Mini-modding

Shift · Before February 2015

TakoMan02 wrote:

shift wrote:
Okay, well, I think my main point has been lost, for I didn't intend to defend mini-modding so radically. Mini-modding can be very helpful if executed by anyone with a greater knowledge of the issue than the "transgressor."
How is it helping if a mod is going to do what you're about to do in the same day?

shift wrote:

Again, mini-modding is just getting the job done faster.

Tako · Before February 2015

shift wrote:

TakoMan02 wrote:
How is it helping if a mod is going to do what you're about to do in the same day?
Again, mini-modding is just getting the job done faster.

TakoMan02 wrote:

We're not talking about reporting, right? I'd love to hear you explain this one.

Shift · Before February 2015

TakoMan02 wrote:

We're not talking about reporting, right? I'd love to hear you explain this one.

shift wrote:

Again, mini-modding is just getting the job done faster.

No, we're not talking about reporting. Is that a question?

EDIT: I just had to add this:

dazz wrote:

this forum definitely needs mini mods to moderate this forum, just a stupid list of rules will never be enough, no one ever reads it.

Last edited by shift (Oct 15 2011 10:41:57 pm)

AussieTaco · Before February 2015

It is okay to perform moderation duties. when the mods are offline who is going to be in control when a troll posts?

TheGreenTroll · Before February 2015

How do you mods feel about when someone wants clearance about a warning/ban, that might have been falsely distributed? (Example: my topic about Chewy).

RPGMaster2000 · Before February 2015

TheGreenTroll wrote:

How do you mods feel about when someone wants clearance about a warning/ban, that might have been falsely distributed? (Example: my topic about Chewy).

Personally, I think that you should be as vocal as possible about any ban or warning that you might feel is unjustified. Only as long as it can be backed up by citing the rules, of course.

Tako · Before February 2015

shift wrote:

TakoMan02 wrote:
We're not talking about reporting, right? I'd love to hear you explain this one.
No, we're not talking about reporting. Is that a question?

Yes, it was a question. Can you address the second sentence, which requested you explain how mini-modding gets the job done faster?

AussieTaco wrote:

It is okay to perform moderation duties. when the mods are offline who is going to be in control when a troll posts?

When no mods are online then the forum trolls have a party, until another mod comes on.

Like I said earlier, you are powerless, so there's nothing you can do if you wanted to.

Shift · Before February 2015

TakoMan02 wrote:

shift wrote:
TakoMan02 wrote:
We're not talking about reporting, right? I'd love to hear you explain this one.
No, we're not talking about reporting. Is that a question?
Yes, it was a question. Can you address the second sentence, which requested you explain how mini-modding gets the job done faster?

I just did.

AussieTaco wrote:
It is okay to perform moderation duties. when the mods are offline who is going to be in control when a troll posts?
When no mods are online then the forum trolls have a party, until another mod comes on.
Like I said earlier, you are powerless, so there's nothing you can do if you wanted to.

Not that I want to side with AussieTaco, but I would like to point out the need for international mods. Right now they only patrol for about three hours a day.

Tako · Before February 2015

shift wrote:

TakoMan02 wrote:
shift wrote:
No, we're not talking about reporting. Is that a question?
Yes, it was a question. Can you address the second sentence, which requested you explain how mini-modding gets the job done faster?
I just did.

Alright, I'm going blind then, because I see no direct explanation on this thread.

Can you repeat the answer as to why mini-modding gets the job done faster?

I've asked the same question about 4 times [x, x, x, x], and have yet to receive an answer.

Last edited by Tako (Oct 16 2011 1:09:35 pm)

Shift · Before February 2015

I'm sorry, I thought that was common sense.

While Mods A, B, and C are away, Noob A makes some mistake. Member A corrects Noob A. Noobs A, B, and C are now more aware of issues. Mod A comes online, and doesn't need to do anything. Understand?

Tako · Before February 2015

I don't think you understand what mini-modding is.

Mini-modding is acting closely if not exactly like a moderator. Examples:

Noob, you get a warning for spam.

Noob, don't flame. You get a warning!

