Forum Moderator Applications!
- Thread starter Halcyon
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's right to try to denounce anyone's motives or capability of doing this job based on how well known they are on here and/or in game, whether they've had past discrepancies with other members that have long since been dealt with, whether anyone perceives their motives to be for some sort of ulterior motive or gain (pink ears, authority over other members etc).
If you chose to apply for this job it's because (I hope, if it's not it certainly should have been) you fully know and understand the responsibility of the job you're applying for, and are ready and willing to accept it and use it wisely if you are accepted. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. There's an application process for a reason, and the staff members that will pour over the applications will decide who is and isn't qualified.
I just don't think it's fair or right for anyone to be on this thread trying to ruin the chances of someone who genuinely applied and wants to do good by the forums by becoming a mod to make it a better place, just because they either don't like them for various personal reasons, or because they're trying to undermine them based on judgement's even though they don't really know the person. It shouldn't matter whether they're a new member, or an old member that everyone knows. I'd like to think if you choose to apply, you have an equal chance as anyone else. That is what is fair.
Anyways, good luck to everyone that applied
If you chose to apply for this job it's because (I hope, if it's not it certainly should have been) you fully know and understand the responsibility of the job you're applying for, and are ready and willing to accept it and use it wisely if you are accepted. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. There's an application process for a reason, and the staff members that will pour over the applications will decide who is and isn't qualified.
I just don't think it's fair or right for anyone to be on this thread trying to ruin the chances of someone who genuinely applied and wants to do good by the forums by becoming a mod to make it a better place, just because they either don't like them for various personal reasons, or because they're trying to undermine them based on judgement's even though they don't really know the person. It shouldn't matter whether they're a new member, or an old member that everyone knows. I'd like to think if you choose to apply, you have an equal chance as anyone else. That is what is fair.
Anyways, good luck to everyone that applied
Last edited:
I just don't think it's fair or right for anyone to be on this thread trying to ruin the chances of someone who genuinely applied and wants to do good by the forums by becoming a mod to make it a better place. It shouldn't matter whether they're a new member, or an old member that everyone knows. I'd like to think if you choose to apply, you have an equal chance as anyone else. That is what is fair.
But I mean, if the people applying are doing what they're supposed to do and being positive members of the community, then they should have nothing to worry about, right?
Really, I don't think moderator applications being open has to be a big deal. We're not choosing the next President, we're choosing an individual of the community that is eager and willing to dedicate their time to making sure that us forum people are happy campers. [MENTION=183]Littlebelle[/MENTION] hit it right on the head earlier and I just want everyone to know that whoever is picked has my support. Unfortunately, some members of the community lack the basic understanding of being caring and considerate of other people, regardless of how they feel about him/her. You are entering a position where undoubtedly people will try and tell you why you aren't good enough, and unkind things will most likely be said. But just know that you have the support of me and many other members and that the good always outweighs the bad. All you need is to believe in yourself and you will succeed.
I hope that when the new staff members are announced that they are treated with the respect that all people deserve.
ps. I'm throwing an oreo party 4 the new staff.
I hope that when the new staff members are announced that they are treated with the respect that all people deserve.
ps. I'm throwing an oreo party 4 the new staff.
Last edited:
First and foremost I want to thank Halcyon for the opportunity to speak candidly about this very important issue. Though I realize it is unrealistic to compare this selection process to something as prestigious as a Presidential election, it still serves a very important purpose for the community. It is my firm belief that moderators set the tone and mood for the forum they represent. The person chosen must be willing to serve the community in a way that radiates the spirit of the forum and spirit of the game.
Moderation has to be one of the most thankless and most challenging positions on the internet. Like Belle said it opens yourself up to all kinds of unsolicited criticism of possibly every decision you make. It is not wise to tread into this territory without fulling understanding what a position of authority entails and what one might possibly have to weather should people become unhappy with a decision you make. Having thick skin becomes a requirement because chances are someone somewhere will be unhappy with something you did and it will be talked about somewhere (possibly somewhere that can not be censored or edited).
