Who do you think could handle being a moderator on this site to help out Andy?
A conversation Andy and I had the other day made me think of this. This doesn't mean anything, just what do you think.
It obviously has to be a regular, or someone willing to become one, and it has to be someone who level-headed, fair, and not going to delete anything unfairly.
If we get to our goal by the end of the summer of users, by the ways don't forget to spread the word about CD :), then Andy will need help moderating, so it's good to get thinking about it.
:)
3
points
I think there is a lot of great people. No joke, i would suggest Joe Cavalry to be a moderator. Look at his points, he seems to be dedicated. I do have to say that some things that he says needs to be toned down a bit becuase in the eyes of our society, it can be viewed disturbing. But his intentions are pure, and he is a sweet guy. Is he level headed and fair? Well, i never seen him gotten out of line. I personally don't think he will start deleting things unfairly. And Joe is a great bonus because nearly everybody likes him. And he makes Createdebate more welcoming. I also support Chatturgha if he agrees to comes to the site more. Please mistake me if i am wrong but he hasn't came on in a long time. But he is a smart person and i don't believe he would make an unfair decision. I too don't think he will delete things unfairly. I see you on the site alot too, Suarababy. I believe making a video on youtube shows how much passion you have for Createdebate. I don't think you are unfair. You also shown your face, and to me that is a good thing. Knowing who your moderator looks like bring a sense of a warm welcoming or plain welcoming. The brightness and simplicity of this site is welcoming. lol. I even suggest Srom. I don't know him very well, but i never seen him go out of line. He has been kind, and i personally don't think he would delete things unfairly. Is he level headed? When it comes to religion, he thinks that we are wrong, ignorant and stubborn. If im wrong, mistake me Srom. And we think some of us thing he is wrong, ignorant, and stubborn. But when it comes to the decision of knowing someone is wrong such as making uneccessary ugly comments to just hurt someone, i believe he can make the right judgment to ban that person, to warn that person, or to delete that comment made by that person. I really don't know the four well. I can place in order of who can be the best mod based on my beliefs and opinions.... Saurbaby (made a video) Joe (always on here) Srom (see him on here as well) Chatturgha (intelligent and i saw a recent comment by him) I think mostly anybody on this can make the right decision. Hellno, Sunset, Reventon, Apollo, and i bet even the newcomers. I think the most important key aspect to me is if you have been on this site constantly. Yes, being a fair level head is also important but what is the point of being a moderator if you are not dedicated and passionate for the site? :) And also this other guy can be a good moderator. I forgot who he was. I think he was in the marines or the army. He had black color skin, good smile, kind, etc. The guy that had the michael jackson picture. :) 1
point
1
point
I even suggest Srom. I don't know him very well, but i never seen him go out of line. He has been kind, and i personally don't think he would delete things unfairly. Is he level headed? When it comes to religion, he thinks that we are wrong, ignorant and stubborn. If im wrong, mistake me Srom. Well sometimes when it come to what I believe in and if people don't use it properly or just bash what I believe in. I correct them in a way that doesn't hurt the person and not trying to be too nice just correcting them in a orderly fashion so that they know they made a mistake. I think I'd be a good mod mainly because of my libertarian tendencies. In that as much as possible, I'll see inaction as the best action. I'll only move or delete posts on a rare instance when I know that they're spam or unnecessary. But 99% of the time I'll basically do nothing, which is important, because abuse of power is far worse than non-use of power. This is a really interesting question. First, being a moderator could allow you to: Ban users from the site Delete debates entirely Remove debates from showing on the home page Edit debates (titles, positions, tags, the body) Delete arguments Second, what do you do when you get someone on the site who is really creating a stir? Remember when Ismalia (think that is the right spelling) came to the site? She caused a big stir and traffic went thought the roof for about a week! I would bet many moderators would have tried to stop her. But we need people who come ans stir things up every own and then. That is a tough balance to deal with. Third, I feel that I can't really get heated in any debate because someone might accuse me of impropriety in dealing with the situation (even if not true) so I generally won't get in the middle of a really heated debate. I am not sure if a moderator who is really active could be seen as impartial. But, yes I am looking, the time is drawing near where the traffic will be too great for me to deal with it all. Andy 4
points
Here is a suggestion: The moderators can't ban users, delete debates or debate arguments, however, they can temporarily block users from the site, temporarily hide debates and temporarily remove arguments. Whenever they do any of these, you receive a notification, and then you can decide what to do with it. Just throwing some ideas out there. 1
point
2
points
