The question has come up about how new moderators are chosen.
Usually, the moderators pick new moderators after observation, looking for who's already doing a good job without the powers and simply offering the position. Recently we took applications, and we're reviewing them to decide who would do well.
But now, people have expressed interest in coming up with a new system. That's what this thread is before.
Note: While the moderators are encouraging discussion on this subject, and will be taking part, the staff is not yet committing to changing the current system. This thread is for brainstorming, not necessarily changing anything yet.
Well, I think my opinion was expressed in the other thread, but I guess I'll clarify/restate: I'd like it if the userbase had some say in the appointment of staff, and in policy decisions. I'm not sure what the best way is to do this on a subforum by subforum basis, though: in some subforums, there is a small number of users who are probably more clued in that the moderators. In other subforums, like the rumour mill, the average user is so new to the site, and the posting volume so high, that it would seem almost impossible for new users to identify other users qualities.
It is well within the realms of possibility that the current system of choosing mods, while flawed, is the best available. I don't think I'm advocating an open democracy or anything like that.
Sometimes I just get worried that one of my favourite little corners of the internet will get pulled out from under me before I even know what has happened, without me being able to have any say in it.
It may very well be that we can do that for some of those subforums. But I think it really does depend. My main realm of experience is with the Colosseum and Personal Writing. I mod the Forum Games and take reports from it, but most of the time I let that go on its own. And, of course, I do global modding all around. In my own small subforums, though, I take a personal interest in it all. And I make sure I know the members there.
I do think it depends on the subforum.
Also, in response to what you said on the other thread about picking best fits:
I know how it sounds. I don't know how often it happens, but it has happened once or twice that a potential moderator applicant has been dropped because of their fit with us, or their attitude. But you really need to think about the trade off.
On the one hand, we have a person who would be a great moderator. They know the rules, they are ready to enforce them. They know their subforum, they know the people. But they have a hard time keeping their temper down. They routinely fight with other moderators and users.
Then we have the other one. The guy that doesn't know the subforum as well as the first. For instance, Standard. They know the rules, know the members, but they don't always know the decks for the current card-pool. However, they get along with everyone, a real personable guy, and they try to keep a level head at all times.
Part of our job, God Child, is diplomacy. This thread's a good example. I'm sure you'd rather have the moderator that would make a thread like this to discuss the topic at hand, who wants to hash out the best idea, rather than the one that gets pissed that you're arguing with them and simply ignores you.
God Child, Laquatus has a point, and I"m curious to hear what you think of it.
Say we -do- have open voting. I know I have people in mind I wouldn't want to be moderators, simply because I've seen how they handle positions of power, and how they treat others. What would you have us do if a person like this wins our moderator election?
God Child, Laquatus has a point, and I"m curious to hear what you think of it.
Say we -do- have open voting. I know I have people in mind I wouldn't want to be moderators, simply because I've seen how they handle positions of power, and how they treat others. What would you have us do if a person like this wins our moderator election?
I am personally against open voting. There are a lot of people who would win on name recognition alone (a la George Bush Jr.)
I don't think that people will evaluate the right sort of things a moderator needs. A level head and even temper. Maturity. Responsibility. The discipline to not take sides or get involved in personal stuff.
Imagine if your coworkers got to vote on who the human resources manager should be. The person with the most friends would win, and whenever there was a dispute, they would be biased towards their friend. You'd have a lot of charismatic leaders, but charisma isn't really what is needed for the job.
That's my take on it, at least.
Sometimes I just get worried that one of my favourite little corners of the internet will get pulled out from under me before I even know what has happened, without me being able to have any say in it.
I agree 100%. That is why I want the mods to continue to choose the mods. A popular vote would only exacerbate whatever changes on Salvation you might fear.
You expressed to me once how much you valued the opinions of the remainder of folks who joined January 2005, during the MTGNews exodus. How many more 08'ers and 09'ers do you think there are compared to 05'ers? Maybe a hundred active members for each one? Thousands of people joined this site for M10 and Zen, and many have stayed. I don't have any guess as to who they would elect as a mod, but I definitely trust Binary, Seds, and Mikey a thousand times more.