A moderator's job is to enforce the rules not enforce opinions. That means if someone posts something that you might not agree with, it will fall on you to only hold it up to the guidelines of the forums and not against your opinion of what may or may not be right and/or appropriate. Impartiality goes hand and hand with moderation. One must be able to look objectively at every single thing posted and only compare it to rules and guidelines. It's also never wise to moderate anything you have emotional attachment to because it can greatly increase the risks is enforcing biases over rules. The person selected I would hope would be someone who can detach themselves from emotional attachment of controversial opinions or topics and look at each thing with a blank canvas while only acting when actual policy comes into play.
I seldom believe this philosophy but in this case I wholeheartedly believe motivation matters. A person should really only be applying if they have the best intentions at heart for the community. A moderator position is not about status and is not about how to gain the most benefits with the least amount of effort. It is about being an ambassador to the community and what it represents. When a person applies for a job such at this it makes them a big target for everyone, it shines the spotlight onto them. When the attention is on someone it can become easy to be corrupted and very easy to wanting to resist making unpopular yet necessary decisions. A person who applies should want to help the community not help themselves. A lot of time and work goes into moderation, I know first hand from past experiences it is not all about riding Fantasyland rides wearing pink mouse ears. If a person is not willing to take the job seriously, they should bow out and let someone who will do it and do it well.
Past behavior should be taken into account. It would be a disservice to the community to put someone prone to drama and confrontation in a position where their impartiality could be tested. Passion is a good thing it can lead to many fantastic accomplishments but a forum moderator position may not be the best place for passion. A forum moderator is a community member everyone should for for support, guidance, help, and concerns. When you have someone who could potentially ostracize members or put members in a position of no confidence, it alienates people. The best possible solution would be to consider only those who have proven to be helpful, upbeat, and calculated. You never want to be in a position where you truly need help with what ever reason and the only person available to assist is someone prone to mood-swings, grudges, rants, and condescending demeanors. How someone acts in the past shows what they could act like in the future, from past experience I've noticed people very rarely change, just settings do.
I realize this point many may not agree with and thats perfectly fine, but I believe experience matters. There are many opportunities throughout life to learn and grow. I do not believe being in a position of authority that effects others is a good setting for one to learn and experiment (we all saw how that went with Kevin but I digress). A person with prior experience in working with people, managing, or even moderating other forums typically has a greater chance of knowing the ins and outs of moderating and already has an established idea of how a forum should be run and the best way to manage conflict. Its always a good idea to give yourself the best chance at success by utilizing people who already know the best approaches keeping the peace. I do believe there is always room for people grow and learn how to do new things, but i also believe it should be a progression over several steps that does not involve being thrown into the lion's den so to speak.
With the above point I would like to say also, age doesn't matter, but maturity does. It really comes back to the ability to be impartial and the ability to not get involved, if someone can manage their emotions and do whats best for the community without a bias I don't see why it would matter how young or old a person is.
I do however feel involvement in the community does matter. Having a person heavily involved in drama and in the game has its obvious cons. It is typically never a good idea to put a person in a position of authority when they already have a pre-established reputation of getting into conflicts with other people. Many people find it challenging to separate personal from professional. It can also take many years to develop those skills but a forum moderator position is not the place to develop and learn it is the place to enforce the rules, help members when needed, and strive to keep the community an upbeat and pleasant place to socialize and have fun. By the same coin members who have the habit of being helpful, kind, considerate, and caring could potentially be good choices for a moderator, it ultimately depends on what the powers that be that run this site/game decide.
Regardless who is picked I know the powers that be will choose someone who will do the job well, not someone that is necessarily well liked or passionate. This job is not about status it is about structure, organization and dedication.
Just my opinion...
Moderation has to be one of the most thankless and most challenging positions on the internet. Like Belle said it opens yourself up to all kinds of unsolicited criticism of possibly every decision you make. It is not wise to tread into this territory without fulling understanding what a position of authority entails and what one might possibly have to weather should people become unhappy with a decision you make. Having thick skin becomes a requirement because chances are someone somewhere will be unhappy with something you did and it will be talked about somewhere (possibly somewhere that can not be censored or edited).
