Ad Hominem and Multiple Posts

[Trajectory]

I'm wondering if the rules have changed here recently, because I'm finding a lot of posts where members are calling other members "stupid idiot," "retard," and other ad-hominem attacks, yet the members are never banned.

A few months ago, in a heated moment, I called another member an "ass" and was banned for 24 hours. I never had a previous ban and didn't get a warning, I was just instantly banned. The member I directed it to made a similar retort, but, his post was just deleted, no ban.

I have reported a few ad-hominem attacks that I came across while reading posts here, however, I noticed the posts remained and the member was never banned. Is this rule now moot? If not, why is it so inconsistently moderated? Why was I banned when others are saying far worse with no consequence?

Also, I recall it was against the rules to make several posts in a row within a thread rather than using multi-quote. But, I keep seeing certain members doing this, even though I've reported them.

So, are these rules still being enforced or not?

[Abstract]

I think it's becoming a much bigger problem than before. Perhaps the proportion of these posts isn't increasing, and it's simply the increase in Mac users that makes it more noticeable. Oh, and since the number of mods don't increase per month, you need to realize that they're probably doing their best to be fair.

Perhaps it's faster to delete a post than to ban a member, or edit a few posts. I don't know. I've modded a forum 8 years ago, and it wasn't such a great gig. I went there for fun, but instead, I felt that it became a full-time (volunteer) job when I was there.

Even the mods can't spend ALL their time doing "moderator" stuff. I'm hoping they come here and read threads like normal members, perhaps participating as well. :)

[aethelbert]

Also, I recall it was against the rules to make several posts in a row within a thread rather than using multi-quote. But, I keep seeing certain members doing this, even though I've reported them.
Most people that I've told to use multiquote didn't know that it existed. Then they just get pissed at the suggestion. I would imagine that there are usually more important things for those in charge to do than consolidate posts.

As for the personal attacks, sometimes it gets their attention and other times not. It likely depends on what else is going on at the moment. As Abstract said, as the community gets larger, more problems will be created as more people creates more pairs for potential conflict.

I report a lot more than I post and often watch certain threads or individual posts to see the outcome. Sometimes I can see five moderators online and nothing happens. Other times the problem is resolved in less than a minute. Seeing as it's all volunteer work, I don't think that we should be demanding super consistency on such matters as I don't think that the forum's current state is problematic. However, it does indeed seem to be heading in that direction.

[dukebound85]

I'm wondering if the rules have changed here recently, because I'm finding a lot of posts where members are calling other members "stupid idiot," "retard," and other ad-hominem attacks, yet the members are never banned.

A few months ago, in a heated moment, I called another member an "ass" and was banned for 24 hours. I never had a previous ban and didn't get a warning, I was just instantly banned. The member I directed it to made a similar retort, but, his post was just deleted, no ban.

I have reported a few ad-hominem attacks that I came across while reading posts here, however, I noticed the posts remained and the member was never banned. Is this rule now moot? If not, why is it so inconsistently moderated? Why was I banned when others are saying far worse with no consequence?

Also, I recall it was against the rules to make several posts in a row within a thread rather than using multi-quote. But, I keep seeing certain members doing this, even though I've reported them.

So, are these rules still being enforced or not?

i agree, i have been in time out for trivial things yet when i report direct insults, members dont get a time out from what i can observe

very inconsistant imo

[Schtumple]

Also, I recall it was against the rules to make several posts in a row within a thread rather than using multi-quote. But, I keep seeing certain members doing this, even though I've reported them.

Not all members know how to do multi-quote, I'll admit I didn't notice it for about a year :p

And yes I've seen an increasing amount of petty rude language used by members, and in most cases, no bans or time-outs, I think there has been like Abstract said, an increase in users, but, there (to the best of my knowledge), been an increase in moderators to keep up with demand.

[Jpoon]

I think it's becoming a much bigger problem than before. Perhaps the proportion of these posts isn't increasing, and it's simply the increase in Mac users that makes it more noticeable. Oh, and since the number of mods don't increase per month, you need to realize that they're probably doing their best to be fair.

Perhaps it's faster to delete a post than to ban a member, or edit a few posts. I don't know. I've modded a forum 8 years ago, and it wasn't such a great gig. I went there for fun, but instead, I felt that it became a full-time (volunteer) job when I was there.

Even the mods can't spend ALL their time doing "moderator" stuff. I'm hoping they come here and read threads like normal members, perhaps participating as well. :)

The increase of people into anything decreases the quality of whatever it was.

Apple.

Good idea, some great products.

Advertising draws in a decent market share, and boom you've diluted the community to where less intelligent beings outnumber the more informed ones.

Thus it becomes more and more difficult to keep the same standards as before.

[WildCowboy]

Trajectory, I looked at every post report of yours from 2009 and they have all been handled, and in all cases in which you reported insults, the moderators deleted or edited the post and took additional action if it was deemed necessary.

Insults are still not permitted in the forums. We don't read every post, so we rely on our members to report such posts to us. Our response time hasn't been as swift as we'd like lately, and we're working to address that issue.

Moderator response to insults can vary based on the severity of the insult, the member's history, etc. We strive for consistency in our actions and do review each other's responses to post reports in order to help achieve this, but we are of course still individuals, and there may be occasional variations in remedies given for various infractions.

Failure to use multi-quote is considered a minor issue, one we usually deal with by simply merging the posts and perhaps leaving an edit note asking the member to use multi-quote in the future. If we notice a pattern of such behavior, we will contact them privately to give them a heads-up and to provide them with instructions on how to use the feature if they are unfamiliar with it.

So yes, both insults and failure to multi-quote are reportable issues, and we certainly appreciate it when members take the time to draw our attention to them.

[Eraserhead]

I do think a few more mods might be useful though as Abstract points out.

[xUKHCx]

Sometimes I can see five moderators online and nothing happens. Other times the problem is resolved in less than a minute.

It is worth noting that there is a delay on the forum activity indicator so sometimes people will have gone offline and it hasn't updated. Also when we are online we are often doing things be it replying to peoples posts, trying to find answers to our questions or we may have drifted off to another tab to do some actual work elsewhere and check back in every now and again. So just because a mod is online doesn't mean the post report will have been seen. We do generally act quite quickly but there has been a dip of late.

I do think a few more mods might be useful though as Abstract points out.

Our response time hasn't been as swift as we'd like lately, and we're working to address that issue.

[miles01110]

I'll moderate :-D

[rdowns]

I do think a few more mods might be useful though as Abstract points out.


Agreed. Several mods are MIA for quite some time now.

[Schtumple]

Agreed. Several mods are MIA for quite some time now.

I haven't seen Blue Velvet around for quite some time, I remember her saying to me a while ago she posts in cycles, with breaks inbetween, and she's one of the best mods here, that and Wild CowBoy, Q and madjew.

I do think atleast a few more mods should be added, I can see why it's hard to allow new mods in, as they could always stuff everything up and destroy the forum very quickly, but still, someone does need to be added, just to ease the load I guess...

[r.j.s]

Agreed. Several mods are MIA for quite some time now.

Mad Jew hasn't been on since Sept.

[Wiska]

I haven't seen Blue Velvet around for quite some time... and she's one of the best mods here...

Ya. I really miss her.

[Eanair]

From my, admittedly limited, experience here thus far, the mods do a good job of quickly taking care of threads that start to border on getting out of hand or just fully degenerate into name-calling and personal attacks. Kudos to them.

I've been a mod once on another forum, and it ain't easy work. Between sheer size of a forum, so many members, and mods having real lives (how dare they, LOL), it can be hard to keep up with everything that goes on.

[Schtumple]

Ya. I really miss her.

The blue suggests sarcasm...

I personally like BV, she's a good addition to the forums, she's always level headed and sorts out riff raff fairly quickly, I know alot of newbies tend to not like her because she pisses on their parade of duplicate posting etc, but still, I'm glad she's here.

Tallest Skil would make a good mod, he's very hard hitting on people who don't search.

[Abstract]

There are a large number of mods who simply don't post often anymore, so saying that things have gone pear-shaped because BV has taken her semi-regular break is a bit misleading. Perhaps she's one small reason for it, but BV isn't the only moderator here.

Like r.j.s. said, the Jew has been gone for ages. We know he was having "personal" issues with his internet in Adelaide. yellow, devilot, and jsw don't post often, and if they post, it's not here. Perhaps they're online at MR, but don't post. I've seen nermal around.

And WC is always in the background. ;) Just because he doesn't post often, does not mean he's not around.

[skunk]

Ya. I really miss her.Is that an ad feminam?

[IJ Reilly]

I've said it before privately to moderators and I'll say it now publicly: The apparent problem with moderation on this forum is an insufficient number of moderators to keep up with the growth in forum membership. This puts pressure on the currently active moderators to make decisions, which they often must do more hastily than they would otherwise, which in turn leads to inconsistent moderation. Having been involved with many organizations run primarily by volunteers, the remedy seems straight-forward to me. The key is to ask for help. If you ask, you receive.

[iMacmatician]

Not all members know how to do multi-quote, I'll admit I didn't notice it for about a year :pI kinda know but I don't do it. Instead I just press "quote" on each post, then copy and paste the quotes into one post.

[bartelby]

I kinda know but I don't do it. Instead I just press "quote" on each post, then copy and paste the quotes into one post.

Just click the "+" button for each post you want to reply to. Then either click "Quote" on the last post or "Post Reply".

[r.j.s]

I've said it before privately to moderators and I'll say it now publicly: The apparent problem with moderation on this forum is an insufficient number of moderators to keep up with the growth in forum membership. This puts pressure on the currently active moderators to make decisions, which they often must do more hastily than they would otherwise, which in turn leads to inconsistent moderation. Having been involved with many organizations run primarily by volunteers, the remedy seems straight-forward to me. The key is to ask for help. If you ask, you receive.

Agreed. I have offered to help, as I spend quite a bit of time here, but i haven't heard anything back from the admins recently.

I kinda know but I don't do it. Instead I just press "quote" on each post, then copy and paste the quotes into one post.

The button next to Quote is multi-quote, press it for each post you want to quote, it will turn red. At the end, press Post Reply and all the checked posts will be listed.

[CalBoy]

the remedy seems straight-forward to me. The key is to ask for help. If you ask, you receive.

The moderators do ask for help. They want all of us to follow the rules, report rule violations, and have some patience. If we all did that, work for the mods would decrease dramatically.

Beyond that, how the moderators choose their members isn't really that important for the rest of us. As long as moderators don't take advantage of their authority (which I haven't seen, even in the depths of PRSI), we should be satisfied that they've chosen good individuals to moderate. I think openly requesting moderators opens the door to a lot of problems, not the least of which is a sense of outrage from those applicants who weren't chosen. It's best to know you were never in the running than to think you ever had a shot.

[r.j.s]

I think openly requesting moderators opens the door to a lot of problems, not the least of which is a sense of outrage from those applicants who weren't chosen. It's best to know you were never in the running than to think you ever had a shot.

I don't think they should open ask, like in a thread here, but they should select a handful of members that they think would make good mods, and offer it to them through PM. Those that accept become mods and those that don't don't. This way, the admins can be selective and yet still ask for help.

[Schtumple]

There are a large number of mods who simply don't post often anymore, so saying that things have gone pear-shaped because BV has taken her semi-regular break is a bit misleading. Perhaps she's one small reason for it, but BV isn't the only moderator here.

Like r.j.s. said, the Jew has been gone for ages. We know he was having "personal" issues with his internet in Adelaide. yellow, devilot, and jsw don't post often, and if they post, it's not here. Perhaps they're online at MR, but don't post. I've seen nermal around.

And WC is always in the background. ;) Just because he doesn't post often, does not mean he's not around.

I didn't mean to suggest BV was the only notable mod, I just mean that she's the one that I see most often, but yeah, obviously not all mods are posting all the time, some just lurking in the background. Maybe we're just seeing a weird set of events, where there's a larger amount of mods away than normal. Hence the delays etc.

[bartelby]

I don't think they should open ask, like in a thread here, but they should select a handful of members that they think would make good mods, and offer it to them through PM. Those that accept become mods and those that don't don't. This way, the admins can be selective and yet still ask for help.

That is how they select Mods. AFAIK

[r.j.s]

That is how they select Mods. AFAIK

Yes, I know. My point is that with the growth of the forum, they actually need to grow the mods as well in order to maintain the high standard that makes this one of the best forums on Teh Interwebs™. When was the last time any mods were added?

[Trajectory]

WildCowboy, thanks for the clarification and info about my reports.

