Suggestion: Relax some of the criteria for new Forum Moderators/Global Mods

[Aurabolt]

I'm expecting an unemphatic "hell no" but given there's now maybe two or three Forum Mods, I feel like SOMETHING needs to be done.

I know there's 7 or 8 Global Mods but presuming all of 'em have lives outside of MMO-C--it was noted in a closed thread I saw some are only around a few days a week--they can't attend to every single forum at any given time. I'm also aware being a Mod is 100% volunteer and most of the work done happens behind the scenes. I've been a Moderator or Admin of forums elsewhere, I know how it is.

Hence my suggestion relaxing some of the criteria for people to apply to become Moderators and Global Mods. Obviously those who've got a lot of infractions or bans that criteria doesn't change. I'm specifically referring to the post activity and account age requirements. The relaxing of those two rules can be offset by simply having a chat with the candidate or a messenger app (Discord, Skype, etc.). You'd naturally want to know if the person in question is someone who can be reliably "there" for better or worse. That kind of assessment shouldn't take more than 5 or 10 minutes per applicant. You don't even need to try to talk to hundreds or thousands of people.

I asked a similar question 4 or 5 years back and from what I remember, myself and a few others who responded were basically told "Post/Comment in <insert forum here> a lot, etc." but that felt a bit disingenuous as there's obviously those who are regulars in certain forums but don't post much. This is also why I added the suggestion of having a chat with people who would otherwise meet the other criteria. The prescreening process is pretty thorough already and I'm not saying that should change. Just saying some of the criteria should be adjusted to increase the chances of getting otherwise qualified people. It's already 100% Volunteer and I think everyone understands that.

A more "extreme" idea for @chaud to consider would probably be to pay Mods and G-Mods though =P

[Santti]

No! For the love of god, don't!

We have seen how awful shit mods can be. And no, I don't talk about Endus, he was a good mod. I'd much rather have to endure some waiting in order to get problematic posts/threads properly moderated, rather than have shit mod handing out questionable bans that ultimately fuck-up the entire thread to hell.

[Aleksej89]

frankly the forums would be a better place if the brand new accounts were heavily discouraged (prevented?) from starting new threads.

there is a dedicated squad of pathetic flamebait trolls that create throwaway accounts just to antagonize and cause fights amongst the community with controversial topics that have been talked to death which often devolve into personal insults which mods then have to moderate.

if that whole nonsense was prevented the whole community would be better.
there is no perfect solution but current one is the worst for everyone (except the trolls who are loving it).

[Lochton]

frankly the forums would be a better place if the brand new accounts were heavily discouraged (prevented?) from starting new threads.

there is a dedicated squad of pathetic flamebait trolls that create throwaway accounts just to antagonize and cause fights amongst the community with controversial topics that have been talked to death which often devolve into personal insults which mods then have to moderate.

if that whole nonsense was prevented the whole community would be better.
there is no perfect solution but current one is the worst for everyone (except the trolls who are loving it).

I do agree that it would be delightful to see some sort of cooldown period on making new threads for new accounts but if I recall, there was a mention of worry that they'll just bring their topic into a different thread, whether it is about said topic or not...

[draynay]

It isn't the worst idea to reevaluate the participation level or the scope of time they monitor for eligibility.

Maybe they'd change it, maybe not, but it would be worth having another look at IMHO.

[Venara]

There is an FAQ that explains the reasoning for current requirements.
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...Q-amp-A-Thread

The FAQ also contains links to where specific points where elaborated on further, including the post activity requirement.

The relaxing of those two rules can be offset by simply having a chat with the candidate or a messenger app (Discord, Skype, etc.). You'd naturally want to know if the person in question is someone who can be reliably "there" for better or worse. That kind of assessment shouldn't take more than 5 or 10 minutes per applicant.

You're talking about two different things here. Being "there" reliably, i.e. their availability, and post activity / account age are completely different things.

Having said this, I have a feeling you may be specifically talking about members who are active on the site, but perhaps not active enough in certain forums to meet the eligibility criteria to apply to mod in that section. Tziva elaborated on this here.

Our current requirements regarding post activity are pretty low as it is. In some areas it's less than one post per day, in most others it's about one post per day. Any reasonably active member who wishes to apply should have no problem meeting the requirement.

If you're not meeting the requirement, you may want to examine why you want to apply to mod in a section that you don't actually participate in very actively. If you have good reasons, then great, why not just focus on participating in this section more to get to the point where you do meet the requirement?

We always welcome suggestions but, given our requirements are already set fairly low as explained above, it is unlikely these will change.

[Necromantic]

I'd much rather have to endure some waiting in order to get problematic posts/threads properly moderated, rather than have shit mod handing out questionable bans that ultimately fuck-up the entire thread to hell.

Yeah, this is already a current issue, especially when the questionable actions are lumped into vague/generic categories in a poor attempt to justify them. Best not to exacerbate it any further.

A few years back, I wrote the moderation criteria for several forums and one thing thats always worked was pre-screen questionaires to judge how actions would be applied to see if someone was simply looking to defuse a situation and use infractions as a very last resort (as it should always be) or just itching to infract. The results were surprising to some.

[Venara]

/closing this here.

It's fine to bring up a suggestion regarding how moderator applications work, and further suggestions on this topic will be welcome if there are any.

However, this is not an avenue to discuss moderation in general and that is where this thread is going currently.