Why is WP suddenly going to hell ?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't resign, and if I was fired, nothing was said to me.

Kip: I can't access any of the moderator-only forums.

I'm sure that the current bad moderators will remember that statement if you ever need help.

I wasn't saying the current moderators are bad, I was just saying that the old ones were really good.

This site doesn't have an unusual amount of spam or trolls imo, perhaps the mods do such a good enough job that I don't notice. You can block ads if they bother you so that shouldn't be an issue in 2014. A spambot here and there occasionally isn't a big deal, its worse to restrict registration which is basically what the toughest anti-bot measures end up as. Add more mods if you have to if the workload is too much.

I just posted about it in the mod forum, and if Alex doesn't see it soon, I'll send a PM as well.

Alex! no, wait ,you said quickly!
God? no, you said decisively
With no concern with being unpopular?
is it the Fox network?

Lol Fox network

the thing is that it's hard to find those willing, who would be also pleasing to Alex....it's like trying to find a ballerina costume for a whale that might actually be fitting.

When you say 'pleasing to Alex', I see Alex sitting on a throne and Homer Simpson holding a potential moderator in his arms and offering him to Alex. "We hope you find this one pleasing, my Lord."

There is no problem with finding people who are willing to be moderators, and even some of those may actually be fully capable, but two things work against them:

(1) It is an unwritten rule that the surest way to never be made a moderator is to volunteer to be one. It's a "Catch-22" situation - those who volunteer are likely to have an ulterior motive (and would likely abuse the authority), while those who would not want the job may very well be the best suited for it!

(2) The candidate should pass muster with Alex. That may eliminate a majority of those who may otherwise qualify for the position. Alex seems to have high standards, and a person who may have caused trouble in the past might be automatically rejected.

Thus, a person such as I would likely never be granted moderatorial power, because I once volunteered for the job, and I may have been the center of a wee bit of "aggravation" now and then.

Almost every thread in PPR is a complete joke.

I am still not allowed to access that part of the forum. Not that it's much of a loss, though...

If not choosing anyone who volunteers to be a mod is followed as a rule, I would say that is a bad rule. I know what it is trying to prevent (power trippers & control freaks), but it assumes everyone who volunteers does so for the same reason. You know that's a false assumption before you even finish that statement. There are people who feel strongly enough about a community to be willing to actively participate in maintaining it. So its kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because someone volunteers doesn't mean you have to select them.

Picking non-volunteers based on.... (what?) does not necessarily work all that great either. I think there have been at least two mods selected in recent history who did not last at all. One happened so quick I am not even sure about it.

On another forum I frequented, active users were nominated by the community and listed in a poll. The top 5 with the most votes were then selected as the new mods.

Now THERE is an idea! The top 5 most popular members become mods! That way, the people who are the most benign, the most banal, and the least likely to impose their will upon others will be guaranteed to be in power.

I will have to ddos attack wp if that happens.
I doubt that such people would ackshuly be the most benign, most banal, or least likely to impose their will.