Simultaneous Moderator Approval Survey - January 2013

[Mr. Morden]

Well, Inks, the posters want good posters or well established and well liked posters to get more leeway.

Which posters?  The ones who would get more leeway! 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm sorry, Sbane, but I will never buy into the "old-timers" should get preferential treatment argument.

Yeah, I also strongly dislike this logic.

Good posters should get preferential treatment.

I disagree with that as well.  If someone is a good poster, a few infraction points here and there won't matter in the long run.  If someone is racking up massive amounts of infraction points, they probably aren't a "good poster".

Al's example proves that a very mild and harmless form of trolling can get one of our best posters in serious trouble. Enough said.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We've rehashed the Al thing several times.  It was one incident; overall, good posters don't rack up posts.  But I would contend that repeatedly reposting an image simply to prove a point and piss off a moderator makes one less, rather than more, of a good poster.

Well, Inks, the posters want good posters or well established and well liked posters to get more leeway.

Who are "the posters"?  I'm sure if you ask newer posters, they'd disagree with this.  And as for giving "well liked" posters more leeway - that's just dangerous.  Who determines who is "well liked"?  The mods?  Yikes.  FF/HP polls?  Yikes.

I think it's pretty clear from what Dave has said that we should be fair to everybody, not playing favorites.

There's an ongoing thread discussing the fact that most mods are people who have been here very long.  So should mods give other mods preferential treatment under your system?  That could have some dangerous consequences.

[Sbane]

Guys, you need to look the other way on occasional trolling is the point (which most of the mods do anyways). Now, with someone with only 50 posts, you might not be sure whether they are a good poster as a whole or not, thus they would naturally get less leeway. I am not saying that everyone who registered after 2010 or some other arbitrary date should be treated differently, just that the posting history of a poster should be taken into account when dealing with reported posts.

Everyone knows Al can be a bit of a dick. I personally know that very well, but overall he is a valued poster. Thus, he should not be put on mod review barring some extraordinary circumstance. Re-posting some nonsense in some horse related thread does not meet that criteria.

[Torie]

I have my Board pretty pussy whipped (), but my approach is to take the temperature of my Board. Unless I see something outrageous, if the temperature is "normal" I just don't do much. If it developed a fever, then the issue is how to turn the dial down. I expect "good posters" to help me do that if need be, and if they don't, I suspect I would be pretty even handed in whatever sanctions I settle upon, which might not be death points, but some sort of chastisement, or whatever. The issue is how to maximize the utility of the Board for the community as a whole, while not allowing something that would annoy DAVE if he saw it.

Hopefully, most are comfortable with that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

We've rehashed the Al thing several times.  It was one incident

One incident in which you put your colleague on mod-review, bro.......

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have my Board pretty pussy whipped (), but my approach is to take the temperature of my Board. Unless I see something outrageous, if the temperature is "normal" I just don't do much. If it developed a fever, then the issue is how to turn the dial down. I expect "good posters" to help me do that if need be, and if they don't, I suspect I would be pretty even handed in whatever sanctions I settle upon, which might not be death points, but some sort of chastisement, or whatever. The issue is how to maximize the utility of the Board for the community as a whole, while not allowing something that would annoy DAVE if he saw it.

Hopefully, most are comfortable with that.

This is exactly what a moderator should do.

[AndrewTX]

Why the hell am I not more popular?

[bgwah]

Why the hell am I not more popular?

Honestly, I'm surprised you scored as well as you did. No offense, but I've always thought you've come across as an unfunny douche. But even MasterJedi has a positive approval rating, so I don't know what to think about these results.

[Torie]

Why the hell am I not more popular?

Honestly, I'm surprised you scored as well as you did. No offense, but I've always thought you've come across as an unfunny douche. But even MasterJedi has a positive approval rating, so I don't know what to think about these results.

You tend to be a bit parsimonious in your complements don't you?

[bgwah]

Why the hell am I not more popular?

Honestly, I'm surprised you scored as well as you did. No offense, but I've always thought you've come across as an unfunny douche. But even MasterJedi has a positive approval rating, so I don't know what to think about these results.

You tend to be a bit parsimonious in your complements don't you?

Maybe that was a little harsh

How about this description: He tries way too hard to be kewl on the interwebs, and it shows.

[AndrewTX]

Why the hell am I not more popular?

Honestly, I'm surprised you scored as well as you did. No offense, but I've always thought you've come across as an unfunny douche. But even MasterJedi has a positive approval rating, so I don't know what to think about these results.

That what I was aiming for. 

[LastVoter]

I want to change my vote on Torie(I approve of his work now).