Forum Moderator / Chat Room Operator needed

MarkG · October 2, 2002, 10:49

The need is obvious....

The issue is who

Any ideas are welcome

MrWhereItsAt · October 2, 2002, 10:55

Mark - is that just for this forum and the Civ3 Demo game chat or others as well? Also, when are they needed for and who long do you expect their tenure to be? Or is that a silly question?

MarkG · October 2, 2002, 10:58

for this forum and the civ3 chat room

the work will mainly be toping/detoping threads and acting as operators in turnchats

it's obvious that it must be someone that can be trusted by the citizens of the civ3dg

OPD · October 2, 2002, 11:05

If only there was someone who had done this before.
*cough apoc cough*

UnOrthOdOx · October 2, 2002, 11:10

I could do the forum easily enough, but my schedule doesn't work well for the chats.

GhengisFarb™ · October 2, 2002, 11:25

I would probably have the time, but don't have a clue about topping threads.

BigFurryMonster · October 2, 2002, 11:51

I think we need some kind of 'operator' or 'chairman' in the Undernet chat, too.

His task will be to set the subject, reduce spam, see to it that everyone gets a fair chance to say what's on his mind, and so forth.

MrWhereItsAt · October 2, 2002, 11:59

Isn't the Op in those chats just the first one or two to turn up? I am the Op in the EFnet #smacdg chatroom right now.

Inverse Icarus · October 2, 2002, 12:34

hi markos

GodKing · October 2, 2002, 12:58

Hi. I would gladly do the forum work, which should mostly just be topping and untopping threads. In the turnchats, if we are to switch to the polly chat (which I think we should with the new system) setting up the times will be far more complicated.

However, I have no experience in doing this.... and I suspect that whoever does will for the most part forfeit being a very active part of the demogame. Involved and active, yes. Outspoken, elected position, etc, no.

MarkG - is this someone who we could elect? say on a quarterly (3 month) basis? Thoughts, ideas, etc. Thanks.

MarkG · October 2, 2002, 13:22

we are willing to trust the choice of the people, assuming it's a choice that we like

GhengisFarb™ · October 2, 2002, 14:18

I don't know. If polychat is what's been killing Apolyton the last couple of days and especially today, I'm all for axeing it and leaving Apolyton somewhat accesssible.

MarkG · October 2, 2002, 14:24

the new chat is only a part of the server situation
it's a matter of proper use of our resources rather than cuting down features....

GhengisFarb™ · October 2, 2002, 14:39

It's amazing how you simply mention something related to Apolyton's server performance and >poof< MarkG is there.

We do need a smilie with a hammer though.

adaMada · October 2, 2002, 16:33

Like many others, I'd be happy to do the Forum, assuming that I could keep my other positions (don't think it'd be much of a problem unless the people think it is).

As for the Chats, I'm often there, but can never promise to be... (So far, they've all been at decent times for me, with the exception that I always have to leave for a bit to go eat.) Have been pretty successful at being there for the past few weeks, but who knows where the future will lead...

We could make it an elected position (as in letting the people choose) -- I'd have no objection, as long as this election was seperate from the Ministers OR the power was just given to the President.

UnOrthO'd be great for the job, ditto GK, ditto Apoc.

Markos: It's a long shot, but is it possible to have someone seperate for chats and forums (or to have two, if you could allow that)? If so, I'd make the Chat person the President, and let someone else do the Forum -- it'd be much more effecient then having to PM a mod about it all the time, and wouldn't be a major presidential responsibliity. The only real reason to make the president Op for the chats, really, is that they'll be there for all of them (unless the VP runs it), but it might be a bit of work for you guys to add and subtract ops so much (once a month), and if you're looking for a longer term solution then having one appointed person would probably work. We haven't had any troubles at all at a chat in quite a while, anyway

-- I think the ability to top and detop threads at will is more valuable to the Demogame right now.

Just a few thoughts...

-- adaMada

adaMada · October 2, 2002, 17:28

Just been thinking for a few minutes.