Oh God no. We all saw how much drama was stirred up during something as insignificant as the Awards, with all the accusations of rigging and "playing favorites". I don't even want to think how bad things would get if voting were open for modship.
Having people apply, and the current mods picking from that, is probably best.
As opposed to open voting, I think if you choose to go with the idea of the user base having a decision (which, I couldn't care either way personally, I just think this is a good idea) you could announce the candidates to the users, and if a user has an opinion, they can send you a FORMAL PROFESSIONAL letter with their opinion, requiring, however, that they cite threads for things (So and so is responsible, and he shows it this thread ... by telling other person whatever...) If you catch my meaning.
This way, if someone has something to say, other than HEY THIS GUY IS SUPER-FRIGGIN SWEET SHOULD BE MOD WON'T BAN ME NO SIR! You know what it is, and you get it. I understand that this might be a bit more work for the mods, but perhaps you should then condense the amount of candidates before announcing it to the user base.
Say you announce the best few for each forum, and then have people send in their letters to the appropriate Forum mods (or subforum mods, as the case may be) and that Mod can pass the letter on if they feel it's good enough.
This way, you can also boil out spammers. If you get the same letter (or even similar to another letter) you can eliminate them.
Just my opinion. Good luck to whoever you choose though.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
You expressed to me once how much you valued the opinions of the remainder of folks who joined January 2005, during the MTGNews exodus. How many more 08'ers and 09'ers do you think there are compared to 05'ers? Maybe a hundred active members for each one? Thousands of people joined this site for M10 and Zen, and many have stayed. I don't have any guess as to who they would elect as a mod, but I definitely trust Binary, Seds, and Mikey a thousand times more.
I just have to say - and this is coming from a day 1 MTGNews defector - I really don't believe that length of time spent here necessarily means you know who belongs in a position of power. I bet there's still some Jan '05ers around that would just pick the people that act cool, and there are probably some people who joined in November that have seen the way certain people act and know who would make a good moderator.
That said, I think public opinion should have *some* hand in the selection process, but a straight-up public vote will just turn into a popularity contest. Maybe we could do a public nomination for mods, then the current mods could select from the noiminees.
As opposed to open voting, I think if you choose to go with the idea of the user base having a decision (which, I couldn't care either way personally, I just think this is a good idea) you could announce the candidates to the users, and if a user has an opinion, they can send you a FORMAL PROFESSIONAL letter with their opinion, requiring, however, that they cite threads for things (So and so is responsible, and he shows it this thread ... by telling other person whatever...) If you catch my meaning.
This way, if someone has something to say, other than HEY THIS GUY IS SUPER-FRIGGIN SWEET SHOULD BE MOD WON'T BAN ME NO SIR! You know what it is, and you get it. I understand that this might be a bit more work for the mods, but perhaps you should then condense the amount of candidates before announcing it to the user base.
Say you announce the best few for each forum, and then have people send in their letters to the appropriate Forum mods (or subforum mods, as the case may be) and that Mod can pass the letter on if they feel it's good enough.
This way, you can also boil out spammers. If you get the same letter (or even similar to another letter) you can eliminate them.
Just my opinion. Good luck to whoever you choose though.
This could actually be a cool idea that would work within the bounds of the current system.
Letters of recommendation.
There is really nothing stopping me right now from PMing a mod with a heartfelt testimonial about why Bob (or whoever) should be the next mod. Pretty much anyone could do this right now, without the mod picking procedure changing.
Making these letters public could lead to a lot of grief-tactics and soapboxing, but having something like this happen quietly and privately could be a really great way of demonstrating the unsung heroes of MTGS.
I just have to say - and this is coming from a day 1 MTGNews defector - I really don't believe that length of time spent here necessarily means you know who belongs in a position of power. I bet there's still some Jan '05ers around that would just pick the people that act cool, and there are probably some people who joined in November that have seen the way certain people act and know who would make a good moderator.
That said, I think public opinion should have *some* hand in the selection process, but a straight-up public vote will just turn into a popularity contest. Maybe we could do a public nomination for mods, then the current mods could select from the noiminees.