I didn't intend my post to be critical of moderators, I was just wondering how certain rules were now being enforced. I've set up and run forums and communities myself and know how difficult it is to moderate evenly. In general, MacRumors does a very good job considering the influx of Windows users who have little regard for community decorum.

[Eraserhead]

Tallest Skil would make a good mod, he's very hard hitting on people who don't search.

That doesn't necessarily make him good mod ;).

Agreed. Several mods are MIA for quite some time now.

It also might be worth removing mods (if any - we don't know what's happening behind the scenes.) that have been MIA from MR for a signifcant period (say 6 months) for clarity on who the powers that be currently are.

[Schtumple]

That doesn't necessarily make him good mod ;).

Well obviously :p He does seem to have a bit of a temper sometimes, but who can blame him, he's constantly answering the same questions, and people very rarely bother to search, so i can see the frustration. But I think would he would probably end up resort to 24hr banning to quickly after reading the same threads over and over...

[CalBoy]

Yes, I know. My point is that with the growth of the forum, they actually need to grow the mods as well in order to maintain the high standard that makes this one of the best forums on Teh Interwebs™. When was the last time any mods were added?

IIRC, the last time new moderators were appointed was in December 2007.

I think we need to keep in mind that the staff is well aware of what's happening (probably far more aware than anyone of us). I'm sure they are trying their best to find new moderators, and we need to have a little patience because I'm sure it's not an easy task.


It also might be worth removing mods (if any - we don't know what's happening behind the scenes.) that have been MIA from MR for a signifcant period (say 6 months) for clarity on who the powers that be currently are.

I don't know...does a hiatus really warrant removal? Some mods that aren't on very often have nonetheless been present on some of MR's biggest days (like Keynote days). Besides, the "Show Groups" page gives us an idea of who is on at any given time, so that should be enough if we need to contact a mod.

[xUKHCx]

Yes, I know. My point is that with the growth of the forum, they actually need to grow the mods as well in order to maintain the high standard that makes this one of the best forums on Teh Interwebs™. When was the last time any mods were added?

18/12/2007 - thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=402226)

yellow, mad jew, mkrishnan and myself

Also

we're working to address that issue.

From my perspective all that happened for me to become a mod was one day out of the blue I got a PM from Doctor Q asking if I wanted to be come a moderator here.

Now from the other side there is a long long process in the background so anything that happens is not a knee jerk reaction.

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed. I have offered to help, as I spend quite a bit of time here, but i haven't heard anything back from the admins recently.

That's too bad. I sincerely believe that should never happen.

The moderators do ask for help. They want all of us to follow the rules, report rule violations, and have some patience. If we all did that, work for the mods would decrease dramatically.

I suspect that most of us who've been around here for some time do this already. It's in the response to these reports that many of are noting an increasingly inconsistent handling.

Beyond that, how the moderators choose their members isn't really that important for the rest of us. As long as moderators don't take advantage of their authority (which I haven't seen, even in the depths of PRSI), we should be satisfied that they've chosen good individuals to moderate. I think openly requesting moderators opens the door to a lot of problems, not the least of which is a sense of outrage from those applicants who weren't chosen. It's best to know you were never in the running than to think you ever had a shot.

I've been involved with many volunteer-driven organizations over the years; in fact, working with these types of groups as both a volunteer and as an organizer of volunteers has been a big part of my life, so I do have some feel for this. The best (and most successful) organizations never treat volunteering as a black-box experience. They outreach constantly, always try to find a place for people who indicate a desire to help, never leave a potential volunteer hanging. Volunteering is an act of personal generosity. If an organization treats volunteering as though it was a privilege, then (whether they realize it or not) they are self-limiting their effectiveness.

Back when it was easy to look at the list of members of this forum, I was always surprised by the number of long-time active members who were not moderators. Dozens of them in the top 100 posters alone -- all obviously committed to the forum over a period of many years. Clearly few of them had been asked to help, because few of them would be likely to refuse. So when I hear that the problem is not enough moderators, I know that the real problem is a lack of asking.

[Eraserhead]

I don't know...does a hiatus really warrant removal?

They can always be reinstated.

Some mods that aren't on very often have nonetheless been present on some of MR's biggest days (like Keynote days).

Given that Apple has at least two of those a year (WWDC and iPod day) then they will be online more often than every six months or so, so it shouldn't be a problem.

EDIT: The reason I'm making this point there seem to be a comparitavely large number of moderators - only a few of which appear to be really active.

[sushi]

Back when it was easy to look at the list of members of this forum, I was always surprised by the number of long-time active members who were not moderators. Dozens of them in the top 100 posters alone -- all obviously committed to the forum over a period of many years. Clearly few of them had been asked to help, because few of them would be likely to refuse. So when I hear that the problem is not enough moderators, I know that the real problem is a lack of asking.
Length of time on MR is not so important I think. Maturity and a desire to help individuals is. And of course being able to do moderating functions.

Long time members can definitely help the moderating team by reporting posts that violate the rules of the site and by setting a good example.

[CalBoy]

I suspect that most of us who've been around here for some time do this already. It's in the response to these reports that many of are noting an increasingly inconsistent handling.

Aye, there's the rub. What appears inconsistent to a regular user like you or me may not in fact be inconsistent at all. We don't know the "whole story" in each and every case, so our perception of how an individual post report was handled can be quite incorrect.

Take the OP's example of multi-quoting issues and personal attacks. What we see as posters is that the posts were perhaps deleted. However, the poster could have been given a warning in private which none of us would see. What we would see is the "time-out" or "banned" label if that poster ignores the warning a second, third, or forth time.


I've been involved with many volunteer-driven organizations over the years; in fact, working with these types of groups as both a volunteer and as an organizer of volunteers has been a big part of my life, so I do have some feel for this. The best (and most successful) organizations never treat volunteering as a black-box experience. They outreach constantly, always try to find a place for people who indicate a desire to help, never leave a potential volunteer hanging. Volunteering is an act of personal generosity. If an organization treats volunteering as though it was a privilege, then (whether they realize it or not) they are self-limiting their effectiveness.

Back when it was easy to look at the list of members of this forum, I was always surprised by the number of long-time active members who were not moderators. Dozens of them in the top 100 posters alone -- all obviously committed to the forum over a period of many years. Clearly few of them had been asked to help, because few of them would be likely to refuse. So when I hear that the problem is not enough moderators, I know that the real problem is a lack of asking.

I'll have to just say I disagree on the basis of the old adage, "quality, not quantity." Just because an individual wants to be a moderator doesn't mean they will necessarily make a good moderator. Moreover, length of membership doesn't correlate perfectly with responsible membership.

The moderators and staff have always been able to recruit sufficient moderators to keep up with demand in the past, and their quality assurance seems to be quite good. Given that, I'm inclined to defer to the moderators on the wisdom of their selection process.

[Abstract]

There's no need to remove a moderator just because they aren't here. They can moderate when they ARE here. Besides, it's not like it costs MR anything to leave them the title. Unlike some of us (*raises hand*), they've shown themselves to be level-headed members who rarely, if ever, reply out of frustration. Why would you get rid of their status?

There are those like Mad Jew who probably have a very legitimate reason for having posted only several times over the past 12 months, and when he gets his internet, and other, issues sorted out, perhaps he'll be telling people to repair their permissions once again. ;)

But I think would he would probably end up resort to 24hr banning to quickly after reading the same threads over and over...
And I'm certain the admin know about him already. ;)


I don't even see why the guy posts here. If you don't want to reply to repeat threads, don't post at MacRumours. What is he, new? :p

[CalBoy]

They can always be reinstated.

Doesn't that just make more trouble (bureaucratically speaking)? It seems easier to just leave things as they are.

Given that Apple has at least two of those a year (WWDC and iPod day) then they will be online more often than every six months or so, so it shouldn't be a problem.

EDIT: The reason I'm making this point there seem to be a comparitavely large number of moderators - only a few of which appear to be really active.

I do see your point, but I just don't think removing their moderator status will really help anything.

[r.j.s]

I do see your point, but I just don't think removing their moderator status will really help anything.

I agree with you here, there is no need to remove their status. If they happen to come back, there is no reason they cannot pick up where they left off.

Although, it might help to add an "inactive" tag to users that haven't been on in say 6 months or so.

[Eraserhead]

Although, it might help to add an "inactive" tag to users that haven't been on in say 6 months or so.

That's probably a better way to handle it - it could be good for normal users as well if that was possible.

[IJ Reilly]

Length of time on MR is not so important I think. Maturity and a desire to help individuals is. And of course being able to do moderating functions.

It's important to judging commitment, and commitment itself is probably the single most important quality in a volunteer. In fact, everything else can be learned but commitment.

Aye, there's the rub. What appears inconsistent to a regular user like you or me may not in fact be inconsistent at all. We don't know the "whole story" in each and every case, so our perception of how an individual post report was handled can be quite incorrect.

Take the OP's example of multi-quoting issues and personal attacks. What we see as posters is that the posts were perhaps deleted. However, the poster could have been given a warning in private which none of us would see. What we would see is the "time-out" or "banned" label if that poster ignores the warning a second, third, or forth time.

I've commented on the same issue, so I think it's probably real. Over the years I've seen a change in the way the forums are moderated and when I've commented on that issue, I've been told that the limitation is that moderators are volunteers. My response is that if the organization doesn't have enough volunteers to cover the task at hand, it's because they haven't been doing enough asking. That's the way it works everywhere else. Different here? I don't see how.

I'll have to just say I disagree on the basis of the old adage, "quality, not quantity." Just because an individual wants to be a moderator doesn't mean they will necessarily make a good moderator. Moreover, length of membership doesn't correlate perfectly with responsible membership.

The moderators and staff have always been able to recruit sufficient moderators to keep up with demand in the past, and their quality assurance seems to be quite good. Given that, I'm inclined to defer to the moderators on the wisdom of their selection process.

In looking at the list of people who've remained active in this forum for many years, I don't see one who could not handle moderation.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm involved with volunteers (and am a volunteer) who handle large sums of money, credit cards, work with children, and have other responsibilities which I strongly suspect are more weighty than having access to a forum member's e-mail address. I am not suggesting that everyone who strolls through the door should be offered positions of responsibility in any volunteer group. What I am saying is if the problem is an insufficient number of moderators to cover the growth of the forum, and the cadre of long-time committed members are not being actively drawn upon, then the shoe is on the other foot.

[Eraserhead]

IIRC, the last time new moderators were appointed was in December 2007.

Wow, that's too long.

[-hh]

It's important to judging commitment, and commitment itself is probably the single most important quality in a volunteer. In fact, everything else can be learned but commitment.

I've done some volunteer work, and I wholeheartedly agree.


My response is that if the organization doesn't have enough volunteers to cover the task at hand, it's because they haven't been doing enough asking. That's the way it works everywhere else. Different here? I don't see how.

Understandable; part of it can be that they don't know how to ask...or more likely, the volunteer who used to do the asking has left, and the duty fell between the cracks.


-hh

[IJ Reilly]

Most larger volunteer organizations have a volunteer manager who is in charge of locating people to fill positions, and also finding suitable places in the volunteer organization for virtually every person who demonstrates an interest in being involved. Some of this by necessity has to occur "behind the veil," but not every bit of it.

In my experience, people will sign on for some of the most remarkably mundane tasks if they believe it's for a good cause, so I don't think this is a major issue. The real issue in any volunteer organization is identifying the most committed individuals and keeping them committed. If you don't, one day they will just shrug their shoulders and walk away.

[Abstract]

I don't know why "volunteer work" keeps being brought up. :confused:


Becoming a moderator and performing the duties of a forum moderator is not the same as being a volunteer. The only similarity is that both people are unpaid.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't know why "volunteer work" keeps being brought up. :confused:


Becoming a moderator and performing those duties is in not the same as being a volunteer, and doing volunteer work. The only similarity is that both people are unpaid.

I don't understand the objection. The admins themselves describe the moderators as volunteers. They give freely of their time, so by definition, that's what they are.

[Eraserhead]

Becoming a moderator and performing the duties of a forum moderator is not the same as being a volunteer. The only similarity is that both people are unpaid.

Being a volunteer just means you are unpaid - and arguably that you don't have to turn up if you don't feel like it. Those seem to generally describe the moderators here.

[r.j.s]

We definitely could have used more mods tonight, as the spambot was in full force - with no one available for a while. The forum spy was mostly spam from the one bot.

[sushi]

IMHO, someone who is a volunteer, agrees to do a specific task without reimbursement. The MR moderators definitely fall under this category.

