Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 19, 2014, 12:40:21 AM

The worst part is that we have too many members qualified for this position. Good people will end up getting passed over in this round but in time and growth hopefully they'll get there someday.

If that's the case, I wonder if a thing like "Mod for a week" or something could be implemented?
Some sort of test for members or just to mix things up in the staff occasionally.
It might be an interesting thing to do when you want to gauge a member or just try to give people a chance they might not have otherwise.

I think having a consistent staff is one of the best things you can have.
You can get to know them, and how they work.

Changing that up randomly would be kinda strange.
Not a bad idea, just not something I think we really need.

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 01:38:38 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 19, 2014, 12:40:21 AM

The worst part is that we have too many members qualified for this position. Good people will end up getting passed over in this round but in time and growth hopefully they'll get there someday.

If that's the case, I wonder if a thing like "Mod for a week" or something could be implemented?
Some sort of test for members or just to mix things up in the staff occasionally.
It might be an interesting thing to do when you want to gauge a member or just try to give people a chance they might not have otherwise.

I think having a consistent staff is one of the best things you can have.
You can get to know them, and how they work.

Changing that up randomly would be kinda strange.
Not a bad idea, just not something I think we really need.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read my post and tell you that the words "Mod for a week" were in the first sentence of my post.

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 01:43:49 AM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 01:38:38 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 19, 2014, 12:40:21 AM

The worst part is that we have too many members qualified for this position. Good people will end up getting passed over in this round but in time and growth hopefully they'll get there someday.

If that's the case, I wonder if a thing like "Mod for a week" or something could be implemented?
Some sort of test for members or just to mix things up in the staff occasionally.
It might be an interesting thing to do when you want to gauge a member or just try to give people a chance they might not have otherwise.

I think having a consistent staff is one of the best things you can have.
You can get to know them, and how they work.

Changing that up randomly would be kinda strange.
Not a bad idea, just not something I think we really need.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read my post and tell you that the words "Mod for a week" were in the first sentence of my post.

No, I read it.
"Mod for a week" is changing up the staff, and having a consistent staff is good.
What's the problem?

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 01:53:25 AM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 01:48:56 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 01:43:49 AM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 01:38:38 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 19, 2014, 12:40:21 AM

The worst part is that we have too many members qualified for this position. Good people will end up getting passed over in this round but in time and growth hopefully they'll get there someday.

If that's the case, I wonder if a thing like "Mod for a week" or something could be implemented?
Some sort of test for members or just to mix things up in the staff occasionally.
It might be an interesting thing to do when you want to gauge a member or just try to give people a chance they might not have otherwise.

I think having a consistent staff is one of the best things you can have.
You can get to know them, and how they work.

Changing that up randomly would be kinda strange.
Not a bad idea, just not something I think we really need.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read my post and tell you that the words "Mod for a week" were in the first sentence of my post.

No, I read it.
"Mod for a week" is changing up the staff, and having a consistent staff is good.
What's the problem?

I'm suggesting inserting a member into a staff position temporarily.

Hardly "Changing that up randomly".
We would still have the other staff and a "consistent staff".

Just with one extra user that could be taken off if they can't deal with the position for the week.

Or we could just let Cheat choose a permanent Monitor.

Regardless of the impact, having a new mod every week would be an adjustment.
Having a permanent member is better, you don't have to ask "who is a monitor this week?"  every single week.

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 02:01:28 AM

Or we could just let Cheat choose a permanent Monitor.

That's not what I'm talking about though.

Your talking about the Monitor position, so yes you are.
If your idea is for actually putting people in random positions like being able to lock threads and what not, then no. Bad idea.There is a reason these people were voted on, or chosen. Giving so many random people that much power is asking for trouble.

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 02:48:59 AM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 02:43:13 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 02:01:28 AM

Or we could just let Cheat choose a permanent Monitor.

That's not what I'm talking about though.

Your talking about the Monitor position, so yes you are.
If your idea is for actually putting people in random positions like being able to lock threads and what not, then no. Bad idea.There is a reason these people were voted on, or chosen. Giving so many random people that much power is asking for trouble.

Really?
Maybe it's too early for me to be explaining things coherently, but you do realise I don't mean to permanently allow random people into a mod position, right?
A temporary thing, for users that Cheat will pick.
And because it's temporary, if they don't cut it, they can be taken off the staff easily.
Its not a hard concept to grasp. And my first post about it mentioned the word "Mod" not "Monitor".

Anyone Cheat would pick, wold obviously be someone viewed as capable, example, the people Slash was talking about when I replied to him.

I'm thinking you aren't reading what I'm saying now.
I'm not stupid. I read what you said.

I'm saying putting random people in the staff over and over is tedious and pointless. Mods would have to adjust to having a different person on staff every week. Sure they can be "trustworthy" but you can't assume people won't do something stupid. Heck, Nasty is a mod in Plug.DJ.

Temporary or not, people can make a huge mess with mod capabilities. What happens if they are the only mod on and wreak havoc?

Geez you aren't understanding me apparently. But whatever, I'm done discussing this.
Cheat will do what he wants to do with this.