Yep.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
In all seriousness, finding a medium between 'popular vote' and moderators choosing amongst themselves is the best way to be approaching this. How this all correlates to the main system at hand here was stated by Nai.
exhibit A
Quote from Nai »
On the one hand, we have a person who would be a great moderator. They know the rules, they are ready to enforce them. They know their subforum, they know the people. But they have a hard time keeping their temper down. They routinely fight with other moderators and users.
exhibit B
Quote from Nai »
Then we have the other one. The guy that doesn't know the subforum as well as the first. For instance, Standard. They know the rules, know the members, but they don't always know the decks for the current card-pool. However, they get along with everyone, a real personable guy, and they try to keep a level head at all times.
So in other words, the candidate up for grabs should be both someone who is well informed/publicly like AND gets along well with the staff. Someone somewhere in between.
I thought that the idea about narrowing down a list of 'possible candidates' was a good idea but as far as a system with VOTING is concerned... this is a very tough/complicated issue because it is definitely something that could be exploited.
If the voting approach is taken it all comes down to whether or not if the staff can 'trust' the userbase to not pull off any shenanigans. If this line of thought is further elaborated, perhaps an 'admin has final say' clause should be implemented to any winning candidate if it is within an objective, reasonable doubt as to why that candidate would not be appropriate for the role.
I just have to say - and this is coming from a day 1 MTGNews defector - I really don't believe that length of time spent here necessarily means you know who belongs in a position of power. I bet there's still some Jan '05ers around that would just pick the people that act cool, and there are probably some people who joined in November that have seen the way certain people act and know who would make a good moderator.
That said, I think public opinion should have *some* hand in the selection process, but a straight-up public vote will just turn into a popularity contest. Maybe we could do a public nomination for mods, then the current mods could select from the noiminees.
I like this. Kinda like how candidates get on a voting ballot.
Easy. Hannes is boss. Hannes makes the call. With advice taken from current mods.
Terrible idea, no offense to Hannes. 1) That's a lot of pressure to put on one person, and 2) it gives too much power to that person. There's no checks or balances involved in that.
Other than that, in response to Nai, you're right about my idea (process of elimination using [essentially] multiple plurality votes). It basically forces people to choose who they dislike the least. I don't think it's *terrible*, but it's certainly not a whole lot better than just voting once by plurality.
Anyways, like Nai said, it seems backwards, but I agree: The people that are deserving of the job are usually the unsung heroes of that particular forum; reporting posts which violate rules, directing people to the proper area, answering questions, etc. They don't ask for the job, but they're basically doing it without the mod powers anyways, so if they fit the bill (work well w/ the other mods) then that's a pretty good system. It's understandable that there isn't a public vote, because then popularity doesn't come into effect. MrMod, who is constantly giving infractions to MrUser, is going to make them unpopular. However, if that user is actually doing something wrong, then popularity doesn't matter anyways, because the mod giving the infractions is doing the right thing. It's the same in the standard forum. If you're in the Vampires thread, and you bring up splashing a color, everyone is going to tell you to read the thread, and stop bringing it up. Granted, that's a much more niche thing, but you get the point. The user wanting the splash is doing something wrong, and is being reprimanded for it. That also brings up people arguing about infractions; if you don't like the rule, then bring up a topic about the rule. IE, necroing. I've gotten an infraction for necroing, and talking about [WWK] cards in the standard forum. I didn't argue because it's not that big a deal. By and large, if you are watching what you're doing, the infraction's going to expire anyways. ☺☺☺☺ happens, and everyone makes mistakes. As long as you learn from them, that's what's important.
But all of that is making me wonder... Do you only look at people with perfect records when you choose Mods/etc? Given my previous statements, you can probably gather that I'd disagree with that.
Easy. Hannes is boss. Hannes makes the call. With advice taken from current mods.
Honestly, Hannes has very little to do with the selection of "rank-and-file" moderators. He typically only involves himself in the conversation for promoting to global, tech, or admin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
I can tell you for a fact that while we do take in history of infractions and warnings into account, we don't bar people from moderatorship because of it. i can't speak for anyone else, but i do have a spam warning on my record from a -long- time ago.