As for the size of the moderating team, one thing to consider, is that the larger the team gets, the harder it is to manage and keep standardized. I am sure this is a concern as well.

Anyhow, the more we long time members assist the moderators by reporting posts and set a good example, the better it is for MR. :)

[.Andy]

We definitely could have used more mods tonight, as the spambot was in full force - with no one available for a while. The forum spy was mostly spam from the one bot.
On the bright side I managed to save $5000 on a piece of Tiffany jewelery. It was a hassle paying by westernunion but it'll be worth it when it arrives.

[r.j.s]

Anyhow, the more we long time members assist the moderators by reporting posts and set a good example, the better it is for MR. :)

True, but if there are only a handful of mods, all that will do is fill their inboxes with reports - which they have to still sort through and deal with.

There are more than 300,000 members here, that is a lot for a handful of mods to deal with.

On the bright side I managed to save $5000 on a piece of Tiffany jewelery. It was a hassle paying by westernunion but it'll be worth it when it arrives.

Oh yeah, the savings I got by giving them my social security number, birthday and mother's maiden name is well worth the minute it took to type it in.

[sushi]

True, but if there are only a handful of mods, all that will do is fill their inboxes with reports - which they have to still sort through and deal with.

There are more than 300,000 members here, that is a lot for a handful of mods to deal with.
True.

I would bet that arn and his crew are looking at options right now be it adding to the moderating team or something else.

[OutThere]

I'd imagine that some of the spam floods and slow response times correspond with patches of time when the mods aren't online...times of the day that happen to leave both the British and American mods otherwise occupied. Spambots never sleep. :p

[jav6454]

We definitely could have used more mods tonight, as the spambot was in full force - with no one available for a while. The forum spy was mostly spam from the one bot.

The sad part is that this, is only one event. I have seen 4 different accounts of events of this magnitude.

One was related to bashing Google's CEO and board. Another was announcing a sale of iPhone/iPods from some dodgy website.

After a while, these spam bots get redundant, but they end up posting in all boards the same exact, to the last period, message. I have gone sometimes and broken the rules by PMing a mod when these type of posts have risen. True, sometimes I get the thanks for the heads up and other times I get, use the report button and don't PM mods. I really don't mind either one, my usual goal is to help in something. Likely, I may end up getting in trouble for that. I just started restraining myself from using the PM unless its something big or I deem it of too flaming/trolling nature to let it slide and simply be reported by the report button. Certain times call for certain actions, and I've started to understand that now.

Other times its not a spam bot, but a pesky new member how posts everything in caps lock and asking for "desperate" help with the few amount of information provided. The whole post is "help me, what I did wrong?" or the usual "Please help" and when asked more pertaining information and how to behave accordingly in the future, forum members only get bashed out by that person.

This is why sometimes some forum members go hard on people and give them a hard time in certain cases. There is a search feature for a reason and in this case I do give those people (Tallest Skil was mentioned, so I'll use him as example) the reason/right to get mad, but not to be hard or harsh on them. A simple canned and calm reply does the trick, or a link to the correct discussion. Adding gas/petrol to the fire does nothing but make it larger. That being said, true Tallest Skil isn't the greatest guy out there, but he does show enthusiasm and conviction a mod needs. I also believe that with the right nudge in the right direction he can be a good mod. However, I accept others may disagree with me in this one. No problem, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Also, I do not say this as a recommendation or a petition for him to become mod, quite the opposite I say this as my personal view on things and in order to make my point.

Sometimes its true some moderators are lacking, but it doesn't mean it's time for new mods. In fact, I read a small quote from one of you who said "Quality over Quantity". I do very much agree with this quote. I have seen the job of moderator not as a volunteer job, but as the privilege of helping out more than usual. Why should we have 4 new moderators given this privilege when they will do a bad job, when we can have a very good mod who can do the job better than 4 new ones? Sounds unfair to those new mods, but goes to show sometimes modding isn't an easy job and should be set aside for those who show enough maturity in certain situations.

I like MacRumors ever since I came here and want to see it prosper always. My only wish is for people to behave, but since that is deemed next to impossible, I am glad we have such a great moderator team.

[xUKHCx]

We definitely could have used more mods tonight, as the spambot was in full force - with no one available for a while. The forum spy was mostly spam from the one bot.

From the first post to the last was 46 minutes.

It would help if people didn't reply to spam posts as it only brings back up to the top of the forum, in new posts and back on the forum spy.

[Eraserhead]

I have seen the job of moderator not as a volunteer job, but as the privilege of helping out more than usual. Why should we have 4 new moderators given this privilege when they will do a bad job, when we can have a very good mod who can do the job better than 4 new ones?

Because the "good mods" aren't always online and if you had lots of mods you could give them positions in a hierarchy, and not allow the "junior" mods to permanently ban people or time them out for more than 24 hours or something.

Btw, the mods on this forum do do an excellent job.

[.Andy]

From the first post to the last was 46 minutes.
You don't understand the horror of it xUKHCx! Some of the threads were claiming to sell jewelery! Argh!

[edesignuk]

Let's see (http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php):

Admins
arn - Active, but not a moderator.
blakespot - Inactive.
Doctor Q - Active. Doesn't seem to be around as much as once was.
Knox - Can't remember the last time I saw a post. Was never a very active member/moderator anyway, more behind the scenes tech guy.
Mudbug - Active, seems to really only sporadically approve MacBytes articles.
WildCowboy - Active, but not a moderator, though does moderate from time to time.

Mods:
AmbitiousLemon - Not around most of the time.
Blue Velvet - Sporadic activity.
devilot - Vanished.
HexMonkey - Can't recall last time I saw them.
jsw - Vanished.
longofest - Can't recall last time I saw them.
mad jew - Vanished.
Mitthrawnuruodo - Active.
mkrishnan - Active.
Mr. Anderson - Vanished.
Mudbug - Fairly Active.
Nermal - Fairly Active.
Rower_CPU - Vanished.
WildCowboy - Fairly Active.
WinterMute - Fairly Active.
xUKHCx - Active.
yellow - Active.


This isn't a criticism of anyone, and I haven't exactly been monitoring activity so observations I think I've made may be incorrect.

Still, not exactly a sea of green up there is it.

You need more mods, and you need them quickly. Pick some people you half way trust, stick 'em on as mod mini's and if they get on well keep them, if not dump them. What's so hard? :confused:

Everything has always taken a painfully long time at MR for decisions to be made. It could be argued that this has helped with its general stability, which it has. It could also be argued that this (more so now) is leading MR and its membership down a slippery slope where there's all sorts of crap going on and no one to deal with it.

[sushi]

Let's see (http://forums.macrumors.com/showgroups.php):

Admins <snip>

Still, not exactly a sea of green up there is it.

You need more mods, and you need them quickly. Pick some people you half way trust, stick 'em on as mod mini's and if they get on well keep them, if not dump them. What's so hard? :confused:

Everything has always taken a painfully long time at MR for decisions to be made. It could be argued that this has helped with it's general stability, which it has. It could also be argued that this (more so now) is leading MR and it's membership down a slippery slope where there's all sorts of crap going on and no one to deal with it.
Interesting post e.

Looking at it that way, one can definitely see the shortage of moderators.

On a side note, what is a mod mini?

[edesignuk]

On a side note, what is a mod mini?It's like a mod on probation. It's how I was introduced.

[sushi]

It's like a mod on probation. It's how I was introduced.
I see. Thanks!

[Eraserhead]

HexMonkey - Can't recall last time I saw them.

I've seen him respond to Guides issues from time to time and looking at his profile (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=29160) he was on earlier today.

I think the rest of your list may be close to the mark though. EDIT: Especially blakespot and Rower_CPU, I don't think I remember ever seeing them post.

It's like a mod on probation. It's how I was introduced.

I think that should generally be how mods are added...

EDIT:
Longofest (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=19313) was also online today and I thought he helped with front page stuff...

[xUKHCx]

The list is little off.

Also as I have previously said in this thread it is something that we are working on and anything that happens will not be a reaction to this thread.

[edesignuk]

The list is little off.Wouldn't disagree. As I say, it's just a quick list off the top of my head of how I have perceived activity. Totally open to error, though I don't think it's too far off. There are definitely a number of names that could be "retired" as I was to more accurately reflect actual "staff" numbers.
Also as I have previously said in this thread it is something that we are working on and anything that happens will not be a reaction to this thread.You and I both know what "we're working" on it means. Next week, next month, next year. Who can say!

I appreciate that no one wants to be rail roaded in to anything, and that they certainly don't want to give the impression that they have been. Fact remains that it is being noticed and has been for quite some time that staff numbers are down, and those that are here might not being doing as much as they once were. Nature of volunteer work, no ones fault.

You'd have thought with this place being arn's job now he'd be paying a little more attention to it. So far the opposite seems to be the case.

[r.j.s]

From the first post to the last was 46 minutes.

Understood, and in the grand scheme, it's not that long.

I come here to help people, and since this is one of the highest caliber forums I have ever been to, I stick around. I'm just looking to maintain that high standard.

It would help if people didn't reply to spam posts as it only brings back up to the top of the forum, in new posts and back on the forum spy.

Will do.

[.Andy]

Understood, and in the grand scheme, it's not that long.

I come here to help people, and since this is one of the highest caliber forums I have ever been to, I stick around. I'm just looking to maintain that high standard.
Would you like to be a mod r.j.s.?

[Eraserhead]

You'd have thought with this place being arn's job now he'd be paying a little more attention to it. So far the opposite seems to be the case.

I would expect the situation here to be similar to Arstechnica, where the forums are just there for fun and probably break even - but the money is all made from the front page.

[robbieduncan]

I would agree that, on average, it's taking longer for team-mod to get round to dealing with posts I report. But they are still normally dealt with in less than an hour. Which is normally pretty reasonable.

And whilst a lot of the mods are posting less this does not, necessarily, mean they are not logged in and moderating...

[Eraserhead]

And whilst a lot of the mods are posting less this does not, necessarily, mean they are not logged in and moderating...

If that is true that does mean they are having less fun on the site and having more work to do, which isn't really fair on them - moderating shouldn't be that much of a burden if its a volunteer effort.

[iBlue]

I'm noticing less mod-action lately too. Several things I've reported over the last few months (stuff which is NOT open to interpretation, I might add) are not being dealt with at all, so I've sort of given up reporting things unless it is blatant spam or something big. I figure the mods have their hands way too full so I don't want to make things more difficult unless I hear otherwise.

[BoyBach]

If that is true that does mean they are having less fun on the site and having more work to do, which isn't really fair on them - moderating shouldn't be that much of a burden if its a volunteer effort.


Nobody forced them to volunteer as mods or is pressurising them to continue. If somebody isn't enjoying the role there's nothing stopping them from "retiring"... unless arn has some compromising photos in his possession! :eek:

[Jaffa Cake]

On the subject of creating new Mods, we can gather that from what has been said before that it's not a simple or fast process. Selecting suitable candidates requires a fair bit of discussion and debate among the existing Mods, and once new recruits have accepted the role they spend a period of time 'in training' to make sure they perform the job to the required standard. What the timeframe is between the existing team deciding they need new recruits and those recruits actually becoming fully fledged Mods I don't know, but I'd wager it's a process that takes a number of months from start to finish.

It may very well be the case that there are currently a number of 'Mods-in-training' who'll be officially announced at some point, certainly the Mods who have responded to this thread have suggested that they're aware there are some issues and they're working towards resolving them. Maybe they've agreed that boosting their numbers is part of the solution, maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.

I think it's important to remember too that Mods just don't do the 'front of shop' stuff we see – deleting or moving posts or issuing bans where needed. Obviously I don't know the specifics, but I'm in no doubt that there's a lot of duties they perform that we never actually get to know about.

[xUKHCx]

You and I both know what "we're working" on it means. Next week, next month, next year. Who can say!

Indeed but for something to be a reaction ...

I'm noticing less mod-action lately too. Several things I've reported over the last few months (stuff which is NOT open to interpretation, I might add) are not being dealt with at all

Blue I have looked through your reports dating back to early February and every post report was dealt with in an approriate manner. Feel free to PM me if you have any specific cases to discus.

[iBlue]

Blue I have looked through your reports dating back to early February and every post report was dealt with in an approriate manner. Feel free to PM me if you have any specific cases to discus.

Oh these aren't big deals, just like a bunch of consecutive posts/ one word/smilie only posts and stuff that when I went back into the threads a few days later I noticed they were still there. I don't even remember which threads they were right now. I'm not trying to be critical or anything, I just assumed the mods were busy with other stuff. I probably need to give my OCD urges to clean the forums up a rest anyway. I've never seen any non-trivial stuff left unattended for a length of time.