First, being a moderator could allow you to: Is it possible to allow them to remove debates from the home page, but not give them the other powers (you rule supreme, basically, they just help it all along)? I don't have too much experience with the behind the scenes web engineering. Second, what do you do when you get someone on the site who is really creating a stir? I agree that this is an issue, and you'd have to monitor whoever it is closely. Third, I feel that I can't really get heated in any debate I would recommend not telling the general user base who you decide, simply say that you have chosen someone, and if anyone thinks something unfair is going on, they should talk to you about it. Do you feel this is a possibility, or do you think that the community should know who is it? 2
points
Perhaps you could have multiple levels of moderators? 1st level: Flag profiles for potential deletion by an higher level mod. Delete arguments Edit debates 2nd level: Flag profiles for potential deletion by an higher level mod. Delete arguments Edit debates remove debates from showing on the homepage Demote 1st level mods, unless they were promoted by a 3rd level or higher. Promote a first level mode to 2nd, unless previously demoted by a higher level. 3rd level: Delete profiles Delete arguments Edit debates remove debates from showing on the homepage delete debates entirely demote first and second level mods, unless they were promoted by Andy. Promote a first level mod to second, unless demoted by higher level Promote a second level mod to third, unless demoted by higher level 4th level: Keep yourself as some type of superuser, which can't be deleted by level 3s You might want to make the promotion/demotion more democratic, by lets say requiring some level of points to have been acquired before promotion, and you can also check it by length of time, activity or another factor. Ultimately, it would be nice if the site could more or less moderate itself by promoting trusted users into mod positions. The system I proposed suggest that the initial set of mods are awesome, or else there might be some issues. 2
points
I personally believe that simplicity is best at times. I like how you went into details and if Andy supports it, i respect that. In my opinion, your ideas about promotion and moderator levels just gets confusing. I believe having a simple moderator who we can all trust is good enough. God bless peace. Rarely would I ban users. I'm not sure on how you feel about those creating debates that are advertisements. Do you invite that? Bans are strong, and there are two types of bans. Profile bans and IP bans. now, there can be a limit to how long or how much a user can be banned, and mods will probably have to make an appeal to do a perma-ban on a user that they feel is a troll. But as a mod, I'd avoid banning users. I'd avoid editing or deleting anything. I'd only delete multiple arguments of the same content, stuff like that. Keep the site clean. But I love controversy and wouldn't ban or delete someone just because they're as much as a racist or idiot. I believe that mods are for keeping the place tidy. But debate invites controversy, so controversy is NOT messy. 1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
I'm not really too bothered who gets it, I'd trust Andy to make the right decision, but I do think that we badly need someone else to try and manage it. The new debates section is getting ridiculous, and if Andy's serious about massive growth in the number of users, then we need good debates. I have been thinking about the new debates section a little. What if it were split into two sections and if someone "new" posted a new debate, it ended up in a separate "new" debates section, while veteran users (definition of veteran not yet defined), had their own section of "new debates"? Would that help? 1
point
I don't know. No one comes up to mind. However it has to be someone who always goes on like everyday to be moderator. I go on everyday on CD and debate but see I don't know if I can handle being a moderator. I think most of the people probably will say no to me being a moderator or what do you guys think should I be moderator or not? I understand that you are just giving your opinion out and I know you weren't being rude. You were being honest. I wanted some debaters to give their opinion on what they think of me being a moderator and you answered which I am glad you did. :) Well I wouldn't delete unnecessary I would do what Andy wants me to do for a moderator (If he does let me be moderator). 1
point
In all honesty I think a lot of us have this problem in one way or another; most of us would delete something, or go off at someone purely because we don't like them or their view. I'm 100% for freedom of speech and expression, but I know I would end up calling someone a "fucking twat" if they pissed me off with their stupidity, which wouldn't be setting a very good example for the site. I can't actually think of many people that would make good mods, but I know for sure that I wouldn't, ever. 1
point
I apologize if you did the same debate, I was unaware. But I'm not going to delete it for that reason. We've repeated debates several times, it would be irrational for someone to expect to search to see if someone has already done it when they get an idea. Also it's old, why would it matter now? On a side note, I don't appreciate you just going around and downvoting my arguments on here for no obvious reason. Unless, of course, you have a rational reason? I don't have the time... But. I think I would be an excellent mod because I pride myself in my efforts to be all the things a mod needs to be. Most are the same leadership traits for being a Marine or even a Boy Scout. (I am/was both) Scouts - Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent. (Okay, so I'm not reverent) Marines - Justice, Judgment, Dependability, Initiative, Decisiveness, Tact, Integrity Enthusiasm, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, Endurance While most of the people I've banned do disagree with me, I don't ban people for disagreeing with me. Idiots and trolls who can't stay on topic, make personal attacks, try to derail the thread, use multiple accounts, harass, stalk etc... Those, I ban without hesitation. You were a prime candidate. |