(May 1, 2012 at 5:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I think its a little disrespectful to a forum of freethinkers to suggest that vast majority would pass a vote to oust a staff member based purely on an individuals irritation.. that's absurd to suggest.

Oh the stories from this place that you could be told...

(May 1, 2012 at 7:31 am)Ryft Wrote: Oh the stories from this place that you could be told...

I'm an optimist when it comes to people.

One of these days it'll be justified

(May 1, 2012 at 7:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: Ryft, get your ass over to http://freethoughtforums.com if you haven't already.

The hell is that place...?

My new forum project.

Well if it's yours then I'm there. What distinguishes it from this place? Censorship here? No freethought here?

Mainly to try out new moderation ideas, with the focus away from a massive amount of rules and more towards community based moderation.

I think the best way to encourage community based moderation is to ensure everybody knows about the report button. On many forums like this one, it's a feature that's easily overlooked by the masses who instead get lured into a disagreement with an obvious troll.

On a different note, I have found this forum to be well moderated and pleasant to visit. I'd say the previous method of choosing moderators (I assume you chose them, Tiberius?) obviously works.

(May 1, 2012 at 5:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Thing is, its not just members that run in packs, staff do too, and indeed are more LIKELY to, and conceivably, although it may not have occurred, a staff member is kept on through personal relationships regardless of their own behaviour.

Haha, and that, sir is an insult to the staff.

Quote:I think its a little disrespectful to a forum of freethinkers to suggest that vast majority would pass a vote to oust a staff member based purely on an individuals irritation.. that's absurd to suggest.
I don't care how much I like someone, and dislike the object of their dissatisfaction, if the complaint has no weight, I'm not supporting it.

Maybe you wouldn't, but you aren't privy to the stinks that get thrown up for very legitimate warnings. Hell, if you think it is disrespectful, that's really your issue. Fact is fact. It is entirely feasible and I would just as soon walk away from this place than see any of our staff members go because of a disgruntled member-based vote.

Quote:To put my thoughts simply, what is more likely;
A close knit staff group acting as a clique to protect poor members
or;
A vast majority of members acting as a clique to remove a staff member they deem unpopular due to minor points of irritation.

Based strictly on my experience here over the past few years, it is far more likely for members to act as a clique. Believe it or not, we protect even members that are deemed unsavory by most. If people aren't rule breaking, we don't act. None of what you outline for your argument goes on here, though, so I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals. Of course, this thread is for suggestions, so you should feel free to suggest. Just don't be surprised if your suggestions aren't immediately embraced.

Quote:The point of my suggestion is that it removes the possibility of accusations of nepotism rather than its ability to remove staff on a "whim".

Well, trust in a well chosen staff team would also remove the "possibility" of such accusations.