[Eraserhead]

Nobody forced them to volunteer as mods or is pressurising them to continue. If somebody isn't enjoying the role there's nothing stopping them from "retiring"... unless arn has some compromising photos in his possession! :eek:

You know how it is, if there is a lot to do and not enough people. The people who are there will do their best to cover the slack (within reason).

[rdowns]

It's easy to criticize about moderation on the forums but it is a thankless task. The fact is, MR is a full time business for Arn and is about traffic. Banning and putting members in time-out is not good for business. It must be done with great care.

[edesignuk]

It's easy to criticize about moderation on the forums but it is a thankless task. The fact is, MR is a full time business for Arn and is about traffic. Banning and putting members in time-out is not good for business. It must be done with great care.It's a thankless task which is exactly why people almost inevitably wind up doing less and less over time, which is why new blood is needed.

Banning and putting members in Time-Out might not look good, but neither does spam, abuse, and an App Forum full of promo codes and not much else.

[rdowns]

I agree but as I said, traffic is king. Those damn app threads draw a lot of it. As much as I hate them, were I Arn, I'd be moving very slowly as well. The free codes keep an awful lot of visitors coming back every day.

[xUKHCx]

and an App Forum full of promo codes and not much else.

It is something that is being worked. - Those words you love to hear. :)

[edesignuk]

It is something that is being worked. - Those words you love to hear. :)heh ;)

Oh I know it's "being looked in to". You just have to wonder how long it would take to pop in a sub-forum for promo codes [at least in the short term] and be done with it. If there's a bigger grander idea further down the road then that's great, for now this would do nicely.

[sushi]

It's a thankless task which is exactly why people almost inevitably wind up doing less and less over time, which is why new blood is needed.

Banning and putting members in Time-Out might not look good, but neither does spam, abuse, and an App Forum full of promo codes and not much else.
This is one of the best moderated forums that I visit, and has been over the past few years that I've been here. The moderators have done a wonderful job overall.

Being a moderator takes dedication and a strong desire to make MR the best that it can be. It's not an easy task to be a moderator with the issues we members present. My hat's off to those who are and have been on the moderating team.

It is something that is being worked. - Those words you love to hear. :)
:)

[edesignuk]

This is one of the best moderated forums that I visit, and has been over the past few years that I've been here. The moderators have done a wonderful job overall.

Being a moderator takes dedication and a strong desire to make MR the best that it can be. It's not an easy task to be a moderator with the issues we members present. My hat's off to those who are and have been on the moderating team.I know all that, I was one.

[.Andy]

I know all that, I was one.
:D!

This is one of the best moderated forums that I visit, and has been over the past few years that I've been here. The moderators have done a wonderful job overall.

Being a moderator takes dedication and a strong desire to make MR the best that it can be. It's not an easy task to be a moderator with the issues we members present. My hat's off to those who are and have been on the moderating team.
Would you like to be a moderator too sushi?

[sushi]

I know all that, I was one.
I would hope so. :)

I said what I did for others who might be reading this thread. I figure that it's not good form for a moderator, even an ex one, to brag. So I took the liberty of doing it for you. :D

Would you like to be a moderator too sushi?
Only if I could barrow BV's tool to control the masses:

167056

:D

Edit: Seriously, if the moderating team thought that I would be an asset and value added to the team, then I would be honored to help. But if not, no worries. Either way I will continue to enjoy being part of the MacRumors community. :)

[.Andy]

Only if I could barrow BV's tool to control the masses:

167056

:D

It looks like a surprised man's face with a large nose :eek:!

[r.j.s]

Would you like to be a mod r.j.s.?

I have already volunteered to the admins some time ago, if they feel that I am of the quality they desire to mod, then I'm sure they will let me know when it comes time for new mods. If not, then I will continue to contribute and report violations as I see them.

[Eraserhead]

You just have to wonder how long it would take to pop in a sub-forum for promo codes [at least in the short term] and be done with it.

Quite, this is a decision that should be able to be made in a couple of days or a week tops.

I have already volunteered to the admins some time ago, if they feel that I am of the quality they desire to mod, then I'm sure they will let me know when it comes time for new mods. If not, then I will continue to contribute and report violations as I see them.

I think the problem is that they are being too picky, there are several posters (including you) in this thread who I think would make good mods.

[xUKHCx]

Quite, this is a decesion that should be able to be made in a couple of days or a week tops.

No offense but you don't know the inner workings of the site.

To make a change like this and come down on the points between people who live all over the world while covering other issues at the same time and get everyone up to speed takes more than a couple of days around here. Unfortunate perhaps but the view has been to try and get a workable solution first time rather than go in half cocked as it were. This potentially saves a lot of trouble and time later down the line.


I think the problem is that they are being too picky, there are several posters (including you) in this thread who I think would make good mods.

Several posters in this one thread, lots of other potentials elsewhere. You have to be picky in order to decide between them. There are lots of factors that go into these decisions. Again an issue that you want to get right first time rather than have to deal with later.

[Eraserhead]

They haven't added new mods since December 2007 and the forum has been growing ever larger.

[aquajet]

Several posters in this one thread, lots of other potentials elsewhere. You have to be picky in order to decide between them. There are lots of factors that go into these decisions. Again an issue that you want to get right first time rather than have to deal with later.

I find myself agreeing with IJ's observations about MR. Although it's difficult to know for certain as most of us are simply not privy to every factor involved.

What I can say is that there is a marked decline in the quality of MR posts over the last year or so, directly related to what I perceive as a lack of proper moderation, having spent less time on myself for a period of time and recently finding myself lurking more often again.

I don't know how the MR bureaucracy works, but if selecting moderators is as difficult as you seem to be hinting at, is it possible that there are serious inefficiencies in the decision-making process?

I would like to hear more about the process by which decisions are made. Perhaps if you all would be more open about it, some of us could provide suggestions. Honestly, and with all due respect to all of you who invest much time in what is a thankless job, MR needs help and I would be willing to bet that several people in this thread alone would be willing to help if you would just ask.

[iBlue]

I do wonder why the hesitancy to discuss at least some of it with the rest of us. :confused: I think aquajet had a really good post.

As for mods walking away, maybe all that careful examination of who to choose may not have been all that effective anyway? Or perhaps it speaks volumes for how moderators are treated in general?

[xUKHCx]

Because they haven't added new mods since December 2007 and the forum has been growing ever larger.

How does this relate to being too picky? Obivously in December 2007 4 new mods joined so there was no need to hire some straight away back then. Over the time between then and now there has been a chage over from enough to perhaps not quite enough however as said previously it is something we are working on and will happen when the process has been gone through.

To whittle potentially 10s if not 100s names in the wood work who would made good mods you have to be picky. And it takes time. The issue causing you to label it too picky is in fact time. Everything here takes time, arguably too much time.

...

Not so much hard, more slow.

I believe BV wrote up a description of the process once but a quick search doesn't bring it up.

Basically it goes like this

Decide we need more moderators
Names are put forward by the mods/gods of members who they feel would make good additions to the team
Those names are discussed in terms of suitability for the role, for the team, for the timezones, for the directions of the forums and other things along those lines
Short listed
Invites


Long pauses drag these out as we may get side tracked by something big coming up or something big that jumps up, or just side tracked. It tends to take a long time (although this is my first time through the process from this side of the line). In the time that it all takes some people may drop away from the forums or other things may happen which makes the above process not so straight forward.

We have been going through this process for some time now.

[robbieduncan]

We have been going through this process for some time now.

Good :) Then we can look forward to this being sorted in the future and their being more moderator-love to go round. :D

[Peace]

Jeez. This place is more like Apple than I thought. Whoda thunk Mods were back ordered.:rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

How does this relate to being too picky? Obivously in December 2007 4 new mods joined so there was no need to hire some straight away back then. Over the time between then and now there has been a chage over from enough to perhaps not quite enough however as said previously it is something we are working on and will happen when the process has been gone through.

Because as far as I remember 4 were added in December 2007 as there was a need for them, but before that 2 had been added every 6 months, so I would expect 2 more to have been added around Christmas 2008 as that would be keeping with the pattern.

<shrug> maybe I'm reading more into it than I should.

[kainjow]

I think the problem is that they are being too picky, there are several posters (including you) in this thread who I think would make good mods.

As for mods walking away, maybe all that careful examination of who to choose may not have been all that effective anyway?

IMO, this sums up the problem. Being overly picky on who becomes mods, and then those mods get burnt out and leave as the membership grows, and the problem continues.

I think we need a third level of permanent mini-mods that do the small stuff like cleaning up threads. Maybe add on a few that are responsible for managing a specific set of forums, and then let the mods/gods do all the heavier work. That way the work can be divided up more evenly.

Personally though I haven't noticed any issues, but I stay away from the crazy sections, and whenever I report threads they are dealt with quickly.

[tobefirst]

Jeez. This place is more like Apple than I thought. Whoda thunk Mods were back ordered.:rolleyes:

Ha! Nice, Peace! That one made me laugh.



Now, to be more serious, I just wanted to say that I appreciate xUKHCx showing up and discussing the process and any details he can, as well as any other mods who have or will contribute to this thread. I also appreciate the (mostly) civil discussion about the topic among the posters here. This is very clearly something that we all care about, and all want the best for. I like this place.

Perhaps you can answer this for me, xUKHCx. Do the mods commit to serve a certain length of time?

[sushi]

I do wonder why the hesitancy to discuss at least some of it with the rest of us. :confused:
I found BV's post on how a moderator is chosen to be very informative.

Not sure what they could be more open about. I think that it is important that all moderators can speak freely when looking at possible candidates and not have to worry about what might be said about whom during the process.

[edesignuk]

Do the mods commit to serve a certain length of time?No.

[WildCowboy]

Yes, we are aware that our response time has been less than optimal. And yes, we are working (sooner rather than later) on resolving that issue. The wheels do turn slowly, which is a byproduct of the fact that there is a significant amount of discussion and coordination that has to take place among people who have real-life commitments limiting their time to work on these issues. Could and should they turn faster? In some cases, yes, but in the long run, this is still the best Apple-focused community on the Internet, one that has evolved significantly over time as this site and Apple's popularity has grown and new products from Apple have shifted the demographics of our membership.

Stepping back a bit, the moderators generally perform their jobs by responding to post reports. And while they may take a bit longer to be handled these days, they are being handled. While things could be helped in some cases by us putting out the fires more quickly, the fact that there seems to be a strong sentiment that rules aren't being enforced when we are in fact doing so when alerted suggests to me that problem posts are not being reported.

Please, please, please...report problem posts. We may not be able to take care of it right away, but we will get to it. We can't read every post, and so we rely on the assistance of our members to draw our attention to problem spots. If it's not reported, there's a good chance it won't be seen by us. Responding to the problem posts doesn't help us...reporting them does.

Thanks for your help, and we should have some news for you soon. :)

[robbieduncan]

Thanks for your help, and we should have some news for you soon. :)

Will the announcement be on a Tuesday? Will the forums be taken down and replaced with a post-it-note saying "we'll be back soon"?

[Peace]

Will the announcement be on a Tuesday? Will the forums be taken down and replaced with a post-it-note saying "we'll be back soon"?

Complete with elevator pic of new Mod avatar. Photoshopped of course!:p

[xUKHCx]

Because as far as I remember 4 were added in December 2007 as there was a need for them, but before that 2 had been added every 6 months, so I would expect 2 more to have been added around Christmas 2008 as that would be keeping with the pattern.

<shrug> maybe I'm reading more into it than I should.

Perhaps, there might be an equation in there somewhere to suggest the ideal number of mods/forum members however the human side of it such as the level of commitment people can give take over. There are periods of time when some mods can be on quite a lot and some other periods when they can't. During then and now we have waxed and wained. With some mods dropping off over this time the waining stage becomes a bigger problem.

Perhaps you can answer this for me, xUKHCx. Do the mods commit to serve a certain length of time?

Mods are free to come and go as they please just like every other forum member. There is some expectation however in reality everyone knows that real world can and will take presidence

I stay away from the crazy sections

The key to forum happiness, although sometimes it is hard to know which is the crazy and which is the sane. :)

Complete with elevator pic of new Mod avatar. Photoshopped of course!:p

I can tell by the pixels.

[tobefirst]

Mods are free to come and go as they please just like every other forum member. There is some expectation however in reality everyone knows that real world can and will take presidence.