A moderator's job is to enforce the rules not enforce opinions. That means if someone posts something that you might not agree with, it will fall on you to only hold it up to the guidelines of the forums and not against your opinion of what may or may not be right and/or appropriate. Impartiality goes hand and hand with moderation. One must be able to look objectively at every single thing posted and only compare it to rules and guidelines. It's also never wise to moderate anything you have emotional attachment to because it can greatly increase the risks is enforcing biases over rules. The person selected I would hope would be someone who can detach themselves from emotional attachment of controversial opinions or topics and look at each thing with a blank canvas while only acting when actual policy comes into play.
I seldom believe this philosophy but in this case I wholeheartedly believe motivation matters. A person should really only be applying if they have the best intentions at heart for the community. A moderator position is not about status and is not about how to gain the most benefits with the least amount of effort. It is about being an ambassador to the community and what it represents. When a person applies for a job such at this it makes them a big target for everyone, it shines the spotlight onto them. When the attention is on someone it can become easy to be corrupted and very easy to wanting to resist making unpopular yet necessary decisions. A person who applies should want to help the community not help themselves. A lot of time and work goes into moderation, I know first hand from past experiences it is not all about riding Fantasyland rides wearing pink mouse ears. If a person is not willing to take the job seriously, they should bow out and let someone who will do it and do it well.
Past behavior should be taken into account. It would be a disservice to the community to put someone prone to drama and confrontation in a position where their impartiality could be tested. Passion is a good thing it can lead to many fantastic accomplishments but a forum moderator position may not be the best place for passion. A forum moderator is a community member everyone should for for support, guidance, help, and concerns. When you have someone who could potentially ostracize members or put members in a position of no confidence, it alienates people. The best possible solution would be to consider only those who have proven to be helpful, upbeat, and calculated. You never want to be in a position where you truly need help with what ever reason and the only person available to assist is someone prone to mood-swings, grudges, rants, and condescending demeanors. How someone acts in the past shows what they could act like in the future, from past experience I've noticed people very rarely change, just settings do.
I realize this point many may not agree with and thats perfectly fine, but I believe experience matters. There are many opportunities throughout life to learn and grow. I do not believe being in a position of authority that effects others is a good setting for one to learn and experiment (we all saw how that went with Kevin but I digress). A person with prior experience in working with people, managing, or even moderating other forums typically has a greater chance of knowing the ins and outs of moderating and already has an established idea of how a forum should be run and the best way to manage conflict. Its always a good idea to give yourself the best chance at success by utilizing people who already know the best approaches keeping the peace. I do believe there is always room for people grow and learn how to do new things, but i also believe it should be a progression over several steps that does not involve being thrown into the lion's den so to speak.
With the above point I would like to say also, age doesn't matter, but maturity does. It really comes back to the ability to be impartial and the ability to not get involved, if someone can manage their emotions and do whats best for the community without a bias I don't see why it would matter how young or old a person is.
I do however feel involvement in the community does matter. Having a person heavily involved in drama and in the game has its obvious cons. It is typically never a good idea to put a person in a position of authority when they already have a pre-established reputation of getting into conflicts with other people. Many people find it challenging to separate personal from professional. It can also take many years to develop those skills but a forum moderator position is not the place to develop and learn it is the place to enforce the rules, help members when needed, and strive to keep the community an upbeat and pleasant place to socialize and have fun. By the same coin members who have the habit of being helpful, kind, considerate, and caring could potentially be good choices for a moderator, it ultimately depends on what the powers that be that run this site/game decide.
Regardless who is picked I know the powers that be will choose someone who will do the job well, not someone that is necessarily well liked or passionate. This job is not about status it is about structure, organization and dedication.
Just my opinion...
Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't see why some people are like 'Oooooh! I hope this person isn't picked, because I don't like them". I'm sure the staff know what they're doing, and know who is the best fit to be a mod. The way I see it is: If you're online often, know the community, and can put personal issues aside, I don't see why you can't be a good mod, whether I like you or not.
