Choosing Moderators
I suggest that if you guys were to make choosing moderators a choice based on users as well.. It could work like this..
Those "running" to be a moderator could post a small bio about themselves, their beliefs, values, how they intend to help the board, etc.
Then people could vote as to whether or not they like what this person has to offer as a moderator.
People could get a better idea of who their potential mods are. I don't think it would be a popularity contest if people running for mods could present some truly good and valid reasons as to why they should be moderators.
Final decisions would be made by moderators and webmaster, but users would have a word in edgewise as well. Moderators and webmaster would need to take into consideration the votes of users.
Getting to know the moderators
I suggest that the moderators provide a small bio of themselves. What they stand for, what they intend to do as moderators, and one way in which they hope to improve the user experience. This can be posted in the introductions forum.
I think this would help strengthen the trust between users and moderators. And would also be fun!
Consideration
I know this is sort of a personal thing for me, and it makes me nervous to even mention it because of that, but I will anyway!
I think that there are some topics that people are sensitive about. People that come to this forum tend to be anxious, have low self-esteem, are insecure, sensitive and have a myriad of other problems as a result of their "disorders"
Now I know in "real life" we are exposed to sex and stuff all the time. If this is supposed to be a place for people to come and find relief, I would think it's only fair to keep the atmosphere pleasant, and part of that is taking into consideration that a lot of people have a lot of sensitivities. There are certain obviously sensitive subjects.
Not to mention there are younger people who come here too, who don't need to see threads about sex, strippers, and prostitutes.
We all have rights, and as much as people have the right to discuss these things, people also have the right to not have to be around it. And you might say.. Well if they don't like it, they can leave - but how supportive of an attitude is that?
So why not make a sub-forum for "sex related issues" it seems to be a hot topic, something people like to talk about a lot here..? I don't think it needs to be in everyone's face though. A sub-forum would allow people to discuss sex and related things all they want - and not bombard those who are not interested in it (if it was treated like "off topic", those don't show up on the new posts thing)
Warnings and Bannings
I looked at that suggestion made by "CrazyFairy", and I don't know why such structure was removed.
With a 3 strike system it allows people to honestly plead their case. It gives people a chance to buck up one the first strike. I find it to be more structured, which I think is necessary when people are misbehaving.
With such lack of structure, "on the spot banning", cooling off periods, sometimes being warned, sometimes being banned.. It seems like people might not be treated right.
For example, that I am not ashamed of.. I happened to vent about some issues that really bothered me in regards to postings and society in general. The thread was locked. I had a funny feeling it was because of what I had posted.
So I pm'd a moderator and asked them if the thread was locked because of me (since I didn't get a warning or anything). They replied back to me saying nothing eluding to the idea that it was me. So I stopped worrying about it for the most part.
Then, yesterday the thread was unlocked and my post plus anyone who quoted/replied to me had their posts removed as well.
If my posting was the issue, why was I not informed of this in a private message initiated by one of the moderators? Instead the thread was locked and it was under review.
If the moderator pm'd me and said that my behaviour was uncalled for, for such and such reason and that the thread was being reviewed by the moderators it would have given me a chance to express my feelings. Not only would it have given me a chance to express my feelings, but it would have given the moderator a chance to try and mediate the situation and calm me down and perhaps give a little bit of soothing advice. And perhaps the moderator could have developed a little bit more positive rapport with me?
So I think the 3 strike/warning system is a good way for an individual to explain themselves and for the moderator to be supportive, rather than just banning and saying "this is why you are banned". I think communication and mediation is important, and I don't see that happening.
I think that with the current system in place it may be the reason why moderators are getting such nasty pm's, when someone is banned without being given a chance to express their reasons behind their behaviour and aren't given the support they need to calm down. Instead they are further frustrated and agitated because they are not being treated with sensitivity and respect. I know it's hard to respect the disrespectful - but we honestly all have bad moments and moderators should be objective to that.
So those are my ideas, elaborated, and I hope they will be taken seriously - because I'm just trying to help make things better around here with suggestions.