Perhaps spelling that expectation out in more real terms would help? Maybe requiring a 6 month commitment before signing on, and then re-upping that commitment when the time comes?

I realize that wouldn't get rid of all of the problems of mods just fading away, but it could at least give the mods and admins some idea of when new moderators will be needed.

I think it would help the individual mods, too. If they knew there was an end date to their commitment, perhaps they would be more likely to at least make it to that specific goal. I'm really just thinking outloud (online) here.

[edesignuk]

Perhaps spelling that expectation out in more real terms would help? Maybe requiring a 6 month commitment before signing on, and then re-upping that commitment when the time comes?

I realize that wouldn't get rid of all of the problems of mods just fading away, but it could at least give the mods and admins some idea of when new moderators will be needed.

I think it would help the individual mods, too. If they knew there was an end date to their commitment, perhaps they would be more likely to at least make it to that specific goal. I'm really just thinking outloud (online) here.Mods aren't paid and never will be. You can't possibly expect anyone to "commit" to moderation out the goodness of their heart. Say you get 3 months in to your 4th 6 month term and decide you've had enough of the constant barrage of crap, what are they going to do, force you to stay and "work". Would we want someone moderating that specifically doesn't want to be doing it?

Moderators need to be willing and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm dies over time...they need new peeps.

[Schtumple]

Thanks for your help, and we should have some news for you soon. :)

You've all collaborated together in creating a fully working Powerbook G5?

You heard it here first :p

[IJ Reilly]

I find myself agreeing with IJ's observations about MR. Although it's difficult to know for certain as most of us are simply not privy to every factor involved.

Too much "not privy" IMO. I've been active here for nearly seven years now, but still don't have a clue about how moderators are appointed.

What I can say is that there is a marked decline in the quality of MR posts over the last year or so, directly related to what I perceive as a lack of proper moderation, having spent less time on myself for a period of time and recently finding myself lurking more often again.

I don't know how the MR bureaucracy works, but if selecting moderators is as difficult as you seem to be hinting at, is it possible that there are serious inefficiencies in the decision-making process?

I would like to hear more about the process by which decisions are made. Perhaps if you all would be more open about it, some of us could provide suggestions. Honestly, and with all due respect to all of you who invest much time in what is a thankless job, MR needs help and I would be willing to bet that several people in this thread alone would be willing to help if you would just ask.

Some of us already have, on multiple occasions. The response is generally something along the lines of, "your suggestion is appreciated," and that's the last you ever hear of it.

Really, I'm beginning to feel a bit chafed by this discussion about "what makes a good mod," as though they have to qualify for top-secret security clearance. How about these simple criteria: (1) long-time committed participant in the forum, (2) demonstrated understanding of the rules of the forum. Why add anything to this, especially when new moderators are held on probation for a time anyway? I can easily count ten contributors to this thread alone who'd qualify by these criteria.

[jav6454]

Because the "good mods" aren't always online and if you had lots of mods you could give them positions in a hierarchy, and not allow the "junior" mods to permanently ban people or time them out for more than 24 hours or something.

Btw, the mods on this forum do do an excellent job.

I agree we should have something like you said "Junior or Janitors". Some people who deal to a lesser extent, but still help out the community.

True also not all moderators are online. I myself have seen MacRumors be moderatorless for 3 hours straight. No one, not even the gods were online. Luckily things were calm that day. But it wouldn't surprise me if things got out of hand one day if this keeps up.

[Schtumple]

Too much "not privy" IMO. I've been active here for nearly seven years now, but still don't have a clue about how moderators are appointed.

Some of us already have, on multiple occasions. The response is generally something along the lines of, "your suggestion is appreciated," and that's the last you ever hear of it.

Really, I'm beginning to feel a bit chafed by this discussion about "what makes a good mod," as though they have to qualify for top-secret security clearance. How about these simple criteria: (1) long-time committed participant in the forum, (2) demonstrated understanding of the rules of the forum. Why add anything to this, especially when new moderators are held on probation for a time anyway? I can easily count ten contributors to this thread alone who'd qualify by these criteria.

But as was said before, you don't have to be here an age to make you a candidate for a mod, by the sounds of it there's a big criteria that you have to pass in order to become a mod.

[xUKHCx]

Perhaps spelling that expectation out in more real terms would help? Maybe requiring a 6 month commitment before signing on, and then re-upping that commitment when the time comes?

I realize that wouldn't get rid of all of the problems of mods just fading away, but it could at least give the mods and admins some idea of when new moderators will be needed.

I think it would help the individual mods, too. If they knew there was an end date to their commitment, perhaps they would be more likely to at least make it to that specific goal. I'm really just thinking outloud (online) here.

I personally could not give a commitment time scale (especially one longer than UK employment law). And I feel that it would make it more confining as you then feel like you have to stay, add to that we are free to leave as we wish in reality and life changes I don't see this having a benefit. Unles of course I have missed the point of this, if so feel free to explain (in laymans terms :))



Really, I'm beginning to feel a bit chafed by this discussion about "what makes a good mod," as though they have to qualify for top-secret security clearance. How about these simple criteria: (1) long-time committed participant in the forum, (2) demonstrated understanding of the rules of the forum. Why add anything to this

Because sometimes two forum members will fit the criteria as outlined above but one happens to live in a timezone with lots of mods and good coverage and the other lives in one with poor coverage. One person might have a particular interest in say Windows on the mac and the other in Mac Programming. There might be a need for a moderator in the windows on a mac forums and areas in general and not in the mac programming side of things. Yes mods generally go everywhere but an interest in the area that needs more mod work does have a huge advantage. One person might fit the criteria but they may not make for a good member of the team as is and it would perhaps be detremental to bring on someone who is likely to annoy the others.

As you have said 10 people from this thread (but out there in the forums in general that number is a lot higher) fit that criteria but if we are only looking to add say 5 then you have to add in extra criteria to determine overall which will likely be the best addition.

In terms of the process it has been explained before and I gave a decent description of it in this thread.

[tobefirst]

Mods aren't paid and never will be. You can't possibly expect anyone to "commit" to moderation out the goodness of their heart. Say you get 3 months in to your 4th 6 month term and decide you've had enough of the constant barrage of crap, what are they going to do, force you to stay and "work". Would we want someone moderating that specifically doesn't want to be doing it?

Moderators need to be willing and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm dies over time...they need new peeps.

I understand what you're saying, but I think I disagree with you here, edesignuk. Volunteering always requires some amount of commitment, regardless of whether it is expressly stated or not. It also requires some level of expectations.

I'm not sure that defining explicitly those expectations and commitment in terms of a 3, 4, or 6 month commitment wouldn't help. It's obvious that MR isn't going to get all volunteers to fulfill whatever commitments are agreed to, but if they have some idea of when X number of moderators would be up for renewal/replacement, the process could start sooner rather than later.

*shrugs* If the idea doesn't work, it doesn't work. It's just that- an idea.

[xUKHCx]

It's obvious that MR isn't going to get all volunteers to fulfill whatever commitments are agreed to, but if they have some idea of when X number of moderators would be up for renewal/replacement, the process could start sooner rather than later.

*shrugs* If the idea doesn't work, it doesn't work. It's just that- an idea.

OK I get it, we do communicate with each other when we are expecting life issues to come up and as such know what might happen in the future so there is a sort of commitment therein.

My commitment now: Walk the dog, pick up girlfriend from work, eat, and watch football.

[jav6454]

But as was said before, you don't have to be here an age to make you a candidate for a mod, by the sounds of it there's a big criteria that you have to pass in order to become a mod.

It along the lines of showing maturity and having shown that you can keep your cool in heated situations. At least that's what I understand.

[IJ Reilly]

But as was said before, you don't have to be here an age to make you a candidate for a mod, by the sounds of it there's a big criteria that you have to pass in order to become a mod.

I am suggesting uncomplicated criteria that would quickly bring the numbers of moderators up to something closer to what is needed to accommodate the growth in the forum. The first criterion is a reflection of the individual's likelihood of continuing to serve. The second is a measure of their knowledge of, and respect for, the rules which they would be called upon to enforce. What additional criteria are necessary or appropriate?

[jav6454]

I am suggesting uncomplicated criteria that would quickly bring the numbers of moderators up to something closer to what is needed to accommodate the growth in the forum. The first criterion is a reflection of the individual's likelihood of continuing to serve. The second is a measure of their knowledge of, and respect for, the rules which they would be called upon to enforce. What additional criteria are necessary or appropriate?

We might not know. We can guess what they have as criterion but we might as well be wrong. Or we can have an idea what they look at, something which xUKHCx has mentioned before in this thread.

[Eraserhead]

I am suggesting uncomplicated criteria that would quickly bring the numbers of moderators up to something closer to what is needed to accommodate the growth in the forum. The first criterion is a reflection of the individual's likelihood of continuing to serve. The second is a measure of their knowledge of, and respect for, the rules which they would be called upon to enforce. What additional criteria are necessary or appropriate?

Quite. Liking the iPhone forums for one would be nice. But to be honest it does seem like there is a lot of getting hung up on details like this - ultimately its not a big deal.

For why this is really an issue maybe taking a look at the posting pattern of the top 100 posters and noting the lack of posts in news threads, the iPhone forums and frankly everything that isn't "community".

[Peace]

Boy howdy. This discussion has become a self fulfilling prophesy.

I think we should just let TPTB do their thing and help out when we can by reporting spam etc..

We as members have no right to quasi-dictate how mods are chosen. It'll happen and when it has this discussion will have proven to be exactly what the heading says.

/end opinion

[IJ Reilly]

Because sometimes two forum members will fit the criteria as outlined above but one happens to live in a timezone with lots of mods and good coverage and the other lives in one with poor coverage. One person might have a particular interest in say Windows on the mac and the other in Mac Programming. There might be a need for a moderator in the windows on a mac forums and areas in general and not in the mac programming side of things. Yes mods generally go everywhere but an interest in the area that needs more mod work does have a huge advantage. One person might fit the criteria but they may not make for a good member of the team as is and it would perhaps be detremental to bring on someone who is likely to annoy the others.

As you have said 10 people from this thread (but out there in the forums in general that number is a lot higher) fit that criteria but if we are only looking to add say 5 then you have to add in extra criteria to determine overall which will likely be the best addition.

It still sounds to me like this process is being sliced too fine. It should be apparent that long-time members in particular have been noticing a steady decline in the level of moderation in the forum and the need for more moderators to be appointed. Yet it's been more than a year since anyone has been, and in that time several veteran moderators have become inactive.

I suppose I am still not understanding the hesitancy to add a substantial number of new moderators right now from the cadre of members who to me at least seem perfectly able to handle it. Get more of them on the task and you won't have to be so concerned about finding the perfect person to suit all time zones and interests.

A portion of your explanation sounds a lot like politics. Making decisions based on personal politics is another way for organizations to self-limit their effectiveness.

In terms of the process it has been explained before and I gave a decent description of it in this thread.

That's appreciated, but it's the only explanation of this process I have seen in nearly seven years.

[tobefirst]

I just wanted to note that I reported a post in this thread and it was dealt with immediately. I therefore conclude that the moderators are acting faster than ever and that we no longer need more of them. (:

[miles01110]

Yes, we are aware that our response time has been less than optimal. And yes, we are working (sooner rather than later) on resolving that issue. ...

Please, please, please...report problem posts. We may not be able to take care of it right away, but we will get to it.

I ran into this problem in an online game I played that had a moderation problem. The illusion was that the mods weren't doing anything, because reported accounts (analagous to reported posts) were either taken care of or left alone without any way of confirming that your report reached an actual person. It would probably be difficult to implement even a token "ticket" system in which a user that reports a post is notified with "A moderator has viewed your request"- not even confirming/denying action was taken, BUT I think a large part of the problem is that reported posts disappear into the ether.

Without an efficient way of checking that something happened when we report something, it makes it seem like reporting either doesn't work or is pointless. People then stop reporting, which leads to a decrease in moderation, which leads to more dissatisfaction.

[WildCowboy]

Without an efficient way of checking that something happened when we report something, it makes it seem like reporting either doesn't work or is pointless. People then stop reporting, which leads to a decrease in moderation, which leads to more dissatisfaction.

How about you trust us? Report it, and we'll promise that we'll look at it. ;) :)

Seriously, at least one moderator (usually more) looks at every single post report, and all the mods know whether a given report was handled or not. Most of the time we take action, but occasionally we don't because the reported post was judged not to be in violation of the forum rules. If we find that a user is consistently reporting posts that don't require action, we contact them to clarify what should and shouldn't be reported.