And R_E, part of me likes that idea, part of me doesn't. i can see -that- becoming a popularity contest. A mod doing his job is usually going to be an unpopular guy, because he's doing things that people don't like. Namely, punishing people. And while people are not -always- upset when they get an infraction or warning, it does happen. We don't want moderators to be nominated for removal just because they're doing their job.
We do (and R_E, you know this) remove moderators when they're not doing their job correctly and refuse to shape up. We remove moderators who break the rules. Lance was removed when it was proven he was a ripper. I believe Senori stopped being the Colo mod because he was continually argumentative with the other moderators and refused to 'play nice'. Who watches the watchmen? The other watchman. We're here because we want to be, we volunteer. So we're not going to let other volunteers screw up the site.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
I kind of like your idea Dread. But it creates a -lot- of paperwork. A lot of PMs to read about people that you think are mod-able. For the same reasons we ask you don't put more than a name in the nomination posts for the Forum Awards, we wouldn't want to do this. It'd just take too much time.
I do, however, like the idea, and if we had plenty of time to do it, or it proved to be a quick and efficient thing, I'd be all for it.
Yea, though the time management thing can be cut down significantly, a bunch of different ways. For example, by saying Person A, Person B and Person C are all eligible for forum X the people (averaging around 3 people per forum) only receiving letters for 3 people. And assuming you instate a measure where you only accept PROFESSIONALLY written papers (500-1000 words, double spaced, with citations) I would assume you'd reduce the amount of letters you receive.
Another way you could do this (though this might be a bit trickier) is that you can have the letters sent to the candidates themselves, then a candidate is allowed to submit 3-5 of those letters to the people in charge of choosing his position.
This latter place relieves most of the paperwork for the mods, and also is kind of like a "trust test". If you get a really good letter about Candidate A from Member B, then you can go to Member B and say "hey did you write this, can we have a copy from you?" And if they're unable to produce a copy, then you can assume that the Candidate was fraudulent and is no longer able to qualify.
Again, these are just ideas, and I'm trying to make everyone happy (some people think that the member base should have a say) but to clarify (in case someone wants my opinion) I don't care. The moderators could be angels or monkeys and it wouldn't make a difference to me.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
We got the applications, and we've been reviewing them. Comparing the applicants to people that had already been suggested for moderatorship. The mods went and looked to see how the applicants posted and acted prior to filling in applications. We basically did everything we normally do, and then added in the fact that the people -wanted- to be mods.
And how is somebody going to be sized up for qualification by just a few lines like the write-in that just occurred and saw you promoted to moderator?
The applications were not considered in a vacuum where the applicant's entire posting/infraction history were ignored; it was a part of the process but not the entire process.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
I can tell you for a fact that while we do take in history of infractions and warnings into account, we don't bar people from moderatorship because of it. i can't speak for anyone else, but i do have a spam warning on my record from a -long- time ago.
So does this mean that anyone with more than 1 warning will not be eligible for modship?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Usually, the moderators pick new moderators after observation, looking for who's already doing a good job without the powers and simply offering the position. Recently we took applications, and we're reviewing them to decide who would do well.
But now, people have expressed interest in coming up with a new system. That's what this thread is before.
Note: While the moderators are encouraging discussion on this subject, and will be taking part, the staff is not yet committing to changing the current system. This thread is for brainstorming, not necessarily changing anything yet.
My helpdesk should you need me.
It is well within the realms of possibility that the current system of choosing mods, while flawed, is the best available. I don't think I'm advocating an open democracy or anything like that.
Sometimes I just get worried that one of my favourite little corners of the internet will get pulled out from under me before I even know what has happened, without me being able to have any say in it.
I do think it depends on the subforum.
Also, in response to what you said on the other thread about picking best fits:
I know how it sounds. I don't know how often it happens, but it has happened once or twice that a potential moderator applicant has been dropped because of their fit with us, or their attitude. But you really need to think about the trade off.
On the one hand, we have a person who would be a great moderator. They know the rules, they are ready to enforce them. They know their subforum, they know the people. But they have a hard time keeping their temper down. They routinely fight with other moderators and users.
Then we have the other one. The guy that doesn't know the subforum as well as the first. For instance, Standard. They know the rules, know the members, but they don't always know the decks for the current card-pool. However, they get along with everyone, a real personable guy, and they try to keep a level head at all times.