Please don't spam, it gets you warnings.

In all cases of mini-modding, the noob is informed, yes.

However, no action takes place and no punishment is received, which is what needs to be done.

Since the mod always informs the transgressor and hands out warnings involuntarily, despite what regular members have done, it proves to be worthless.

Shift · Before February 2015

That's a matter of perspective. Are we done?

Tako · Before February 2015

Perspective? I don't think that's of any importance.

I just have a problem with you saying mini-modding actually gets something accomplished. What gets accomplished?

Shift · Before February 2015

Ironically, the importance of perspective is, again, perspective.

The accomplishment is the unofficial answer to an issue. Assuming the answer is correct, it is very helpful, regardless of the source.

Tako · Before February 2015

What do you mean "the answer to the issue"? It's not a question, it's a flaw in their post that you cannot edit in any way.

Read these words: The moderator will moderate. The only help they need is for you to bring problems to their attention, and nothing more.

Last edited by Tako (Oct 18 2011 11:19:45 am)

Shift · Before February 2015

I never said it was a question; I said it was an issue. A flaw in one's post is, in fact, an issue.

Yes, the moderator will moderate, and pointing out issues will help them. However, when a moderator isn't on, which is about 23 hours in a day, then is there any justifiable reason not to help correct the "transgressor"? Funny, this seems to link to this topic. Doing something will help the "transgressor" and may anger an unjustified mod, but doing nothing will, of course, do nothing.

This is a really stupid argument. It's just a matter of opinion, but we're both too hard-headed to give in.

Tako · Before February 2015

shift wrote:

then is there any justifiable reason not to help correct the "transgressor"?

Yes; they disobeyed the rules, and they deserve their punishment.

When you correct them, e.g.

Member wrote:

Noob_1, flaming will get you a warning.

Then they'll edit their post and surpass their warning.

Do you think it's okay to correct someone that put a topic in the wrong place, too? Because that's a different story, and there's nothing that they can do even if they are aware of their problem.

Last edited by Tako (Oct 18 2011 3:18:52 pm)

Shift · Before February 2015

Yes.

You're now asking me to repeat my entire argument again, which I won't. We've already made several posts about both of your arguments.

Tako · Before February 2015

*sigh*

Nobody's asking you to repeat your entire argument, only to explain how a member can give warnings, move topics, and give bans.

Shift · Before February 2015

I already answered the question, and, therefore, you're asking me to repeat my answer. Because my answer equals my argument, we can use the transitive property to conclude that you are, in fact, asking me to repeat my argument. Can we be done, now?

Tako · Before February 2015

Answer 2 questions with a yes or no response and I'll be done. It's not that much work.

1) When a member flames, spams, or breaks any other rule, do they deserve a warning? Yes or no?

2) If yes, then it is clear a moderator needs to take some type of action. Does mini-modding help the moderator see the issue any faster? Yes or no?

[EDIT] And, what you're thinking of isn't the transitive property, it's the substitution property.
Transitive: When A = B and B = C, it can be concluded that A = C.
Substitution: When A = B, A can be replaced by B.

Last edited by Tako (Oct 19 2011 9:04:20 am)

a3person · Before February 2015

Now I feel bad telling new people to read the rules, I'm just trying to help them so they don't get in trouble.

Tako · Before February 2015

Saying "read the rules" is perfectly fine, but acting like a moderator isn't, like saying "You get a warning for spam" or saying "This belongs in x".

Why? Read all the posts in the thread.

a3person · Before February 2015

I read as much as I can, what I got from Rurigok is that he doesn't want us to command a mod to lock/move topics, I was just worries if pointing people to the rules was bad...

Tako · Before February 2015

Shouldn't be, because people practically say it all the time in the Intros thread, and nobody's complained yet.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#51 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#52 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#53 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#54 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#55 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#56 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#57 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#58 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#59 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#60 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#61 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#62 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#63 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#64 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#65 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#66 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#67 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#68 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#69 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#70 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#71 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#72 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#73 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#74 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

#75 Before February 2015

Re: Mini-modding

Board footer