Before you all start mouthing off about me taking another slag off at mods, i was requested to write what i think on the issue by a moderator based in the US.
I have been slagging off a majority of the moderators for a long time now and will continue to do so unless they get their act together. The image of gupshup moderators is one of individual above the rules of the forum and a clique that you can only join if you know the mods themselves.
The mod teams over the past 4 odd years have changed. From good to bad and then too good again, to its present state of bland. A majority of the moderators are up standing individuals however i feel some are mis-allocated. Before we go into the details i want to discuss some points i have discussed with moderators and a few individuals on the admin team.
The first is the manners or attitude of the moderators. Moderators dont own the forums. They dont even run them to the mis-conception of a majority of the moderators here. You mods are actually subject to the rules and requirements of the site and its membership. I have visit 3 other forums. I am a moderator on 1 of them.
Moderators are 100% questionable on all 3 of these sites. Heck 1 site even banned a moderator for breaking the rules. Both concepts are lacking on gupshup. Moderators on gupshup are basically considered gods for the lack of a better word. No moderator on gupshup is accountable. In the few cases they were questions, the mods put their tails between their legs and ran.
I will take 3 examples of what is consider “normal procedure” with regard to moderatorship action on these other forums and compare it to gupshup.
The first is simple deleting and editting of posts. On all 3 of these forums. Every time a post is deleted or edited, a pm is sent out to the offender to inform him or her that their post has been editted or deleted and which forum rule they have broken. This pm as such maintains a cordial relationship with the membership and also allows transparency as a person knows what rule he broke and no excuse of biased moderatorship.
On gupshup that aint possible as moderators dont even know what the rules are. They make them up as they go along. Pretty sad. There is no core set of disciplines on what to do and what not to. Each forum is run on its own. What is acceptable in World Affairs is not acceptable in cafe and what is done in general will not be tolerated in image. There is no uniformaty. For a single site each forum is a seperate rogue state. As for PMs that is never gonna happen, because then mods can be made accountable for actions they take which arent objective. Rather biased, and that could blow up in their face.
Mods on gupshup arent objective. The quiet ones that never post are but they dont post so who cares what they do? It has no effect.
The second is banning. Moderators on the 3 other sites are given a clear definition of what is possible and what is not. An individual is given 3 chances. 2 warnings and a final warning. Each time an example of what he has done wrong is given in a pm along with a copy of the action. That way he cant complain. One site i frequent very regularly banned a moderator as he flamed individuals. He got the two warnings. The last one was from the owner himself and he was banned. It was a hard thing to do since he helped build the site and worked on it for 3 years. But the rules are the rules.
Gupshup banning hell even putting a moderator straight for breaking the rules aint realistic. Moderators do what they wish when they want. Banning of course is so messed up that a man can be banned for flirting while one that discusses rape in a fashion that is extremely distasteful is left to post. Of course there is also the other concept of the 30 points, which doesnt even work. A person was recently banned yet never got to the full 30 points. For what reason was he banned if he didnt get he 30 points? Nobody, not even the moderators i am sure know exactly why. He broke some rules. But he never reached 30 points and was banned nonetheless.
Either implement the 30 point rule or ban people with a different system. You just cant ban people if they dont have the 30 points. Also a good idea would be the allocation of a point buy system. Flaming 20 points, insulting mod 30 points. Whatever it takes to make it transparent. Of course that would mean mods need to create a rule book. Now nobody wants that as that would be their ass would be on the line for past, present and future bad decisions.
I am skipping the third point as i am tried and have better things to do like watch paint dry.
Moderator, i posted what you wanted. Lets see if this helps in anyway. I doubt it will. I believe it will go unanswered or discussed like always.