Part of our job, God Child, is diplomacy. This thread's a good example. I'm sure you'd rather have the moderator that would make a thread like this to discuss the topic at hand, who wants to hash out the best idea, rather than the one that gets pissed that you're arguing with them and simply ignores you.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Say we -do- have open voting. I know I have people in mind I wouldn't want to be moderators, simply because I've seen how they handle positions of power, and how they treat others. What would you have us do if a person like this wins our moderator election?
My helpdesk should you need me.
I am personally against open voting. There are a lot of people who would win on name recognition alone (a la George Bush Jr.)
I don't think that people will evaluate the right sort of things a moderator needs. A level head and even temper. Maturity. Responsibility. The discipline to not take sides or get involved in personal stuff.
Imagine if your coworkers got to vote on who the human resources manager should be. The person with the most friends would win, and whenever there was a dispute, they would be biased towards their friend. You'd have a lot of charismatic leaders, but charisma isn't really what is needed for the job.
That's my take on it, at least.
I agree 100%. That is why I want the mods to continue to choose the mods. A popular vote would only exacerbate whatever changes on Salvation you might fear.
You expressed to me once how much you valued the opinions of the remainder of folks who joined January 2005, during the MTGNews exodus. How many more 08'ers and 09'ers do you think there are compared to 05'ers? Maybe a hundred active members for each one? Thousands of people joined this site for M10 and Zen, and many have stayed. I don't have any guess as to who they would elect as a mod, but I definitely trust Binary, Seds, and Mikey a thousand times more.
Oh God no. We all saw how much drama was stirred up during something as insignificant as the Awards, with all the accusations of rigging and "playing favorites". I don't even want to think how bad things would get if voting were open for modship.
Having people apply, and the current mods picking from that, is probably best.
This way, if someone has something to say, other than HEY THIS GUY IS SUPER-FRIGGIN SWEET SHOULD BE MOD WON'T BAN ME NO SIR! You know what it is, and you get it. I understand that this might be a bit more work for the mods, but perhaps you should then condense the amount of candidates before announcing it to the user base.
Say you announce the best few for each forum, and then have people send in their letters to the appropriate Forum mods (or subforum mods, as the case may be) and that Mod can pass the letter on if they feel it's good enough.
This way, you can also boil out spammers. If you get the same letter (or even similar to another letter) you can eliminate them.
Just my opinion. Good luck to whoever you choose though.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
I just have to say - and this is coming from a day 1 MTGNews defector - I really don't believe that length of time spent here necessarily means you know who belongs in a position of power. I bet there's still some Jan '05ers around that would just pick the people that act cool, and there are probably some people who joined in November that have seen the way certain people act and know who would make a good moderator.
That said, I think public opinion should have *some* hand in the selection process, but a straight-up public vote will just turn into a popularity contest. Maybe we could do a public nomination for mods, then the current mods could select from the noiminees.
This could actually be a cool idea that would work within the bounds of the current system.
Letters of recommendation.
There is really nothing stopping me right now from PMing a mod with a heartfelt testimonial about why Bob (or whoever) should be the next mod. Pretty much anyone could do this right now, without the mod picking procedure changing.
Making these letters public could lead to a lot of grief-tactics and soapboxing, but having something like this happen quietly and privately could be a really great way of demonstrating the unsung heroes of MTGS.
Yep.
exhibit A
exhibit B
So in other words, the candidate up for grabs should be both someone who is well informed/publicly like AND gets along well with the staff. Someone somewhere in between.
I thought that the idea about narrowing down a list of 'possible candidates' was a good idea but as far as a system with VOTING is concerned... this is a very tough/complicated issue because it is definitely something that could be exploited.
If the voting approach is taken it all comes down to whether or not if the staff can 'trust' the userbase to not pull off any shenanigans. If this line of thought is further elaborated, perhaps an 'admin has final say' clause should be implemented to any winning candidate if it is within an objective, reasonable doubt as to why that candidate would not be appropriate for the role.
I like this. Kinda like how candidates get on a voting ballot.
Terrible idea, no offense to Hannes. 1) That's a lot of pressure to put on one person, and 2) it gives too much power to that person. There's no checks or balances involved in that.