Thank you for bringing light to these two points here. This is something that I find extremely important in a forum mod. I feel like a lot of people think that they can apply for a job and, in that case, should be given a chance to start at new and not judged for their past. However, myself, as well as others who have applied I'm sure, have been in situations that involve feeding the fire to an argument on the forums, or even just adding onto a situation on here in general that can be taken out of hand easily (even if not done by the person themselves). So, I admit to my faults, and even though I have applied, I do support your points 100% because I think the community deserves somebody who has been a role model from the get-go.
Thanks again
!
Thanks again
!
If you're doubting how much opposition you may see as a mod, take a look back at how some members of the community behaved when testers were selected. Testers - which I feel is a position of much less relevance to the community as a whole, especially compared to moderating - received a lot of flack after applying fairly and being chosen - minus the select few scenarios with an irresponsible staff member, but that aside - simply because of the jealousy or negativity in parts of the community. Some of these same members will continue to say staff will make the best decision and they trust them to pick great mods until they're not selected at which point their attitude will again shift.
It's irritating, and a bit immature, but I guess my point is that if you're applying you should be prepared for that kind of disapproval to be constant, but be glad when it's anything but - expect the worst, hope for the best, so to speak. I'm sure it'll be easy as a mod to get frustrated with naysayers, but so long as no one is breaking a rule, it'll be best to let it be, and "kill everyone with kindness" where it applies.
The best mods I've seen are the most neutral, and that's a quality that can be very hard to adopt.
Best of luck to those choosing to apply! It'll be interesting to see how the community grows from here.
It's irritating, and a bit immature, but I guess my point is that if you're applying you should be prepared for that kind of disapproval to be constant, but be glad when it's anything but - expect the worst, hope for the best, so to speak. I'm sure it'll be easy as a mod to get frustrated with naysayers, but so long as no one is breaking a rule, it'll be best to let it be, and "kill everyone with kindness" where it applies.
The best mods I've seen are the most neutral, and that's a quality that can be very hard to adopt.
Best of luck to those choosing to apply! It'll be interesting to see how the community grows from here.
I agree with you on everything. Your post was well written.
I can see where Gandalf/Fiyero is coming from, because I have some concerns as well. Like Austin said, I've also realized that people very rarely change. So any past arguments, bans, or infractions should definitely be taken into account. I believe a general rule most forums have when they open applications is that applicants not have had any bans or infractions within x number of months or weeks. Post count should also be taken into account.
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
I agree with you on everything. Your post was well written.
I can see where Gandalf/Fiyero is coming from, because I have some concerns as well. Like Austin said, I've also realized that people very rarely change. So any past arguments, bans, or infractions should definitely be taken into account. I believe a general rule most forums have when they open applications is that applicants not have had any bans or infractions within x number of months or weeks. Post count should also be taken into account.
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
For some reason, a few members believe that I don't want people to be Moderators for personal reasons. This couldn't be further from the truth. Honestly if it was just about not liking someone, I'd just ignore them and their application for Moderator. This is about making sure the community finds Staff Members who can do the job they are called for. It's great that people want to have a chance to be a Moderator, but not everyone is cut out for the position for a plethora of reasons, and they most likely aren't gonna change by being thrust into a position of responsibility within the community.
I agree with you on everything. Your post was well written.
I can see where Gandalf/Fiyero is coming from, because I have some concerns as well. Like Austin said, I've also realized that people very rarely change. So any past arguments, bans, or infractions should definitely be taken into account. I believe a general rule most forums have when they open applications is that applicants not have had any bans or infractions within x number of months or weeks. Post count should also be taken into account.
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
For some reason, a few members believe that I don't want people to be Moderators for personal reasons. This couldn't be further from the truth. Honestly if it was just about not liking someone, I'd just ignore them and their application for Moderator. This is about making sure the community finds Staff Members who can do the job they are called for. It's great that people want to have a chance to be a Moderator, but not everyone is cut out for the position for a plethora of reasons, and they most likely aren't gonna change by being thrust into a position of responsibility within the community.