[miles01110]

I personally don't have a problem with the system, but I'm willing to bet this is an issue for others.

[xUKHCx]

I suppose I am still not understanding the hesitancy to add a substantial number of new moderators right now from the cadre of members who to me at least seem perfectly able to handle it.

How many to add? We wouldn't want to add a huge amount because it would then create other problems. Also who is to say there is hesitancy we have said we are working on the matter, everything else so far is conjecture by people who do not know the background information.

As said before it is something that has been worked on for quite some time now and this whole discussion seems a little premature from my view point.

Get more of them on the task and you won't have to be so concerned about finding the perfect person to suit all time zones and interests.

We are not trying to find the perfect people it is just you gave an idealistic view of how things should be done and gave the opposite side in terms of the real life situation faced on here.

Like with any job there are a large number of potential candiates some better than other, some equal. Just because they are equal doesn't mean there are positions for them.

As you said there are perhaps 10 people in this thread alone, spread that out and you could easily find 100 if not 10x that number of people who fit the criteria. What makes one stand out above the other? You have to have some criteria to further reduce these numbers.

A portion of your explanation sounds a lot like politics. .

Everything in life is politics why should it be different here, especially with a large group of people from different countries and cultures.


That's appreciated, but it's the only explanation of this process I have seen in nearly seven years.

Doesn't mean it is the only one that has been said. For example (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4831434#post4831434).

There may well have been others in the past, I don't know and there is always the contact us form and site and forum feedback where you could've posted the question.

Most of the time we take action, but occasionally we don't because the reported post was judged not to be in violation of the forum rules.

Also another point worth adding on is that sometimes we have a discussion about a post/thread and so action can be delayed as well, so it might appear that nothing was done if someone checks pretty quickly.

[Eraserhead]

As you said there are perhaps 10 people in this thread alone, spread that out and you could easily find 100 if not 10x that number of people who fit the criteria.

Not really, because IJ is limiting it to the top 100 posters as they are the main ones who fit the commitment criteria. That limits you to a maximum of 100 candidates.

[xUKHCx]

Not really, because IJ is limiting it to the top 100 posters as they are the main ones who fit the commitment criteria. That limits you to 100 candidates.

OK then how to do you decide between the 100? Or are you proposing that we get 100 mods on board?

Of course some of the 100 posters aren't good candidates for moderator status, most mods are already in that 100, some have previously declined, some will decline but that would still leave you with perhaps 50.

[rdowns]

The top posters is not a good way to choose a mod. Other than longevity, top posters share nothing. IMO, most (including myself) would probably not be candidates for moderation. In fact, as I scan the members list, I don't see many on the first 2 pages that I would think would be good mods.

[xUKHCx]

So then on the "rules" front remove every poster whose been banned or timed out from the possibilities, and maybe set a low post deletion threshold.

Then you should have a much smaller list.

If you took that criteria I would not have become a mod. Now I am not big headed enough to suggest that some equally as good or even better would have take the position but there is more to this site than post count. After all post count does not equal quality.

We are slowly building up a set of guidlines, how is this really different to the guidelines we have. As you whittle it down further you need more guidelines.

[IJ Reilly]

How many to add? We wouldn't want to add a huge amount because it would then create other problems. Also who is to say there is hesitancy we have said we are working on the matter, everything else so far is conjecture by people who do not know the background information.

As said before it is something that has been worked on for quite some time now and this whole discussion seems a little premature from my view point.

The discussion came about due to the number of members who've noticed the issues with moderation. I've expressed my concerns privately in the past, but since it's now being discussed publicly I thought I'd add my voice to the others who are concerned.

It seems that the number of moderators ought to be in some way proportional to the size of the forum, and natural attrition should be considered, or you're asking fewer people to do more work.

We are not trying to find the perfect people it is just you gave an idealistic view of how things should be done and gave the opposite side in terms of the real life situation faced on here.

Like with any job there are a large number of potential candiates some better than other, some equal. Just because they are equal doesn't mean there are positions for them.

As you said there are perhaps 10 people in this thread alone, spread that out and you could easily find 100 if not 10x that number of people who fit the criteria. What makes one stand out above the other? You have to have some criteria to further reduce these numbers.

As above. The forum has grown even as the number of active moderators has declined. This is what members are noticing. I don't pretend to know how many moderators the site needs, but it clearly requires more. I'm not saying that every qualified person should be appointed. Far from it. What I'm saying is that it should not be difficult to find qualified people.

Everything in life is politics why should it be different here, especially with a large group of people from different countries and cultures.

Speaking of everything in life... I assume most of us have been called upon often to work on teams with people whom we may not particularly like. If I refuse to work on a team with someone for personal reasons, who then is the non-team player?

[Eraserhead]

If you took that criteria I would not have become a mod. Now I am not big headed enough to suggest that some equally as good or even better would have take the position but there is more to this site than post count. After all post count does not equal quality.

We are slowly building up a set of guidlines, how is this really different to the guidelines we have. As you whittle it down further you need more guidelines.

Sorry, I deleted that post as I didn't think it was a good post :o. And you are a good mod xUKHCx :), but that is the sad part of arbitrarily cutting the members, but that is life as you don't have unlimited time to make decisions.

but that would still leave you with perhaps 50.

Then you use some arbitrary but defined criteria to reduce the number further, but if you can't agree on something ultimately you reduce the candidates by lot (i.e. you pick a subset randomly).

[IJ Reilly]

Not really, because IJ is limiting it to the top 100 posters as they are the main ones who fit the commitment criteria. That limits you to a maximum of 100 candidates.

I wasn't trying to set any limits. I was suggesting that the top 100 posters might be a good place to start, if commitment to the forum and an understanding of the rules of the forum were criteria. And FWIW, I believe these to be useful criteria.

[Eraserhead]

I wasn't trying to set any limits. I was suggesting that the top 100 posters might be a good place to start, if commitment to the forum and an understanding of the rules of the forum were criteria. And FWIW, I believe these to be useful criteria.

Sorry for misinterpreting you :o.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry for misinterpreting you :o.

Not at all. A lot of posts have gone under the bridge since then. ;)

[xUKHCx]

As above. The forum has grown even as the number of active moderators has declined. This is what members are noticing. I don't pretend to know how many moderators the site needs, but it clearly requires more.

And as said it is something we are working on. We have said quite a few times that it has been worked on and that something should happen soon making this whole discussion moot,

I'm not saying that every qualified person should be appointed. Far from it. What I'm saying is that it should not be difficult to find qualified people.

It is not difficult to find the qualified people we agree on that part but we have to limit them down some way. Limiting them down in how beneficial they will be seems to be a good way. (and yes there is more to it than that)


Speaking of everything in life... I assume most of us have been called upon often to work on teams with people whom we may not particularly like. If I refuse to work on a team with someone for personal reasons, who then is the non-team player?

That is a different situation. As you have said there are lots of potentials and we get to pick the new recruits as members of the team as a whole. Why would we pick someone who as a general the team does not like when there is someone else out there is amicable or we feel would fit as a personality within the group. When you hire people for jobs this is a criteria so why can't it be one here, its just we as a team get extra say in the matter.


Then you use some arbitrary but defined criteria to reduce the number further, but if you can't agree on something ultimately you reduce the candidates by lot (i.e. you pick a subset randomly).

Why not use some criteria that attributes value to a candiate or a candiates abilities, i.e. there personal likes and posting habits, there timezones. I feel you can waste forever and a day trying to come up with different criteria just for the sake of different criteria.

The critieria I listed was not a full set and hell was just off the top of my head of some of the things we look for. We try and look at the picture as whole and if a good candiate doesn't have all the criteria they will still be considered.

edit:

I wasn't trying to set any limits. I was suggesting that the top 100 posters might be a good place to start, if commitment to the forum and an understanding of the rules of the forum were criteria. And FWIW, I believe these to be useful criteria.

Of course these are criteria.

[IJ Reilly]

That is a different situation. As you have said there are lots of potentials and we get to pick the new recruits as members of the team as a whole. Why would we pick someone who as a general the team does not like when there is someone else out there is amicable or we feel would fit as a personality within the group. When you hire people for jobs this is a criteria so why can't it be one here, its just we as a team get extra say in the matter.

Obviously you should not choose someone with major personality defects. Among the people I've interacted with on these forums, very few of the longtime members fall into that category -- and this includes people with whom I've had real, substantial disagreements over the years. Keep in mind, all of this discussion is in response to the supposed difficulty in finding suitable people to moderate.

Why not use some criteria that attributes value to a candiate or a candiates abilities, i.e. there personal likes and posting habits, there timezones. I feel you can waste forever and a day trying to come up with different criteria just for the sake of different criteria.

The critieria I listed was not a full set and hell was just off the top of my head of some of the things we look for. We try and look at the picture as whole and if a good candiate doesn't have all the criteria they will still be considered.

One of the suggestions I made early on was almost precisely what you say here. Organizations benefit when abilities are recognized and utilized and suffer when they are not.

I am making suggestions based on my experience with the forum, and a few drawn from experiences in life. Sorry if you think I'm wasting your time.

[Eraserhead]

Why not use some criteria that attributes value to a candiate or a candiates abilities, i.e. there personal likes and posting habits, there timezones.

Then you use some arbitrary but defined criteria to reduce the number further, but if you can't agree on something ultimately you reduce the candidates by lot (i.e. you pick a subset randomly).

I agree that you can use other criteria that can be defined and applied to multiple candidates. See the bold above from my previous post.

The point is if you can't agree criteria to split the candidates you should assume they are all equal and then reduce by lot, but it is a last resort.

[Trajectory]

Who selects new mods, is it the other mods or just Arn? If it's all the other mods, then I think you may end up with a group-think problem eventually, as they would only approve of someone who is like them and not every mod here in MR's past has been stellar.

So, I would actually be happier if Arn was the sole person to choose Admins and Moderators for the forum (based on recommendations), because he's the only person who knows the entire history of the site, and what did and what didn't work in the past. He's also very intelligent and has proven he knows how to run a great website.

On a slightly different topic...

On a forum I once managed, I assigned mods to particular forums, which allowed them to become better familiar with the "atmosphere" and users of that forum. If the forum was about a topic the mod was interested in, I noticed the forum was better moderated as a result. This system worked well for us. It also meant we needed more mods to cover all the forums, which meant we always had the right number of mods at all times. While the mods recommended people for new mods, I ultimately made the decision myself to be sure we got a good variety of people and not just online friends of other mods.

We also implemented 1 year terms for mods, which I could either renew or not at the end of that term. Most of the time, the mods decided this for themselves, either to stay on for another year, or go back to being a regular member if they were burnt out. Term limits assured we had a team of mods who were dedicated to the job at hand, with enough turnover to keep things fresh and moving along with little stagnation.

Just a few suggestions you may want to ponder for MR.

[aethelbert]

So, I would actually be happier if Arn was the sole person to choose Admins and Moderators for the forum (based on recommendations), because he's the only person who knows the entire history of the site, and what did and what didn't work in the past. He's also very intelligent and has proven he knows how to run a great website.

Pardon me if I'm extremely wrong here, but it seems to me that arn likely participates in the forum as a whole less than the moderators. I would imagine that running the entire site, including advertisements, homepage, page 2, etc, consumes more time than he spends on the forum. As moderators are probably more active in the forum section of the site, I would imagine that they are better able to analyze the qualities that certain members bring to the forum.

[iMacmatician]

You and I both know what "we're working" on it means. Next week, next month, next year. Who can say!Next Tuesday.

[Schtumple]

I am losing it, or was this thread not closed by a mod earlier?

[dukebound85]

I am losing it, or was this thread not closed by a mod earlier?

it was, im confused too

the op has been banned? i wonder if ths thread was the reason?

[r.j.s]

it was, im confused too

Count me in.

[Doctor Q]

The thread was closed while we cleaned up after rules violations and caught up with complaints we received about specific posts.

As always, members are welcome to give us general feedback in public or in private. For reference, see How to send messages to moderators.

Anyone with concerns about moderation of their own posts should use the Contact form so we can address their concerns privately. We do not share details of disciplinary actions with anyone other than the forum member involved.

[IJ Reilly]

it was, im confused too

the op has been banned? i wonder if ths thread was the reason?

The OP admitted to having been a member some years ago, under a different name. I presume this was the reason for his banning.

[sushi]

I just wanted to note that I reported a post in this thread and it was dealt with immediately.
Most of the time that I report a post, it has been dealt with quickly.

A couple of times there were exceptions. I went back and re-read the post and realized that I may have been incorrect. I've also conversed with God/Mods on issues.