If we had a forum mod. active in the demogame, here's what I think it'd be really useful for them to do:

Top/Detop appropriate posts
Fix user mistakes in thread titles upon request (For instance, Ghengis accidentally named the $-mini-game thread (for Markos's sake, an official thread) incorrectly -- with a mod around, that could be fixed easily)
Delete any posts in official threads clearly marked DO NOT POST. People accidentally post in threads they're not supposed to at times, and in this case, it's a mistake they can't fix. If you've got a mod who's around enough, though, then it'd be fixable, and there'd be no harm done.
Closing threads where the first poster requests it as because there's another thread on the topic. We often see messed up polls and repolls, and it'd be nice if the old (defunct) version could just be closed.
Finally, to perhaps avoid the problem above point blank, allow the mod to edit poll choices upon request of poster (for official polls).

Of course, this sounds like a lot more then Markos originally intended, and I wouldn't blame him for crossing this out as too much potential for abuse, but these are all things that it'd be really cool if we could do on our own, without having to go to a gOd to fix our mistakes -- as it is, we let most of them stand. We don't need someone to fix little things like that, but it'd make the forums a lot cleaner, nicer to read, and might eliminate some confusion amoung new players who may not realize that something's an error. If there ever was abuse, then the mod would obviously be suspended... Finally, I'm not sure if 'any mod' can do all of the above, or only the gOdz. If the power lies with the gOdz, then forget that I ever suggested it

.

-- adaMada

adaMada · October 2, 2002, 17:47

Sorry to post AGAIN, but one last thought

.

Markos, if we're considering moving chats over to the poly chat (at least doing a dual chat), any chance you could up the flood limit a bit, at least in the civ 3 room? I'm a very fast typist, and I often get 'noflood' with legit conversation, which could be annoying if an important decision needed to be made and I couldn't comment for thirty seconds or however long

. Not asking you to get rid of it or anything, but it'd be real nice if it could be increased a bit.

-- adaMada

Apocalypse · October 2, 2002, 21:24

I'm not going to run for anything next term (need a break from that) so I should be free to be a mod.

OPD · October 2, 2002, 21:38

Any objections to apocs modship?

Feel free to pm me if you don't want any secret hate campaign against him to become public or any other reason.

adaMada · October 2, 2002, 21:42

No objections to Apoc.

In a few terms, I'd love to try it (if the position rotates), but I'm a patient person, and Apoc's awsome for the job

, and I've got more than enough to do, soo...

Apoc! Mod of the C3DG! gOd in training

! Apoc! Apoc! Apoc!

-- adaMada

Inverse Icarus · October 2, 2002, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
we are willing to trust the choice of the people, assuming it's a choice that we like

meaning not uber. gotcha.

Inverse Icarus · October 2, 2002, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
Any objections to apocs modship?

Feel free to pm me if you don't want any secret hate campaign against him to become public or any other reason.

HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THE TOP SECRET HATE CAMPA...

oh, you said IF. uh.

carry on.

Sheik · October 3, 2002, 16:16

Apoc is a fine choice. Although if people wanted we could have an election.

GodKing · October 3, 2002, 18:08

I want the job also. It should work very well with my schedule I suspect, and would keep me involved.

I suspect that others might like it as well, UnOrthOdOx, UberKruX, GhengisFarb, among others who may not yet have posted (skywalker, panag.....

).

Lets put it up for an election. MarkG is willing to let us do it as such, and that is by far the most democratic way. If it is an election I think MarkG will have to set some guidelines, most particularly term of office. What say all? Election? let MarkG pick from those who have posted? some other method (if so, better post it!!)? IF it is an election, MarkG can set it up so that anybody he would object to he can let them know privately (so as not to embarass them.... sorry panag....).

In regards to the chats, for the most part they have gone well without a lot of moderation. I would look at that as secondary to this position. If it starts to become a problem, then we can change the way we do things to adjust as appropriate.

GK

Inverse Icarus · October 3, 2002, 19:08

markg doesn't like me so elect me to piss him off

nah, s'ok. i'll wait till there's an opening in the OT

adaMada · October 3, 2002, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
I want the job also. It should work very well with my schedule I suspect, and would keep me involved.

I suspect that others might like it as well, UnOrthOdOx, UberKruX, GhengisFarb, among others who may not yet have posted (skywalker, panag.....

).

Lets put it up for an election. MarkG is willing to let us do it as such, and that is by far the most democratic way. If it is an election I think MarkG will have to set some guidelines, most particularly term of office. What say all? Election? let MarkG pick from those who have posted? some other method (if so, better post it!!)? IF it is an election, MarkG can set it up so that anybody he would object to he can let them know privately (so as not to embarass them.... sorry panag....).

