. . .

Posts relating to Moderators:

6 years ago

Proper use of FLIGS

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features FLIGSModeratorsThe Site
The FLIGS 'reaction' system is meant to be subjective, and as such harder to 'abuse' since how you feel isn't 'right or wrong' as such.

However, it's become apparent that at least some members have already been misusing it in various ways...

One of these ways is to give pity reactions, or to 'balance' out negatives, resulting is a pile of positives that don't really seem fitting at all (like marking a poor post as +G, +I, +S, and +F, when dozens of other people have all reacted to it negatively, and things like support don't even apply to it).

Another was is to pile on the positives - or negatives - to show a singe view. For example, you may like ponies, and a post somewhere mentions the word 'ponies' without talking about them in any detail, so you give it a positive reaction in basically every category.
This is wrong, of course, because you're giving the reactions based on a single idea - 'I like ponies' - but actually saying 'I appreciate this, it made me happy, it is interesting, I agree with it, and it has been said very well'. Which is ridiculous, but I've seen it done.

The system has probably been used well for the most part, but I can see much more misuse of it when the unwashed masses come swarming in, with their inability to think or read and itchy trigger fingers. Yes.

We have moderators now.
If you are a moderator, you should try to do something about obvious misuse of the system.
Talk to the person directly, asking them nicely to explain the reactions that caught your attention.
If they cannot, or their explanation is insufficient, then ask them nicely to remove their reactions.
If they don't, or if they reply snottily, you should remind them that if they don't, they'll get an infraction. Maybe that'll make them act.
If they are still resistant, then you should give them an infraction for ratings abuse.

The things you should look for are pity reactions, 'balancing out' reactions, and piled-on reactions, using many letters to make a single point.

To you non-moderators, uh... use the system properly! Yes!
6 years ago


◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features The SiteModerators
Obviously adding moderators will be a good idea. But also obviously, I never seem to get around to it due to my trust issues.

Now is really the best time to find some though, since most of the 'good members' from the old site are here, and a bunch of 'nobodies' can't crawl out of the woodwork and volunteer themselves, despite me never having seen them before. (I really don't understand how people like that expect to be chosen, but they always appear anyway.)

Moderators would, I assume, mainly be responsible for adding Infractions.

I may have two types of moderators, marked M and C. The C ones would be able to give temporary chat bans, which would block a user from posting in the chatroom for a day.
M moderators would also be able to do that, and to give infractions.

I need to find people suitable for the job. People who will genuinely help, and who won't just volunteer themselves for the thrill of power, or the idea of seeming special.

So what I'd like you to do is suggest other people. Don't volunteer yourselves. Then we can see who the community might trust to be in such a position.