Rarit E, you're seriously getting on my nerves now. I'm trying to have a civil debate, and you claim I keep spouting that? Utterly ridiculous.
The godmod thing wasn't really directed at you. I was just making a general statement. However, you've never revealed to me why you think i'm no good as a moderator. I'd like to know what that is so we can stop this nonsense and find a solution.
Quite professional I must say. Loljkk But seriously, your unedited post in the community thread is an example of why you are a crap moderator, the others have a professional touch to their post, you just godmod until you have your way. I.E saying 'god mod' is now harrasment. In that case, brb, while I make a list of what-not-to-say words...my religion u c? Anyway, break over, I have a life to get back to and what-not. T
On plenty of occasions i've asked people why they think i'm not a good moderator. If you can tell me why i'm no good, then we'll see what we can do about it. But so far, you've blatantly ignored my requests, and you keep posting these godmod comments for seemingly no good reason. Personally, i see this as harrassing behaviour and unless you give me a good reason for those comments to be made, i am simply forced to treat it as harrassment. I'm only acting on the things i should be acting on as a moderator. So according to your own logic, any moderator who does his job is a bad one.
Mods do their job, moderating. You godmod, so by my logic, they're good mods. And you pestering us for information about why you're a bad mod is harrasment (to me). So please stop saying that otherwise I'll have to act on it.
Any moderator who behaves, acts and responds in a similar manner, yes. However not all moderators do, so such a statement is both factitious and fatuous, as that is in fact not going by that logic. Maybe it's things like that?
You're calling me out on being a bad moderator. I'm just asking why. That's all i'm asking. If you won't tell me that, then what exactly are you expecting to achieve here? If you don't give me or anyone else on the moderation team something to work with, then there's nothing we can do here. If there's nothing we can do here, then this thread serves no purpose. If this thread serves no purpose, then by my job as moderator, i'm forced to lock it. How exactly is that godmodding?
Perhaps the main difference is speed/force of action and personality. 'Course, I haven't been on the other end of this, I'm just watching in hopes of seeing something productive.
The perception I think I see is that it seems as though you had no grey area before. Rules were black & white to you. And you seemed to act before thinking through the repercussions of your actions. Before, I brought up that rule infraction should be done on a case by case basis, with circumstances taken into account. And I believe Zephyr also talked along the same lines too... The short of it: there is a HUGE difference between moderating and enforcing rules. It seemed, to me, as though you were just a rule enforcer, not a moderator. Do not tell us you can change and will change, show us. All statements above are just my opinions from my observations, please do not take any of it personal. Take it as constructive criticism. Sent from my EVO 4G Shift using Tapatalk 2
Assumes we have nothing else to add to the thread > MUST BE LOCKED. ^ exactly the mentality that makes you a godmodder.
If you recall, I supported that exact idea shortly after leaving the staff. In fact, i wrote a wall of text on it. And (forgive me if i'm wrong) but i believe Zephyr only started talking like that after i wrote that thread. I was the one who (indirectly) inspired the staff to get rid of the infraction system and start moderating based on the situation more than based on the rules. And back then, I already admitted i was at fault too. I moderated the forums more based on what i saw than what was in the rules long before anyone else did. My leniency on the rules was based on who or what i was dealing with at the time. At times i considered it necessary to enforce the rules in a more litteral sense if that was needed to end a particular conflict, but at other times i've been more than lax in my moderating. If you're saying that using the rules to an advantage in order to ensure a timely ending to a bad situation is a crime, then i'm guilty. I will if i'm given the chance. Yet there are at least 3 members i know of who aren't cutting me any slack. You can always ask a moderator to unlock a thread. Wether he does that or not depends on the need and reason. Just because a thread is locked doesn't mean it can't or won't be re-opened again.
Once again, I truly do not understand what you guys have against Rarit E, I am fairly, no, completely certain that he was hired because the staff, and more importantly, the site admins think that he does a good job and I will respect their decision. You guys need to stop making mountains out of molehills, that is all I'm gonna say. Because this 'discussion' is really just a waste of time purported as an angry outcry of the 'community' over some guy being hired as a mod.
Well, the original complaint was pointing to a point of conversational conduct. You know... the original post of this here complaint thread. I was hoping to hear more from Testyal about the original complaint. I think addressing that complaint was the original purpose of the thread, but more got added... as it were. Does that mean that conversational conduct is your complaint about Rarit E being a mod? I'm just trying to help all of us understand here, since the general answers coming from other parties have been short liners.
You got quite defensive there. I am not trying to argue, and yet you went through to rebuff the things I said. Step back. Look at what you just responded to me with. It looks to me as though you did take it personal and just told me I'm wrong about everything I see. THAT is case and point about what I don't like about your moderating methods. I'm sorry that how I see you is apparently in no way correct.
You must have misread it then . I'm agreeing with most of what you said, and i'm acknowledging that some things about me need to change. (though i admit it may have been slightly unclear) Up until just now, i simply didn't know what it was that needed to change.
Well before he was hired there were 2 others that were thought of to take this place. From what I understand, Rarit-e was picked because of his "past with the staff" and because he followed up on that one week rule. I say that one week thing is up for debated based on the wording I saw last time this was brought up. Now of the 2 others and Rarit-e for the job I don't believe any of them really deserve the spot. But that is just my useless worthless opinion, ja. So now I figure that as a member of this site I have the right to be upset that this person was allowed back on the staff. That's just me, I'm pretty sure according to the rules I am indeed not allowed to have opinions on such things. So yeah I think this is a bad choice and it seems at least 2 others agree.
Ok, that's better. You did come off as abrasive in your response. Try to be more clear and concise, as you just were with this response. A lot of this, to me, can be attributed to both sides being misconstrued. I propose this: Zephyr and Mike should use a probationary period for new hires (like every job I've ever had). Give new hires 30 or 60 days on probation. See how they interact with the users and how they are received. This also gives them a chance to modify their behavior as well in case they are not doing the job correctly. If they can't fix themselves, then you have a set date that everyone is aware of where they will either be kept or not.
