New criteria to become a moderator

Hey Polly!

I think the 1000 post deal is irrelavant. It should be quality based,not quantity.

The nomination proccess seems unequivocal at face value.However,I can see it running into biasness.

RW, I will take your thoughts under advisement. I do see your point of view, because in my mind you would be a great moderator.

Please understand that we had to have a starting point.

My 2 cents worth... (not that it's worth much more) lol
I agree with Road also, anyone can post useless post to get to the 1000 mark but most dont' have time to do this. I've gotten loads of good, helpful information from people here with way less than 1000 posts and also gotten great advice from some with more than!
Good Luck Polly,
Ang

I an with you Polly 1000 is a starting point.. But the private emails will help with weeding out useful post. IF the emails are read and reviewed.

Mike started a thread back in March on this same issue. Maybe we can pull it out of the archives and take a peek...



Now what was the point in putting it up for discussion back then, when the ultimate outcome is really only up to Polly now???

I don't like it. I have already stated my position back then, as did other members/mods, and so I won't waste my words again in this post.

Quote:

anyone can post useless post to get to the 1000 mark but most dont' have time to do this

I agree with this!! I've read alot of posts where the person is basically just summing up what the person before them had said.


Quote:

It should be quality based

Quote:

a minimum of 6 months in the community

This are two other things I agree with :)

My opinion for what its worth.Moderators are designated by the management team to help keep the board running.Post number,time here,and other issues are irrelevant. If this person has good information to share with members and demonstrates maturity along with a willingness to do the task,then admin makes the decision to add them or not.

From my perception going back to when I first joined, a moderator was also someone who had substantial knowledge/experience in the boards they moderated and could provide structure and benefit to those discussions in addition to housekeeping.

Since the mission statement portrays moderators as mere housekeepers, whose construction is mainly to remove spam, I agree with Cajun that all the credentials (# of posts, membership term, etc) really are not necessary. Under this scope a mod really does not need to know anything about "debt" or even actively participate, in order to press the delete button and 'can the spam'.

While I think it's good that the community is looking at criteria for moderators, I do have some concerns with what's been proposed. First off, being on the boards for 6 months is fine--but 5 nominations would lead to it being a popularity contest, I feel. And that wouldn't be proactive for anyone!
Also, who's to say what posts are helpful and what are not? What I'm trying to say is, I can see a subjective area opening up here which can't be good.

I can see everyone's points here. I think one of the main problems we've had on this board are people simply not understanding what a mod does. I think people have gotten the wrong idea..Let's face it, we really DON'T have any special privileges, basically we DO just clean up. One thing that wasn't mentioned was the locking/deleting thing. In the past some have gotten too delete/lock happy. It seems at times things were taken away because they were not agreed with. As long as it's not an attack, it needs to stay. Everyone can take a post as they wish, no moderator can dictate what is appropriate..Unless it is excessively negative and hurtful.

I wholeheartedly agree with the nomination thing...Sure, someone could petition for nominations, but the final call is going to be up to Polly and Mike. I trust their judgement.