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 02:55:08 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 02:48:59 AM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 02:43:13 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 02:01:28 AM

Or we could just let Cheat choose a permanent Monitor.

That's not what I'm talking about though.

Your talking about the Monitor position, so yes you are.
If your idea is for actually putting people in random positions like being able to lock threads and what not, then no. Bad idea.There is a reason these people were voted on, or chosen. Giving so many random people that much power is asking for trouble.

Really?
Maybe it's too early for me to be explaining things coherently, but you do realise I don't mean to permanently allow random people into a mod position, right?
A temporary thing, for users that Cheat will pick.
And because it's temporary, if they don't cut it, they can be taken off the staff easily.
Its not a hard concept to grasp. And my first post about it mentioned the word "Mod" not "Monitor".

Anyone Cheat would pick, wold obviously be someone viewed as capable, example, the people Slash was talking about when I replied to him.

I'm thinking you aren't reading what I'm saying now.
I'm not stupid. I read what you said.

I'm saying putting random people in the staff over and over is tedious and pointless. Mods would have to adjust to having a different person on staff every week. Sure they can be "trustworthy" but you can't assume people won't do something stupid. Heck, Nasty is a mod in Plug.DJ.

Temporary or not, people can make a huge mess with mod capabilities. What happens if they are the only mod on and wreak havoc?

Geez you aren't understanding me apparently.

And you can't seem to understand I'm talking about a temporary position where the person in question will be taken down if they step out of line, because they're not a proper staff member.
All I'm doing is suggesting something in response to something Slash said, if you don't like it for whatever reason, that's fine, it was only an idea that won't even be implemented.

You're ignoring the fact what I'm talking about would only be extended to people considered by the current staff.
I don't thing shitposters would get it if it happened. Cheat isn't stupid.

Rocket, I'm not ignoring you, but you're having an issue with an idea that would need a lot of work before it's even considered.

I only said it as an offhand thing.

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 03:15:07 AM

Rocket, I'm not ignoring you, but you're having an issue with an idea that would need a lot of work before it's even considered.

I only said it as an offhand thing.

For goodness sake, quit thinking I can't understand what you are saying.

Stop responding like it would ruin the moderation of the site and cause chaos then.
Because from the way you seem to be so against the idea, that's the vibe I'm getting.

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 03:23:28 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 19, 2014, 03:19:56 AM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 03:15:07 AM

Rocket, I'm not ignoring you, but you're having an issue with an idea that would need a lot of work before it's even considered.

I only said it as an offhand thing.

For goodness sake, quit thinking I can't understand what you are saying.

Stop responding like it would ruin the moderation of the site and cause chaos then.
Because from the way you seem to be so against the idea, that's the vibe I'm getting.

Nope. Im actually considering the possibilities. And for an "offhand thing" you defended it like crazy.

But I'm done spamming this thread with pointless debate. That's not the point of it anyways.

I'm defending it because you seem to have an issue with something that I said to someone else.
If you didn't act like it would be completely disrupting to the other mods and ruin the function of the mods, which it wouldn't, I never would have even responded to you.

Screw tapatalk and my double posts 

Quote from: Zizzy on November 19, 2014, 05:42:58 PM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 01:38:38 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 19, 2014, 12:40:21 AM

The worst part is that we have too many members qualified for this position. Good people will end up getting passed over in this round but in time and growth hopefully they'll get there someday.

If that's the case, I wonder if a thing like "Mod for a week" or something could be implemented?
Some sort of test for members or just to mix things up in the staff occasionally.
It might be an interesting thing to do when you want to gauge a member or just try to give people a chance they might not have otherwise.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

I'm pretty sure the mods have said there's a log that's kept saying who took what moderation action.

Still though, it's hard to evaluate someone in such a short space of time. You could have a week of virtually no rule breaking.

Quote from: Zizzy on November 19, 2014, 05:54:51 PM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 05:49:19 PM

Quote from: Zizzy on November 19, 2014, 05:42:58 PM

Quote from: Byrne on November 19, 2014, 01:38:38 AM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on November 19, 2014, 12:40:21 AM

The worst part is that we have too many members qualified for this position. Good people will end up getting passed over in this round but in time and growth hopefully they'll get there someday.

If that's the case, I wonder if a thing like "Mod for a week" or something could be implemented?
Some sort of test for members or just to mix things up in the staff occasionally.
It might be an interesting thing to do when you want to gauge a member or just try to give people a chance they might not have otherwise.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

I'm pretty sure the mods have said there's a log that's kept saying who took what moderation action.

Still though, it's hard to evaluate someone in such a short space of time. You could have a week of virtually no rule breaking.

It's one thing if there's no rule breaking.
It's another if the user doesn't abuse the power.

That should be a given. Not abusing power is not something that should seriously be considered "mod material". It reminds me of the Futurama joke
"Ah, yes, John Quincy Adding Machine. He struck a chord with the voters when he pledged not to go on a killing spree."

This is a thread for people to apply in. Maybe you guys should take this discussion somewhere else if you really need to talk about this.

If a mod wants to move the posts, I welcome it.

It seems a comment of a vague idea I spouted offends people.