So the current method that's in effect, to choose Moderators is to allow the pre-existing staff members to vote upon it as to who will achieve Moderator position. Ideally, a person with "experience" would vote for another they deem qualified to handle a Moderator's position. However, in reality - There exist bias and favourtism. Some may call for the the players, that are under the Moderator position, to vote - This too is flawed in that favourtism amongst the "lower" community may choose one who's not exactly Moderator -material. I propose instead, that instead of everyone voting, there should really only be "open for discussion" for any individual who wishes to voice their opinion of those who are applying for staff. I think that everyone should have a word, but in the end - It should all come down to the Admin's judgement. Some may complain that the lack of the Admin's activity within the community would make it so that he wouldn't make the right decision in choosing the proper people for staff. I however say otherwise, as this is a perk [lack of community involvement] for choosing people - In that bias and favourtism would not exist in his eyes and all he's left to use to decide with, is his perception of all the opinions of the community about the person applying for staff. Also following along with that, there should be rules that say that it must be a valid reason and not something like, "I don't like him/her" or etcetera. .. Another also, I'm not saying that the Admin isn't active within the community because I know as Hell that he's been actively involved during certain community instances, but as opposed to those who are on all the time - Some may think of andrewkm as inactive.
TL;DR jk Good points, Favoratism goes a long way in the real world in this server, I dont think we can do anything about bias, it happens everywhere and ... yea. Well, I truly believe that the moderators should be picked by the players, we know them best. Staff may have bias towards some players and whatnot. In my honest opinion, we should have a few applications that are released to the public for us to read. Although there will still be bias, it is good to know who the players are picking to represent the staff. As well, there was a good point Sios brought up. A moderator, downgrade time.
I've seen this done on other sites before, and it only turns out messy. :/ Everyone is biased and has favorite people, and a majority of this server are younger than 14 and don't really... Know who would actually be good as moderator, and who wouldn't. That is my main problem with it all. I'd rather it all be kept quiet, rather than flame wars and bashing happening everywhere because all the younger players are highly opinionated, or don't really know exactly what "good moderator material" is... It's true that Staff members can be biased and all, but I've seen it done once before, and everyone pushes it away. And when they don't, players are discussed amongst all the staff. I've seen no favoritism so far with any choices, or anyone being really biased... Andrew in the end makes the final decision once reading through what all the staff has to say, and with his own thoughts. My post may or may not make sense, be relevant, or redundant... I am not good at being clear on what I am trying to say. x.X
It does make sense, and I completely agree with you. However, there are some people on this server who are responsible enough to vote honestly. Yea, we need to have the community to speak out on how the new moderators are.
Here's My Opinion. As it currently stands, The Applications that are sent in are simply posted in a massive list, and while it doesn't have many issues with it, it has one, simple, MASSIVE flaw. Names are included. What should be done, if this democracy idea is produced and accepted, is that all applications shall be sent to Andrew, and he blacks out, or removes, ALL the references to names or anything of the sort in it. These applications would then be put into a list, each with a letter, and each letter having its own option in a long poll. In the case that you need more than one moderator, simply have it so people can chose, say two or three options, in the poll. Then, the highest choices are looked at by the Admin, and his final judgement is made. This eliminates 99% Of favoritism by those choosing the moderators. Personally, in my opinion, while people can simply say they don't chose people based off of favoritism, its obvious that unless you are a perfect person, they will still have an element of favoritism in them.
I'd only be partly okay if we did it how Ike suggested... Otherwise, I just know it will be a huge problem later. :/ And even with Ike's suggestion, it really is not hard to tell the difference between how people "speak" online. And if anyone had references/links to other sites they have moderated/staffed, people can just stalk those, and figure out whose app it was...
When we expressed our thoughts on the apps we set aside our biased thoughts. Almost all of our responses to apps to were fair and were conducted in a neutral environment. I looked at what was in the app AND at the history of the applicant. The experience may be part of it, but how you conduct yourself and your manners are also needed for staff members. How can you trust someone to help protect people from ruining the server, if they once tried the same thing? Or someone who can't keep a calm yet stern approach to issues on the server? Issues in the past can be overlooked, but it depends on the severity and the frequency of these problems. Yes, I admit we're not perfect and far from it, but the past can't be ignored. Andrew always makes the final decision. He takes in our input from the apps and helps form his choices. You say we have favoritism, but Andy knows when we have a biased response to app because they are usually pretty easy to pick out. The people that were chosen, were chosen by Andy and not the moderators. We did have our thoughts and choices, but in the end he picked what was best for his server.