I think what everyone needs to think about as well though is how much do you honestly know about those that have said they applied? It could actually be a lot less than you think. You can't necessarily judge a person's professional manner and how they operate in a job or their abilities to do a specific job well based on what you know from them through a virtual game.
I'm sure there's quite a few people here no one would expect to have dealt with efficiently and been the best at working with people directly, and handling sometimes taxing and conflicting situations.
What I'm trying to say is, the ability to do a job correctly comes from experience (as others have eloquently stated above) in dealing with the different aspects that apply to a moderator's position. Of course things like past bans/infractions and such should be taken in to account (much like if someone applying for a job has a history of criminal behavior etc), but keep in mind past discrepancies among members isn't always as black and white as you might think. There's too sides to every coin, and it's up to the staff whether they want to take past issues in to account or not.
I just don't think anyone should be judged based on what people think they know about you, or who they think you are. Because people can surprise you. Someone you think wouldn't be a proper candidate or capable of doing this job could turn out to be the best at it.
I respect everybody's opinions, but I really think that at this point the best we can do is sit back and let the staff team do their job and sort through the applications. I feel like we should be able to nominate and give opinions on those we do not wish to see as a staff member, but really I feel we should sit back and let the staff do their thing. Let's wait until they actually hire a bad moderator before we disagree with their staff choices. I feel like already people are booing their decisions. lol. Yes, it's best to stop disasters before they occur, however, there's really only so much we can do until the new staff are presented to us and for all we know the best moderator ever may be being selected right now. We just don't know. People automatically assume the worst before we even consider the positive side of situations.
I agree with you on everything. Your post was well written.
I can see where Gandalf/Fiyero is coming from, because I have some concerns as well. Like Austin said, I've also realized that people very rarely change. So any past arguments, bans, or infractions should definitely be taken into account. I believe a general rule most forums have when they open applications is that applicants not have had any bans or infractions within x number of months or weeks. Post count should also be taken into account.
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
I personally don't see applications working for this community at all. I'm not a fan of them in general because they're usually used when the forum owners either:
a) can't find any members to handpick (because there aren't any who can handle the responsibility)
b) because the owners don't want to handpick members or
c) because the forum has just opened. (That's about the only time I condone them.)
Austin pretty much hit all the points I would've brought up. My problem with applications is that you can't clearly see a member. As soon as members learn applications are open, everyone acts differently - they want to be on their best behavior. So yeah, choosing moderators is a pretty big deal. (That's another reason why I think handpicking is the best option. Members aren't looking to be picked, so they're not on their best behavior - they're simply being themselves.)
Just some things I'd like to add:
1) Experience: I also think experience is crucial to the job... like Austin said, not necessarily with the forum software itself, but with people. That is so very important. From what I've observed, most people on this forum can't stand when someone disagrees with them. The maturity level is extremely low. I would say there's literally only a handful of members that should actually be considered for the job.
2) Activity: Someone who is daily (or at least weekly) active is also important. I would never suggest hiring someone that the community doesn't know... we saw plenty of that OVMKF and it's actually already been done on here as well. That's why post count should be a big factor in the decision.
Explanation:
The relationship between member and moderator is a special one; at least it should be. Members need to feel like they can go to moderators (and admins) with any problems they have, and honestly, that's just not the feeling that a lot of the staff on here give off. If the person isn't already known to the community, then they're not likely going to feel like they can go to them with issues. Hiring someone who isn't known usually just causes members to question staff's ability to choose good moderators.
3) Likeability: You also want someone who is relatively likeable... you need to evaluate how the community will respond to this person's promotion. (This one goes along with #2, but it also has its differences.) If the community disagrees with the decision, what's the reason? Is it jealousy/immaturity or is it that something was missed about this person during the application process? (I suppose this point goes along with applicants having previous experience working with people.)
4) Reports: Of course, you should always look at how often (and accurate) the person's reports are. IMO, if they're not reporting, then they shouldn't be considered for a position.
5) Clean record/history: I think this is pretty important as well. If they can't follow the rules, how can they be expected to enforce them? I'm not just talking about bans or infractions, either. Backseat moderating is the main issue on this forum... and you never hire a backseat moderator. (That goes with principle of not being able to follow rules.)