As I have said, MR is one of the best forums that I have been on. I know a couple of other forums might be considered better, but they are very limited in their scope. Hypothetically, let's say they are about guns, the M16A1 in particular. You would not be able to post or start threads about M16A2, AR15, CAR15, or any other closely related weapons let alone non gun related topics. It is the M16 or bust. Yet, here at MR, in addition to the Mac related threads we have community, PRSI, and others. IMHO, this creates a much better community feel to it.

The top posters is not a good way to choose a mod. Other than longevity, top posters share nothing.
Agree about top posters. Post count in general indicates longevity but there are exceptions. Recently we have new members who have posted a lot and thus have risen to the top 100 rather quickly. While others of us have taken many years.

The OP admitted to having been a member some years ago, under a different name. I presume this was the reason for his banning.
Oops. Seems like that has been happening more as of late.



As for me I used to be sashimi. But I could not hack laying on that cold plate all the time. So I changed to sushi so now I have a small bed of rice to lay on. It's much nicer, softer and warmer. :)
/joke

[Eraserhead]

Agree about top posters. Post count in general indicates longevity but there are exceptions. Recently we have new members who have posted a lot and thus have risen to the top 100 rather quickly. While others of us have taken many years.

The point about being a top 100 poster is that it shows commitment to the site.

[sushi]

The point about being a top 100 poster is that it shows commitment to the site.
Commitment, or that we should be committed. :p ;) :D

On a serious note, if one person joined in January 2003 and has 9,000 posts, and another joined in January 2008 and has 10,000 posts, which is the more committed?

I guess I don't see post count as commitment. Plus, since PRSI posts are not counted, maybe there are those who post there allot who do not show up in the overall 100 top posters.

Anyhow, just don't see post count as that important of a measure.

[bartelby]

I thought it showed we were a bunch of sad gits with no life... :o


EDIT: Ignore me. I can't read... :o

[r.j.s]

Agreed. Commitment cannot be determined by post count alone.

There are a number of different factors.

[sushi]

I thought it showed we were a bunch of sad gits with no life... :o
Snort!

MR is addicting more than I want to admit.

There are a number of different factors.
Definitely.

I would venture to say that is why the process takes a while.

In the interim, MR continues to run. :)

[CalBoy]

One person might have a particular interest in say Windows on the mac and the other in Mac Programming. There might be a need for a moderator in the windows on a mac forums and areas in general and not in the mac programming side of things. Yes mods generally go everywhere but an interest in the area that needs more mod work does have a huge advantage.

This criterion raises and interesting question for me: why?

To be sure moderators each have their own interests and aren't going to spend 100% of their time evenly across each forum and sub-forum, but is that really crucial for selecting the next moderator?

I always imagined that a moderator would address post reports regardless of what forum it comes from, so in that regard wouldn't other criteria take precedence over where the moderator spends more of their time when on the site?

To me it seems more important to see if the candidate has been a positive presence on the forums, follows the rules consistently, helps out whenever possible, etc, because those are the factors that matter most when that moderator makes decisions about post reports.

Just thinking out loud. :)

[Eraserhead]

On a serious note, if one person joined in January 2003 and has 9,000 posts, and another joined in January 2008 and has 10,000 posts, which is the more committed?

Probably about equal, the first's commitment is more sustained but the second is stronger, and both have been interested in the site for over a year.

Agreed. Commitment cannot be determined by post count alone.

There are a number of different factors.

Of course, but the point of picking from the top 100 is that it gives you a good place to start. Obviously any exceptional candidates not in the top 100 can be added to the possibilities, but they will have to really stand out to get noticed, which makes life easy - and anyone who really stands out is likely to be good.

Its like applying for a job which requires a University degree, but if you're really good except you don't have a degree they'll still be interested.

The University degree is equivalent to being in the top 100 posts here.

[jav6454]

Probably about equal, the first's commitment is more sustained but the second is stronger, and both have been interested in the site for over a year.


You could also interpret the second one as an newly discovered thing so you post post post as if there is no tomorrow. Like, the hype of the moment.

But then again, after a year it does leave you thinking, if it really was a hype and now is something more serious.

[bartelby]

Snort!

MR is addicting more than I want to admit.


Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Congratulations!
:)

I know I don't have a problem...

[Sun Baked]

I know I don't have a problem...

That is because you simply haven't admitted to it yet, and thus can avoid the 12 step program and the weeks of withdraw that would leave you twitching and drooling in a corner while hugging your Steve Jobs plush doll.

[-hh]

Mods aren't paid and never will be. You can't possibly expect anyone to "commit" to moderation out the goodness of their heart. Say you get 3 months in to your 4th 6 month term and decide you've had enough of the constant barrage of crap, what are they going to do, force you to stay and "work". Would we want someone moderating that specifically doesn't want to be doing it?

Moderators need to be willing and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm dies over time...they need new peeps.

Something that might also help manage expectations is insight on what level of participation a volunteer might be able to provide. While it can be great to get one that will work 20 hours/day for you, they're also more likely to burn out more quickly than one who tells you upfront that they can only give you 4 hours/week. Its another angle of the quantity-vs-quality paradigm.


Too much "not privy" IMO. I've been active here for nearly seven years now, but still don't have a clue about how moderators are appointed.

Personally, I've never bothered to pay attention. And its probably been...oh, 8 years? since I read the terms agreement.


This criterion raises and interesting question for me: why?

To be sure moderators each have their own interests and aren't going to spend 100% of their time evenly across each forum and sub-forum, but is that really crucial for selecting the next moderator?

I always imagined that a moderator would address post reports regardless of what forum it comes from, so in that regard wouldn't other criteria take precedence over where the moderator spends more of their time when on the site?

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

To me it seems more important to see if the candidate has been a positive presence on the forums, follows the rules consistently, helps out whenever possible, etc, because those are the factors that matter most when that moderator makes decisions about post reports.

Just thinking out loud. :)

Its a fair point. IMO, one of the hardest things for a Mod to do is to remain sufficiently interested and engaged in the discussion group he's Moderating, while also being able to parse himself from it so as to be able to perform the duty of Moderation.

Something that might also be considered as a potential tool to help with Moderation would be something similar to the "Report this Post" button, but with it being less "Nail this Guy" in nature: something that's along the lines of: "This thread is getting pretty heated and Mods might need to focus some of their attention here soon", which might help to nip some things in the bud...and help a longer-time regular from finally losing his temper.

FWIW, for whoever mentioned it, the 'Time Zone' factor in Mod candidacy consideration was an interesting statement, which I appreciated. It makes sense.


-hh

[r.j.s]

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

True, if a mod is only really responsible for a certain section of the forums, it may be hard for them to remain fair. The way it works now is good.

[sushi]

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.
Good point.

Moderators have to maintain a fair approach, which I am sure can be challenging at times.

FWIW, for whoever mentioned it, the 'Time Zone' factor in Mod candidacy consideration was an interesting statement, which I appreciated. It makes sense.
MR definitely needs 24 hours coverage since members are located worldwide.

[Sun Baked]

Can we turn this into a poll?

Instead of letting them continue to exercise the good judgment the mods and gods have shown in the past, I think a poll can turn this into an American Idol experience -- and we can select someone with as much talent and good judgment as Michael Jackson.

[r.j.s]

Can we turn this into a poll?

Instead of letting them continue to exercise the good judgment the mods and gods have shown in the past, I think a poll can turn this into an American Idol experience -- and we can select someone with as much talent and good judgment as Michael Jackson.

Do those members on the poll have to sing or dance?

[Abstract]

I think xUKHCx (and WC) have already explained to us how mod selections work. Even if you don't understand every facet of the job, or the decision-making process, you should be happy that you have the basic idea. Perhaps you don't agree with the process, but it can't be called unreasonable by any reasonable person. If you think they're being pickier than they need to be, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion. However, I'm sure you can also see the other side of it.....that this system has worked for the most part.


The top posters is not a good way to choose a mod. Other than longevity, top posters share nothing. IMO, most (including myself) would probably not be candidates for moderation. In fact, as I scan the members list, I don't see many on the first 2 pages that I would think would be good mods.

You're absolutely right. I'd find the first excuse to ban your ass so fast. :p


Anyway, you're right. Being responsible doesn't make you a good mod. Commitment is a good criteria, but basing it on post count is silly, I think. Where's Mr. Anderson? Mad Jew? Post count shouldn't be the criteria, but I'm guessing the admin and mods here already know that. ;)

Besides that, there are certain other personality characteristics that would make someone a bad mod, such as those people who react emotionally, who are easily bothered, or perhaps have a speaking (typing?) voice that's a bit too direct, or aggressive, which may provoke others to carry the same tone in a thread.

You can be a valuable member here, but have poor potential as a moderator. I was a moderator at another forum, and not only was it a thankless task where everybody complained at me, but looking back, I don't think I wasn't consistent with the stricter mods. I was the "easy" mod. So yes, fitting in with the current group's style is important too.

They're fair questions and suggestions, but we've already been told that this situation is being handled. The admin and mods here have it worked out, and I trust them. What else is there to say? Perhaps, "Great. Can't wait to make their lives hell." ;)

[Sun Baked]

Do those members on the poll have to sing or dance?

Of course ... we have to at least know they are talented at something.

Selecting no talent hacks to be mods would be really really bad.

That would almost be as bad as going to a brain surgeon who isn't ASE Certified.

[CalBoy]

What I think you're describing has some pro's and cons. Its a good thing for a Mod to have insight into the local nuances of a particular subgroup...but by the same token, it can also be dangerous for a Mod to effectively become "Too Friendly", because that might create a bias in how the group is then moderated.

I think the nuances are what I'm having some trouble envisioning. The moderator is meant to help enforce the forum rules and maintain the site's reputation. Most of the enforcement that would conceivably have to be done would be untethered to any particular topic (ie consecutive posts are consecutive posts in the Hardware forums as much as they are in the iPhone forums).

The only time things can get hairy (so to speak) is over the precise enforcement of rules that are vague in nature (such as what defines breaking EULA). The thing to note, however, is that those decisions are not made by one moderator. In the past every moderator to touch on such subjects has indicated that it is a group effort with Arn as the ultimate decider.

Given that, is it really that crucial that a moderator who specializes in a particular topic be chosen over another who has broad interests? From an enforcement effectiveness and moderator success standpoint, it seems relatively insignificant.


Its a fair point. IMO, one of the hardest things for a Mod to do is to remain sufficiently interested and engaged in the discussion group he's Moderating, while also being able to parse himself from it so as to be able to perform the duty of Moderation.

Surprisingly, I don't think that is problematic at all. I trust the moderators here to be engaged in the discussion (to any degree they may choose) and still enforce the forum rules objectively. I haven't really seen much to cast any doubt on that belief, so I don't think it's a concern after the moderator has been chosen. My whole point was that using the candidate's specific interests as a means of selection may unduly inhibit selection, especially when there are plenty of other criteria that stand out as far more relevant.


Something that might also be considered as a potential tool to help with Moderation would be something similar to the "Report this Post" button, but with it being less "Nail this Guy" in nature: something that's along the lines of: "This thread is getting pretty heated and Mods might need to focus some of their attention here soon", which might help to nip some things in the bud...and help a longer-time regular from finally losing his temper.

Controlling one's temper is an individual responsibility; we can't expect different levels of the report post buttons to accommodate every possible eventuality. Every report is seen by at least one moderator, so have different types of reports probably wouldn't do much in terms of efficiency or expediency.

True, if a mod is only really responsible for a certain section of the forums, it may be hard for them to remain fair. The way it works now is good.

Well according to previous posts (not just in this thread) moderators are sometimes chosen by their various interests. Moreover, they are perfectly free to post as much as they want (as they should) in any forum they want.

The moderators don't seem to be unfair, even when the discussion gets heated.

[r.j.s]

Well according to previous posts (not just in this thread) moderators are sometimes chosen by their various interests. Moreover, they are perfectly free to post as much as they want (as they should) in any forum they want.

The moderators don't seem to be unfair, even when the discussion gets heated.


My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

[CalBoy]

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

Ahh, now I understand what you were saying. :)

I think that is the very reason mods aren't assigned to any particular forum (well that and it would be inefficient).

[Abstract]

Assigning mods to be responsible for certain forums does not work, and it's not just for the reason r.j.s mentioned (although it could be a problem if poor moderators were chosen to begin with).

I was a moderator at a message board that used a similar system, although it was slightly different, and better, than simply assigning a number of forums to each moderator. I'm too lazy to describe it here, but believe me when I say it didn't work. MR's current system is best.

