and to stir interesting events in a certain section of the forums. It helps if the moderator does this, sure, but you don't NEED to be a moderator in order to do this. In fact, moderator rights will do you very little in reviving a dead section of the forums since there are no active posts to begin with.

Rufus: Forum activity should not be left to the community alone.

The forums are for the community. A moderator can try with all of their will-power to revive a dead section of the forums, but without the community, the section will remain dead. It's up to the community to decide what section of the forums they want to post in, and it's also up to the community to decide what sections of the forums should be posted on. Now, I understand that an active moderator could promote forum activity, and SHOULD promote forum activity, but as stated before, one does not have to BE a moderator in order to do this, so you can't hold this statement solely for moderators. If you wish to try and revive a dead section of the forums, then bring up something interesting that might get people to post. If you're successful at keeping a section alive, then maybe you'll be rewarded with a moderator position to help make your job easier, but that definitely DOESN'T mean that you can't do it as a regular user.

I agree that moderators should try and keep the forums alive, but when it comes down to it all, a moderator can only do so much, which is why forum activity is based on the interest of the community members.

Rufus: People should be appointed to moderate dead sections of the forums:

Moderator positions in non-server specific sections of the forums should NOT simply be given to a person in HOPES of reviving the section. Moderator positions should be given as a reward to people that promote activity in these sections and that show an ability to properly enforce the forum rules. There's no point on assigning someone as a moderator that has not proven that they can take on the job effectively.


And since you've resorted to arrogant insults, I'm done with you, and I'm done with this conversation.

This is all I read of your ridiculously formatted post, and that's because it shows signs of the last post which completely missed the mark. The reasoning behind the moderation of that forum is because of people sucking up; it's not supplying to a demand, and it's not because that was the jobs that they were assigned so don't suggest otherwise. Simply put, they asked for their positions, so stop being so blatantly ignorant to the actual context of the situation you're attempting to describe.

Sounds like someone can't accept defeat. :asleep:

I think someone needs to be taught the difference between earning trust and sucking up. And who are you to judge this? You don't even play Zone, nor do you know what goes on within the staff. Yet somehow your bold enough to say the 4 of us recieved moderation rights through sucking up? Wow mistake lol.
Whats this? ^

Umm, again who are you to say this? Mistake #2, only 1/4 current moderators on Zone actually asked for their moderation rights, the other 3 had them given to them.

We should really have one moderator for every one player, couldnt be any worse then what we have now

haha but all the mods are players :o mostly...at one time or another...

To be honest, I can name 2 right off the bat and I'd be right.

Well said Gambet, you'll be receiving some positive rep as soon as I am able. :)
Stop whining and read the whole post.
How do you know this?
Don't see how this is a problem if they're correctly doing their job.

No.

Why don't you scroll up and see? It's quite commonly known.

I never contested that this was a problem, though perhaps it is. However, I was responding to a statement which is a false representation of the actual reality of the subject. Though when you look back and read your previous statements, you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

He doesn't like to be wrong.

He doesn't know this lol. Hes not a even player in the community of Zone, and hes already admited to not going on the Zone Forums page often. So hes making an assumption I guess.

Well there isn't a problem. But regardless we didn't ask for our rights, they were apointed to us lol.

^Bolded to show not actually Rufus who posted this.
Rufus I promote you to Negative Nancy #3. For any questions on your duitys as a Negative Nancy feel free to PM me :).

You're suggesting I'm wrong on a public front but telling Crono I'm right in private messages? Very suave.

You said we all sucked up. Crono said otherwise, I agree with what Crono said, not what you said.

Go and read what I said again and you'll see that I didn't actually state that. I think the fact that you have taken the majority of my posts as a personal attack has caused most of this discussion to happen, and that is not my problem.

I have taken nothing you've said as a personal attack lol. I don't consider things that people say to me in a forum to be "attacks" at me. Well, unless its a personal insult which you aren't making.

Why the plural if your directing it at an individual person?

If you have not indeed taken anything I said as a personal attack then it makes me wonder why you're actually quite aggressive in your responses :rolleyes:

I never stated I was talking about one individual person either.

I question how you can tell how aggressive I am when your making that judgement based on text responses. Whether or not I'm being aggressive is a matter of opinion.

Then your going to need to explain how sucking up is the cause of people recieving mod rights.

I'd say that was pretty self explainatory.

Then why has no one explained it........

Because I'd say that was pretty self explainatory.

LOL who would ever suck up to a graal mod

Can't tell if you're being serious...

duh, its so that it works out to be 2 moderators per post!

you never know, that moderator could make a mistake moderating that post and would have to hav ethe other moderator to correct it!


2:1

This thread should probably have been locked around page 4 or 5. And can someone please reban this unsmoothcriminal guy? He's just here to stir up a ruckus anyways.

Yet, you tried starting a flame war not to long along with me.

I'd say there are other people that deserve a ban more than him...

Moving on....
closed