Is it possible that the best solution is to have many admins, like some other forums (about 10).
-The workload is shared around to make it lighter
-decisions have more input
-there is less pressure for the admins to hold all this "charisma" which seems to be required for an admin here
These forums usually don't have a Global Mod group because there is no point; mods get promoted straight to admin. Because there is an admin collective instead of one, two or three, it means members who aren't as supreme as Goblinboy can be a good admin because they get help from the group.
Danny, there is much to say about the woes of bureaucracy. Simply put, complicating things needlessly is often entirely the wrong way to go about solving any potential problem.
Oh my opinion doesn't matter here wow your close minded and what not. I can post in this if I feel like it and guess what my opinion ='s yours in importance or whatever.
Unless I misunderstand Jobie's intent there, he was merely expressing his distaste for your allusion to the subject of the 'vocal minority', which, from what I have read, is apparently a hot-button issue, as the root of the majority of the problems and outspoken threads in Speak Your Mind.
While this does imply that the staff is wholly separate from the community, which is indeed not the case, this is a good idea that we have already brought up in staff discussions.
Intelligently and calmly conveying issues to the staff is the best way to actually get things done, and finding a member that could do so would be purely beneficial to progress on the site.
The only relative flaw with this, in my mind, is that the staff should never, ever be so distanced from the community that the community needs a representative to explain their wishes to the staff.
I seem to recall that the German General Staff was 'relatively happy or apathetic' with the positions of Chancellor and President being occupied by one Adolf Hitler and patiently endured his authority despite his continual, if subtle, alterations and undermining of their rights, voice, influence, and power before 1939, and didn't expect any sort of 'catastrophic failure' either. Well, we know how that turned out.
My point being, that the situation needs to be resolved before it degrades further, if indeed that is the general belief.
Not to bandwagon Cyan, but comparing any single person or action on the Internet to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime is so immediately short-sighted that it's laughable.
What the **** ever you piece of ****. Do what ever drama **** ya want...
I understand that nan expressed his desire to let such posts to the forum's moderators, but there is no reason that this post should not be infracted for flaming by now. Mind, Cyan's not being the most lovable of personalities either, however, SapphireTri directly attacked Cyan with this sort of name-calling, which is without-a-doubt, a completely obvious flame. It really ought to be addressed.
People have had their fair share of issues with what you do. There's been controversy, drama, and all sorts of other forum-related matters. Moderation is never a fun job.
But through it all, you've remained consistently committed to the right thing: the idea that the rules and your very position as a moderator are only there as a supplement to keep the forum from degrading into an awful mess. Too often in large organizations does the meaning for which rules and moderators exist become lost in a mess of bureaucracy. Too often do people begin to blur the lines between supplementing the needs of the user-base and treating the rules as an end rather than a means.
People haven't always agreed with what you did or what you said as a result of it, but at least, you can say that you were consistently your own person. You can stand and say that you said what you meant and meant what you said, rather than constantly stating the same thing as every other staff member.
Danny, there is much to say about the woes of bureaucracy. Simply put, complicating things needlessly is often entirely the wrong way to go about solving any potential problem.
Unless I misunderstand Jobie's intent there, he was merely expressing his distaste for your allusion to the subject of the 'vocal minority', which, from what I have read, is apparently a hot-button issue, as the root of the majority of the problems and outspoken threads in Speak Your Mind.
You just gained a healthy amount of respect in my book to admit you were wrong in doing that.
Very mature of you, indeed.
The only relative flaw with this, in my mind, is that the staff should never, ever be so distanced from the community that the community needs a representative to explain their wishes to the staff.
Not to bandwagon Cyan, but comparing any single person or action on the Internet to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime is so immediately short-sighted that it's laughable.
Thanks.
I understand that nan expressed his desire to let such posts to the forum's moderators, but there is no reason that this post should not be infracted for flaming by now. Mind, Cyan's not being the most lovable of personalities either, however, SapphireTri directly attacked Cyan with this sort of name-calling, which is without-a-doubt, a completely obvious flame. It really ought to be addressed.
Have her take you to McDonald's or similar. And to the gas station, etc.
People have had their fair share of issues with what you do. There's been controversy, drama, and all sorts of other forum-related matters. Moderation is never a fun job.
But through it all, you've remained consistently committed to the right thing: the idea that the rules and your very position as a moderator are only there as a supplement to keep the forum from degrading into an awful mess. Too often in large organizations does the meaning for which rules and moderators exist become lost in a mess of bureaucracy. Too often do people begin to blur the lines between supplementing the needs of the user-base and treating the rules as an end rather than a means.
People haven't always agreed with what you did or what you said as a result of it, but at least, you can say that you were consistently your own person. You can stand and say that you said what you meant and meant what you said, rather than constantly stating the same thing as every other staff member.
Here's to you, Thomas.
Cheers.