[sushi]

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.
Agree with some exceptions. But those are rare.

MR's current system is best.
Agree. During any given time in the 24 hour clock, some moderator is on line and must be able to deal with whatever comes up that needs prompt attention.

If you have specialized mods who only work certain areas, then it would be akin to them saying, "It's not my job." Rather I think that the better approach is the one that MR employees where a mod can moderate all areas. That way it's easier to achieve 24 hour coverage with fewer moderators.

Some moderating tasks can wait. For example, take the +1, smiley, or single word reply posts. These can be handled at any time the mods get a chance to take care of them. This allows for spreading of the tasks to whomever can handle them when they get a chance. Other issues of course, would need to be addressed more quickly.

[DoFoT9]

i love how MR is moderated here. i have been through many other threads/forums/posts where its just completely unacceptable. however this is the internet, people can do what they want (in the certain forums that are made for it).

MR is a forums for ALL members for the world, it is based around computers and technology - not comparing who has the most post counts, most knowledge etcetc - however sometimes it does become a pissing competition (ill admit that i sometimes have to do that too lol). technology can be a heated battle, but nobody should EVER go as low as trying to offend another forum member because we dont have the faintest idea who they are, all we know is their forums name basically.

what was my main point.. hmmm i forget..ill write it later when i remember lol! aahh yes i remember:::

i was once banned for 24hours for offending somebody, it was the worse feeling!! i wasnt even aware of what i said, so can i ask that a better system be implemented for the reason/s why you are blocked/banned?? i had to end up emailing a moderator to find out what i did.. so yea, thats my only 'gripe' about the system i guess..

nice work but MR :)

[Wiska]

i was once banned for 24hours for offending somebody, it was the worse feeling!!

Lose 98 lbs, and you might be spared from a banning. ;)

Which reminds me, this thread is about inconsistent moderation. Hopefully, discussion can get back on track!

[DoFoT9]

Lose 98 lbs, and you might be spared from a banning. ;)

Which reminds me, this thread is about inconsistent moderation. Hopefully, discussion can get back on track!

well im currently 143lbs lol!! so loosing 98 would make me 45lbs..... nice and healthy :)

*stuff*

I always imagined that a moderator would address post reports regardless of what forum it comes from, so in that regard wouldn't other criteria take precedence over where the moderator spends more of their time when on the site?

To me it seems more important to see if the candidate has been a positive presence on the forums, follows the rules consistently, helps out whenever possible, etc, because those are the factors that matter most when that moderator makes decisions about post reports.

Just thinking out loud. :)

well thats how it should be! its only logical that a mod monitors everything! its not "ok you watch here, you watch here" type of thing.. its a group effort that all of you do what you can when you can - everywhere.

isnt it ??

[Wiska]

well im currently 143lbs lol!! so loosing 98 would make me 45lbs..... nice and healthy :)

Aww. Pity you, then. The moderators will not hesitate to ban you should you call someone a "douche".

[iBlue]

For the record, and what it's worth, over all I think this place is moderated really well. I've been around (:p) and I think this place has it more together than the vast majority of other forums on the wild wild web. The admins carefully consider everything before making big changes, and while it may be an imperfect and perhaps slow system, it does seem to work. I do think that more mods are in order and we've been told that they're working on it among other things. <taps watch> :P

I think the idea sharing in this thread is good (and possibly helpful) but it's easy for any of us to say what would be best from an outside perspective. I tend to trust the godly decisions because even when I don't always agree, it's usually pretty damn fair. I also think they care more than any site admins I've ever encountered. They actually do take the time to listen to complaints and discuss them seriously.
Nothing and nowhere is perfect but I still give this place two thumbs up.

[Doctor Q]

Something that might also be considered as a potential tool to help with Moderation would be something similar to the "Report this Post" button, but with it being less "Nail this Guy" in nature: something that's along the lines of: "This thread is getting pretty heated and Mods might need to focus some of their attention here soon", which might help to nip some things in the bud...and help a longer-time regular from finally losing his temper.
We don't have a button that says "thread is getting heated", but the "Report Post" button can be used to bring almost any problem or potential problem to the attention of the moderators. Some members do submit reports that say the equivalent of "I think this thread is heading the wrong way", and we appreciate it.

The short explanation you see at the bottom of the Report Post window reflects that, saying the form is used "to report problems requiring a moderator", i.e., not just individual posts. (By the way, it can also be used to ask that your post be deleted; that's better than editing the post to say "mods please delete" and hoping we run across it).

The moderators may be the ones who step in when there's trouble, but everyone who submits post reports is part of the moderation process. Some members send messages regularly and some send them only occasionally, but thank you to everyone who helps the site in that way.

[Eraserhead]

Commitment is a good criteria, but basing it on post count is silly, I think. Where's Mr. Anderson? Mad Jew? Post count shouldn't be the criteria, but I'm guessing the admin and mods here already know that. ;)

So some people get that University degree that I described previously and then become drug addicts and drop out. All I am saying is that there is a strong positive correlation between post count and commitment - it doesn't mean that outliers don't exist.

And actually both of the people you mention were committed to the site for a long time, one as a long-standing moderator and the second was very helpful for a long time.

Besides that, there are certain other personality characteristics that would make someone a bad mod, such as those people who react emotionally, who are easily bothered, or perhaps have a speaking (typing?) voice that's a bit too direct, or aggressive, which may provoke others to carry the same tone in a thread.

In which case they would be rejected by some other criteria to show they understood the rules, post count was never intended to be the *only* criteria for choosing mods.

You can be a valuable member here, but have poor potential as a moderator. I was a moderator at another forum, and not only was it a thankless task where everybody complained at me, but looking back, I don't think I wasn't consistent with the stricter mods. I was the "easy" mod. So yes, fitting in with the current group's style is important too.

To give an example of criteria here the mods can also use your style of post reporting to figure that out.

However, I'm sure you can also see the other side of it.....that this system has worked for the most part.

The admin and mods here have it worked out, and I trust them. What else is there to say? Perhaps, "Great. Can't wait to make their lives hell." ;)

If this was true then this thread wouldn't exist with lots of regular posters saying that there is a problem ;).

Agree. During any given time in the 24 hour clock, some moderator is on line and must be able to deal with whatever comes up that needs prompt attention.

See the following quote:

True also not all moderators are online. I myself have seen MacRumors be moderatorless for 3 hours straight. No one, not even the gods were online. Luckily things were calm that day. But it wouldn't surprise me if things got out of hand one day if this keeps up.


If you have specialized mods who only work certain areas, then it would be akin to them saying, "It's not my job." Rather I think that the better approach is the one that MR employees where a mod can moderate all areas. That way it's easier to achieve 24 hour coverage with fewer moderators.

I believe on Arstechnica where the mods do have areas they moderate is that actually all of them have mod powers over all the forums actually and if they see a real problem (like spam) that needs dealing with now they can, they just leave the +1's and the borderline cases for the person/people in charge of that area.

Some moderating tasks can wait. For example, take the +1, smiley, or single word reply posts. These can be handled at any time the mods get a chance to take care of them. This allows for spreading of the tasks to whomever can handle them when they get a chance. Other issues of course, would need to be addressed more quickly.

True.

My point was that if mods become assigned to certain forums, or mini-mods are created to assist in given forums, then it may become a possibility that they become almost protective of their little world. I see it in another forum I occasionally visit. There are mods that are given a subforum to moderate, and that's all they really have control over. Let's just say it can create more problems that it solves.

I see no unfairness or bias here now.

The moderators here have a forum to discuss issues like this, so they'd be able to do that before any problems got too serious.

[DoFoT9]

Aww. Pity you, then. The moderators will not hesitate to ban you should you call someone a "douche".

calling somebody a douche has no reference to calling them overweight. im really confused...

[robbieduncan]

calling somebody a douche has no reference to calling them overweight. im really confused...

I agree. You'd have to call them a fat douche...

[DoFoT9]

I agree. You'd have to call them a fat douche...

lol dont tempt me to report you for idiocy/sarcasm :p

a fat douche still doesnt make any logical sense.

[rdowns]

Do those members on the pole have to sing or dance?

Fixed that for you.

We don't have a button that says "thread is getting heated", but the "Report Post" button can be used to bring almost any problem or potential problem to the attention of the moderators. Some members do submit reports that say the equivalent of "I think this thread is heading the wrong way", and we appreciate it.




True. I've sent in many reports that way. I usually write, 'this won't turn out well'. Kind of forces them to look at the thread. :D

[r.j.s]

Fixed that for you.

I typed that first, but decided to leave it at innuendo.

[jav6454]

True. I've sent in many reports that way. I usually write, 'this won't turn out well'. Kind of forces them to look at the thread. :D

Well, I'll be dammed, and I thought I was the only one who did this?;):p

[miles01110]

Is this discussion seriously still going? I think those in charge have made it clear that they're working on a solution, that we won't be involved, and that they feel their method will work. Since this site has been up and running for 9 years, I'm willing to trust their judgement.

Keep reporting abuses and they'll get dealt with.

[Schtumple]

The little people should be allowed to voice their opinions though surely?

[edesignuk]

The little people should be allowed to voice their opinions though surely?shhhhh, PIPE DOWN!

[rdowns]

Is this discussion seriously still going? I think those in charge have made it clear that they're working on a solution, that we won't be involved, and that they feel their method will work. Since this site has been up and running for 9 years, I'm willing to trust their judgement.

Keep reporting abuses and they'll get dealt with.


Come on. EVERY thread in this place gets beaten to death.

[Schtumple]

Come on. EVERY thread in this place gets beaten to death.

WHAT!? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE IPHONE NANO THREADS

[xUKHCx]

This criterion raises and interesting question for me: why?


I think you are over thinking what I wrote. They are all little bits of information that build up the entire picture it is not like there is a strict set of critieria that we run checks against potential mods. It is more a broad consideration and the points I raised are some of the little points that may help in the decision process.

Most of the enforcement that would conceivably have to be done would be untethered to any particular topic (ie consecutive posts are consecutive posts in the Hardware forums as much as they are in the iPhone forums).


There are differences between forums and what may work in one may not work in another. Knowing the lie of the land and finding out the subtle nuances in those forums is a big bonus. Also having a moderators active across the board shows that the forums are being moderated. Also part of respect that is gained here is down to posts. If a moderator is active in a forum they will likely have more respect and then what they say carries more weight.





If this was true then this thread wouldn't exist with lots of regular posters saying that there is a problem ;).



I don't really now how more obvious I could make my previous statements over this particular matter, so I won't.

[jav6454]

WHAT!? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE IPHONE NANO THREADS

YOU ARE DROWNING IN THE IPHONE BETA # THREADS!! SPEAK UP!!!


Come on. EVERY thread in this place gets beaten to death.

Specially in the Social, Religion and Science forums? I mean, go ahead and look in the iPhone sub forum... its a bloody battle zone of people asking for the beta, or posting mock-ups saying its the next iPhone, or simply asking what will the iPhone bring.

[Eraserhead]

I don't really now how more obvious I could make my previous statements over this particular matter, so I won't.

I think there is something to be said that the process should be taking less time to get through than it seems to. Though I'm sure a great choice will be made at the end of the day.

Maybe we have to agree to disagree on this.

[Schtumple]

YOU ARE DROWNING IN THE IPHONE BETA # THREADS!! SPEAK UP!!!

SORRY, ALL I CAN HEAR IS "MATTE OR GLOSSY"

Ok, I think I'm done :p

[xUKHCx]

I think there is something to be said that the process should be taking less time to get through than it seems to.

To be fair you don't really know how long the process has taken and even if you new the total length of time it is perhaps a meaningless fact to judge the process on. As for example it could be a month before anything is said on the matter so it progresses with the required need as it were.

[iBlue]

Aw come on guys, lets hug it out!

[iMacmatician]

SORRY, ALL I CAN HEAR IS "MATTE OR GLOSSY"

Ok, I think I'm done :pWait, what about "buy now or wait"? :(

:D

[Sun Baked]

I agree. You'd have to call them a fat douche...

I think you are looking at the wrong side of the problem, try enema bag instead.

[chstr]

I don't understand the objection. The admins themselves describe the moderators as volunteers. They give freely of their time, so by definition, that's what they are.

IJ Reilly would make a great mod. He is one of the most level headed in this forum that I've noticed

[DoFoT9]

IJ Reilly would make a great mod. He is one of the most level headed in this forum that I've noticed

there are many contributors to this forum that would make great mods, that doesnt mean they want to. i still think the site is managed perfectly, its the users that have lost their respect for others.