Moderator evaluations

[El Diablo]

Seems like there are tons of 2+2ers who want to be mods.

Since there appear to be many willing candidates, I'd suggest some form of moderator evaluation process and a replacement of underperforming mods.

I think the two key reasons to replace mods are:

1) User dissatisfaction - if many regular contributors do not like how the mod is doing his job, that's a concern.

2) Underperformance of forum - one can make some pretty good relative expectation guesses based on subject of forum and traffic in other forums. If a mod is not doing a good job developing growth in his forum, that's also a concern.

I have some ideas of how this might be implemented, but would like to hear what others think of this.

[Sniper]

ElD,

I suggest you review this thread... Reducing Moderators?

As well as Mat's previous comments, with regard to Moderator exectations, covered in other threads...

[[censored]]

Sniper,

I don't believe Mr. Diablo is talking about reducing the number of moderators but rather discussing a process by which some moderators may be replaced.

[Sniper]

[censored],

ElD is suggesting that there are underperforming mods... I think that issue was put to bed, in that thread!

[[censored]]

Sniper

I'm not sure how you gleam that from that thread? Certainly it was decided that the number of mods was not too high but I at least don't come away any opinions of whether or not individual mods are suited for their role.

[GrannyMae]

[El Diablo]

Sniper,

"ElD is suggesting that there are underperforming mods... I think that issue was put to bed, in that thread!"

WTF are you talking about? Where is that even addressed in that thread?

FWIW, here are some forums where I think the mods have done a very good job, and other mods should be compared to these mods:

Tourney forums
Sports
POG
OOT
BBV+4

There are a bunch of forums that I don't follow, so that is definitely far from a complete list. For example, I suspect the Small and Micro NL mods are probably doing a pretty good job too.

[durron597]

I definitely think that moderator inactivity and reading this forum on a regular basis are two things that I'd like to see enforced... the rest of it, i'm not sure how important it is.

sometimes, quite frankly, users don't know what's best for their forum. we just added two new mods to sttf. here are some of the people who were suggested

1. a repeat major tournament final tablist... who posts maybe once every three weeks
2. a guy who continually pushes the borders on soliciting coaching and trading T$
3. an excellent player who definitely doesn't want to be committed to running the forum
4. a guy who definitely doesn't regard sttf as his primary forum anymore

there are others with similar drawbacks to being otherwise good posters. the new mods have been received well and are already popular but they were nominated by citanul and I. anyway I guess my point is that removing mods simply because they are not the most popular isn't necessarily the best decision. certain forums are bound to have frequent unpopular decisions that are both the best for 2+2 and the forum and the users

my $.02

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
1) User dissatisfaction - if many regular contributors do not like how the mod is doing his job, that's a concern.



[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this one of the reasons for the existence of the ATF Forum? (Particularly with regard to your point #1?)

I suspect that Mat and Ryan, and perhaps Mason, read just about every one of the few posts, there. (Oops. "Few posts". [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] )

[ QUOTE ]
2) Underperformance of forum - one can make some pretty good relative expectation guesses based on subject of forum and traffic in other forums. If a mod is not doing a good job developing growth in his forum, that's also a concern.



[/ QUOTE ]

With regard to point #2, I'm not sure that a moderator is "supposed" to develop growth in a forum. I don't even think a forum should be thought of as "his" forum. (With all due respect to "your" forum, of course.)

I don't particularly think of the Zoo as "my" forum, (other than that I take pride in my work there; try to snap off spam and abusive posts; and try to be objective when others point out problems of various descriptions); and I'm pretty sure that Jim doesn't, either. We are mere tools of the regular posters there, and we are probably below the radar of the occasional posters. (I could add riders to all my comments, such as, "maybe you're talking about X forums", etc., so please don't pick up on any obvious omissions in this off-the-cuff, quick response.)

To introduce any sort of "mod evaluation process" is simply unnecessary, and, in a way, rude to the people who have been chosen by Mat or their peers to be volunteer reader moderators.

Mat would have no compunction to cut off any mod's "career" in a moment, (see Nick B.), if he thought he had reason to. I am 100% certain that if you, and Dids, and daryn, (to name but three random names), wrote to Mat and said MH is a total tosser and holding back the growth of the Zoo and ATF because of his absolute lack of understanding of Zoo and ATF matters, etc., etc., if he agreed with you, I would be outta here by that evening. Similarly, if you read back through this very forum, you will see all sorts of criticism of various moderators by their peers, so the process you appear to wish to make formal, (and with which I might agree if we were paid employees), is already in existence, with Mat and Ryan, in effect, chairing an ongoing evaluation of mods' performances.

[ QUOTE ]
I have some ideas of how this might be implemented, but would like to hear what others think of this.



[/ QUOTE ]

Having said that, if you wish to make suggestions to formalize whatever processes you think are lacking, (not that I think in any way that you need my or anyone else's permission so to do), carry on. In effect, like ATF is for the readers in this regard, so the Mods' Forum, by definition, is for the mods. Personally, at this stage, (but said with an open mind in respect of what may be to come), I think you might spend too much of your personal time for little benefit other than to prove to us you are even more awesome than you know we already think you are.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
a total tosser

[/ QUOTE ]

you british people crack me up.