FC Forums

I think we have found that Error has moderating habits that are not very popular among the average forum user.
In the current, one-moderator case, any appeals will only be viewed by one moderator (in this case, Error) who may make decisions conflicting with the general opinion on the forum and therefore destabilizing the community. I therefore suggest a second Moderator be elected/chosen in order to have the possibility of balancing the moderation.

Current Candidates:

Ivan2006 (me)

Before we do anything like that I would like to reqest from you to postpond this suggestion for 24 hours.

Iv121 wrote:Before we do anything like that I would like to reqest from you to postpond this suggestion for 24 hours.

Agreed due to new stuff happening.
Postponed.

Lets find a peaceful resolution people.

If this is still a standing request, which I think it is, I nominate CMA as my counterpart or replacement.

I'd agree, if I didn't kinda want to be a mod too.

You're not allowed to nominate people, Error.

Icelandic Perehelion wrote:If this is still a standing request, which I think it is, I nominate CMA as my counterpart or replacement.

Entire forum was:

after ans months.

Thanks though, I appreciate it, and I probably would be a pretty decent mod if given the power.

Technically speaking, I have the power to override a ruling if the great majority of forum users are against it, as per the forum rules. But I feel electing a second mod would be a better solution. Much of the problem here, from what I can tell, is an issue of how tightly we should interpret the rules. I might draw a parallel to the difference between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in early America; simply speaking, Error interprets the rules somewhat loosely, whereas most of the rest of the forum seems to be in favor of having a mod that interprets the rules exactly as written (i.e. who does nothing which is not explicitly allowed by the rules, thereby moderating much less than a mod who goes by implied or extraneous guidelines).

I hope this makes sense. It's nearly midnight and I can hardly think straight.

I nominate either Ivan or CMA.

Tau wrote:Technically speaking, I have the power to override a ruling if the great majority of forum users are against it, as per the forum rules. But I feel electing a second mod would be a better solution. Much of the problem here, from what I can tell, is an issue of how tightly we should interpret the rules. I might draw a parallel to the difference between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in early America; simply speaking, Error interprets the rules somewhat loosely, whereas most of the rest of the forum seems to be in favor of having a mod that interprets the rules exactly as written (i.e. who does nothing which is not explicitly allowed by the rules, thereby moderating much less than a mod who goes by implied or extraneous guidelines).

I hope this makes sense. It's nearly midnight and I can hardly think straight.

I nominate either Ivan or CMA.

It's basically the opposite of that, or at least both groups interpret the rules rather loosely, but in different ways. Error was enforcing the rules by locking threads. I believe that, in our situation, it would be best to work for the community rather than the rules, considering that we're about 15 strong in a good month and technicalities/locking threads doesn't get us any closer to stability.

Also why Ivan/CMA and not me? Not that I have anything against Ivan being a mod, just that I kind of started this whole thing. And I've wanted to be a mod for a year. I could represent the GMs too, since we don't have any actual power. CMA wouldn't really be a very good choice to balance Error considering that he backed Error's side during the "STOP LOCKING THREADS" thread. Don't mean to sound like a selfish, whiny toddler, but hey.

catsonmeth wrote:

Tau wrote:Technically speaking, I have the power to override a ruling if the great majority of forum users are against it, as per the forum rules. But I feel electing a second mod would be a better solution. Much of the problem here, from what I can tell, is an issue of how tightly we should interpret the rules. I might draw a parallel to the difference between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in early America; simply speaking, Error interprets the rules somewhat loosely, whereas most of the rest of the forum seems to be in favor of having a mod that interprets the rules exactly as written (i.e. who does nothing which is not explicitly allowed by the rules, thereby moderating much less than a mod who goes by implied or extraneous guidelines).

I hope this makes sense. It's nearly midnight and I can hardly think straight.

I nominate either Ivan or CMA.

It's basically the opposite of that, or at least both groups interpret the rules rather loosely, but in different ways. Error was enforcing the rules by locking threads. I believe that, in our situation, it would be best to work for the community rather than the rules, considering that we're about 15 strong in a good month and technicalities/locking threads doesn't get us any closer to stability.

Also why Ivan/CMA and not me? Not that I have anything against Ivan being a mod, just that I kind of started this whole thing. And I've wanted to be a mod for a year. I could represent the GMs too, since we don't have any actual power. CMA wouldn't really be a very good choice to balance Error considering that he backed Error's side during the "STOP LOCKING THREADS" thread. Don't mean to sound like a selfish, whiny toddler, but hey.

I wasn't trying to defend whatever it was he did, just that it seemed pretty irrelevant and overall he's been a pretty good mod.

urrhhmm.
ACH and Iv were good mods. I don't see anything wrong with CMA. I probably should have read more but that is what I have to say.

The problem is that nominating another mod won't solve it in the long run, instead you should nominate a judge. As a judge in his own right doesn't have any powers it is fine to nominate them for a long period of time, a judge can only cancel actions done by mods and admins, he cannot create them himself.

Also I don’t remember saying your exam is over Mr. Moderator ...

Iv121 wrote:Also I don’t remember saying your exam is over Mr. Moderator ...

^This.

I'd like to nominate myself as mod. To support my campaign, think about the other people and what they've done and stuff.