Other than that, in response to Nai, you're right about my idea (process of elimination using [essentially] multiple plurality votes). It basically forces people to choose who they dislike the least. I don't think it's *terrible*, but it's certainly not a whole lot better than just voting once by plurality.
Anyways, like Nai said, it seems backwards, but I agree: The people that are deserving of the job are usually the unsung heroes of that particular forum; reporting posts which violate rules, directing people to the proper area, answering questions, etc. They don't ask for the job, but they're basically doing it without the mod powers anyways, so if they fit the bill (work well w/ the other mods) then that's a pretty good system. It's understandable that there isn't a public vote, because then popularity doesn't come into effect. MrMod, who is constantly giving infractions to MrUser, is going to make them unpopular. However, if that user is actually doing something wrong, then popularity doesn't matter anyways, because the mod giving the infractions is doing the right thing. It's the same in the standard forum. If you're in the Vampires thread, and you bring up splashing a color, everyone is going to tell you to read the thread, and stop bringing it up. Granted, that's a much more niche thing, but you get the point. The user wanting the splash is doing something wrong, and is being reprimanded for it. That also brings up people arguing about infractions; if you don't like the rule, then bring up a topic about the rule. IE, necroing. I've gotten an infraction for necroing, and talking about [WWK] cards in the standard forum. I didn't argue because it's not that big a deal. By and large, if you are watching what you're doing, the infraction's going to expire anyways. ☺☺☺☺ happens, and everyone makes mistakes. As long as you learn from them, that's what's important.
But all of that is making me wonder... Do you only look at people with perfect records when you choose Mods/etc? Given my previous statements, you can probably gather that I'd disagree with that.
Honestly, Hannes has very little to do with the selection of "rank-and-file" moderators. He typically only involves himself in the conversation for promoting to global, tech, or admin.
.
And then the site would die. Not fun.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
People on this site voting for moderators is like lunatics running an insane asylum. It just wouldn't work.
The most popular is seldom the most qualified, especially on an internet message board.
And R_E, part of me likes that idea, part of me doesn't. i can see -that- becoming a popularity contest. A mod doing his job is usually going to be an unpopular guy, because he's doing things that people don't like. Namely, punishing people. And while people are not -always- upset when they get an infraction or warning, it does happen. We don't want moderators to be nominated for removal just because they're doing their job.
We do (and R_E, you know this) remove moderators when they're not doing their job correctly and refuse to shape up. We remove moderators who break the rules. Lance was removed when it was proven he was a ripper. I believe Senori stopped being the Colo mod because he was continually argumentative with the other moderators and refused to 'play nice'. Who watches the watchmen? The other watchman. We're here because we want to be, we volunteer. So we're not going to let other volunteers screw up the site.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
I do, however, like the idea, and if we had plenty of time to do it, or it proved to be a quick and efficient thing, I'd be all for it.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Another way you could do this (though this might be a bit trickier) is that you can have the letters sent to the candidates themselves, then a candidate is allowed to submit 3-5 of those letters to the people in charge of choosing his position.
This latter place relieves most of the paperwork for the mods, and also is kind of like a "trust test". If you get a really good letter about Candidate A from Member B, then you can go to Member B and say "hey did you write this, can we have a copy from you?" And if they're unable to produce a copy, then you can assume that the Candidate was fraudulent and is no longer able to qualify.
Again, these are just ideas, and I'm trying to make everyone happy (some people think that the member base should have a say) but to clarify (in case someone wants my opinion) I don't care. The moderators could be angels or monkeys and it wouldn't make a difference to me.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
And how is somebody going to be sized up for qualification by just a few lines like the write-in that just occurred and saw you promoted to moderator?
We got the applications, and we've been reviewing them. Comparing the applicants to people that had already been suggested for moderatorship. The mods went and looked to see how the applicants posted and acted prior to filling in applications. We basically did everything we normally do, and then added in the fact that the people -wanted- to be mods.
My helpdesk should you need me.
The applications were not considered in a vacuum where the applicant's entire posting/infraction history were ignored; it was a part of the process but not the entire process.
So does this mean that anyone with more than 1 warning will not be eligible for modship?