But if applications are considered absolutely necessary to you guys (for whatever reason), then in the future, I would suggest you change the application. I personally believe in a rather extensive training process for new moderators and I think the application should be the beginning of that. Many applications often include scenarios and then ask how the member would act. You can come up with your own, you can check out forums that specifically deal with forum ownership, etc... I mainly got most of mine from the latter and from observing other forums' applications.
Now I know that the process of picking staff is more than the application; in fact, the application is more of a "statement of intent." It just means that they're interested. (But then again, most people are going to be interested because they want the perks that go along with the job.) I know that a person's history is thoroughly looked at, but yet again, once applications are announced, you have to assume that each person is on their best behavior. (Which is quite sad, really.)
I haven't agreed with most staff promotions, so I'm not likely to agree with these either... I clash with the staff quite a bit, but in this case, I just hope they keep these suggestions in mind while making their decisions, because I've been through this before. Picking the right staff (or wrong staff) can make or break your forum. That's why when it comes to applications, members need to be involved. With the handpicking process, members aren't likely going to be given a chance to get involved.
Anyway, that's the short version of my opinion on the whole thing ... it's mostly based off of observations and years of personal experience learning how to deal with people in such situations. I'm sure there's more to add that I forgot, but oh well... you get the gist of it. So yeah, good luck...
For some reason, a few members believe that I don't want people to be Moderators for personal reasons. This couldn't be further from the truth. Honestly if it was just about not liking someone, I'd just ignore them and their application for Moderator. This is about making sure the community finds Staff Members who can do the job they are called for. It's great that people want to have a chance to be a Moderator, but not everyone is cut out for the position for a plethora of reasons, and they most likely aren't gonna change by being thrust into a position of responsibility within the community.
I think what everyone needs to think about as well though is how much do you honestly know about those that have said they applied? It could actually be a lot less than you think. You can't necessarily judge a person's professional manner and how they operate in a job or their abilities to do a specific job well based on what you know from them through a virtual game.
I'm sure there's quite a few people here no one would expect to have dealt with efficiently and been the best at working with people directly, and handling sometimes taxing and conflicting situations.
What I'm trying to say is, the ability to do a job correctly comes from experience (as others have eloquently stated above) in dealing with the different aspects that apply to a moderator's position. Of course things like past bans/infractions and such should be taken in to account (much like if someone applying for a job has a history of criminal behavior etc), but keep in mind past discrepancies among members isn't always as black and white as you might think. There's too sides to every coin, and it's up to the staff whether they want to take past issues in to account or not.
I just don't think anyone should be judged based on what people think they know about you, or who they think you are. Because people can surprise you. Someone you think wouldn't be a proper candidate or capable of doing this job could turn out to be the best at it.
No... I agree with you. And it's not that anyone's disagreeing before decisions are being made, it's that we're actually concerned about this because in the past, mistakes have been made and we don't want a repeat of them. And I think it's also that if a person express their opinion about a new moderator after they've been hired, it's already too late, which is why opinions should be voiced before the hiring process takes place. We just don't want that to happen.
[MENTION=4548]sebert.s_cyrokinesis[/MENTION]: No, I agree with you... that's why I said "how often (and accurate)." I know people can be extremely petty when it comes to reports. Personally, I see rules being broken all the time (in every section of the forum)... so I'm not sure how others aren't seeing them lol. But yes, I definitely agree with you!
[MENTION=4548]sebert.s_cyrokinesis[/MENTION]: No, I agree with you... that's why I said "how often (and accurate)." I know people can be extremely petty when it comes to reports. Personally, I see rules being broken all the time (in every section of the forum)... so I'm not sure how others aren't seeing them lol. But yes, I definitely agree with you!
No... I agree with you. And it's not that anyone's disagreeing before decisions are being made, it's that we're actually concerned about this because in the past, mistakes have been made and we don't want a repeat of them. And I think it's also that if a person express their opinion about a new moderator after they've been hired, it's already too late, which is why opinions should be voiced before the hiring process takes place. We just don't want that to happen.
- Status