In regards to the chats, for the most part they have gone well without a lot of moderation. I would look at that as secondary to this position. If it starts to become a problem, then we can change the way we do things to adjust as appropriate.

GK

Election's fine with me, though for this one time it might be more convienent to just let OPD nominate Apoc and let him do it for the next term.

Most important question for me is if we really need someone with no other positions for the job... On one hand, I see the enormous potential for abuse of power. On the other, the abuse of power is there if the person is a minister or not, and I it might be best to let the people choose whoever they want to trust this with, Minister or not -- A trustworthy person clearly could do both jobs impartially and fairly, especially as the job is basically Administrative (I don't think Markos is talking about letting this person make decisions about which threads are worthwhile or not, though hopefully the person would have the power to close/delete/rename (most important one I think) threads upon request).

If we do an election, I might consider running, mainly depending on who else runs, how long the terms are, and what else Markos decides. I'd be interested in the job eventually, but am in no rush, so

.

I'd also like to reiterate my support for OPD just nominating Apoc (with the consent of the gOdz). Administrative Modship is a logical Presidental power (when I first joined the game, I was honestly shocked that the president had no mod-type powers), Apoc's good for the job, and will be free next term. If we want to get a position set up for the longer run, we can make it elected, but why not let Apoc have the job now so he can go ahead and get to work?

Last but not least, I'm taking public opinion on weather this should be part of the new constitution (for my own personal vote/proposals, not on behalf of the Convention)... I'd probably say not (Senate can decide procedures under the direction of the gOdz, who have final say), but I always like to ask the public's opinion.

-- adaMada

UnOrthOdOx · October 3, 2002, 21:58

If we MUST have someone who can make all chats, count me out.

I have enough to keep me occupied and active, and by no means do I NEED something else. I am already a Priest, doing the newZupdate ritual most weeks, I have no need to become a Prophet as well.

Terms? If they are allowed, they might be nice.

Hadn't thought of people abusing this power, really. Any such abuse WILL be found, and will likely result in a banning or some such. Besides, there are not too many people here I think would even be possible of considering such a thing.

Constitution? If terms are set, may as well put this in the constitution.

Apocalypse · October 3, 2002, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I have no need to become a Prophet as well.

At one time I was called a Prophet

That was almost 4 years ago though.

adaMada · October 3, 2002, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
If we MUST have someone who can make all chats, count me out.

Ditto me -- might make most, but can never promise.

Quote:

I have enough to keep me occupied and active, and by no means do I NEED something else. I am already a Priest, doing the newZupdate ritual most weeks, I have no need to become a Prophet as well.

Terms? If they are allowed, they might be nice.

It'd be nice to hear from Markos a bit about terms -- is he looking for one perminant mod, one mod for a while, or mods switching every once and a while? Does he need a mod with no other role in the game, or does he just want someone that the people can trust? How much power is he willing to let this person have as an Administrator (as I've said many times before, editing titles, closing threads, deleting threads, etc?)?

Quote:

Hadn't thought of people abusing this power, really. Any such abuse WILL be found, and will likely result in a banning or some such. Besides, there are not too many people here I think would even be possible of considering such a thing.

I agree that it's not a major concern, but MarkG might not... I trust most of the people here, but I'd be cautious too in assiging an adminstrator were this my forums and I didn't follow the game.

Quote:

Constitution? If terms are set, may as well put this in the constitution.

The problem is that the gOdz aren't bound by the constitution at all, and if they decide to change things, there'd be a conflict. We could word the constitution so this didn't happen, but I'd personally be inclined to just leave it out and let the Senate pass laws on it.

-- adaMada

UnOrthOdOx · October 3, 2002, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
The problem is that the gOdz aren't bound by the constitution at all, and if they decide to change things, there'd be a conflict. We could word the constitution so this didn't happen, but I'd personally be inclined to just leave it out and let the Senate pass laws on it.

-- adaMada

No, but WE are bound by gOd. (there is ONE with two facez people...) There is nothing wrong with writing it in so the new people can read WHY our Prophet is voted upon. If gOd changes it, well, that is an amendment that can pass with no voting, right?

Senate?

Laws?

I know of no such things. And while I have yur attention, I just posted a couple of polls you will want to add.