Who can become a moderator and how are they selected?

Post Reply New Topic

Not really so much a complaint as much as a general query, but I'd thought I'd bring it up since we've just had new mods chosen. Who exactly is eligible to become a moderator and how are they selected?

I mean obviously Alex makes the final decision, but is there some sort of preliminary process that bring potential candidates to light? Or does Alex just scour the user list looking for people to take on the job?

I'm curious, and I'll go ahead and admit that I'm interested in moderating. I've been on this site since pretty much it's inception (if you count my two previous accounts which I lost access to thanks to a goof with my email... but they were in good standing so not like I was banned or anything. I know we're not allowed to have multiple accounts but I've stopped using the other two since). I'm active a lot... I don't post every day but I do browse the site at least twice a day. And I've got experience moderating the college newspaper site that I run as well as basic webdev/CMS skill.

I know it seems kind of arrogant to ask right out of the blue, but Wrongplanet has helped me a lot over the past few years and I kind of want to return the favor, if only by helping to keep things spam free and peaceful. Also, I know my track record for interacting with trolls and flamers isn't exactly pure, but I think I've mellowed out to the point where I can be fair about it.

That said, it would seem that we have a good team of mods already, so I'm not going to push it any further than that. Just, perhaps a consideration when there's an opening available.

I can understand why he wouldn't want ppl to be mods who asked to be mods, because they're the ones who usually go on to abuse their power. To be straight, however, I'm not really asking to be a mod, at least not right now. We've already got a good team going. I'm just kind of nudging a bit for when the time comes that one of these guys retire.

I guess it really depends on a lot of factors. If I were Alex, I would pick members of the community who are a) highly active, b) somewhat level-headed, c) decently established both in time as a member and in number of posts. But the most important thing I would consider is motive. There's a difference between people who want to moderate because it makes them feel important, and those who truly want to help. Me, I want to help. Wrongplanet changed my life, and I always repay my debts.

But I'm not Alex, and it's Alex's site. I don't have a say in the personnel selection. And I'm not going to be a little kid about it and throw a temper tantrum if it doesn't happen. It's just a suggestion.

As far as I know from now being able to observe posts related to MidlifeAspie and myself (and only visible to moderators), Alex takes a look out here on the forums whenever the need arises and then offers opportunities for other mods to comment before he extends an actual invitation that can then either be accepted or rejected.

I believe you have a legitimate complaint there, but I also believe the bullying will never be completely stopped. Nevertheless, and as at least a semi-strident theist, I plan to keep making my best effort to help hold WP as a relatively comfortable place for everyone:

===================
WrongPlanet Rules

Conduct
-----------
The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.
===================

Hello possum. Me again. I think that today we see many young people (unlike us oldies) dress in frightful clothes and fashioned with piercing everywhere you can imagine and hair that is sculpted in every direction and yet when you dare be attracted by what it is they do to gain such attraction they yell "Watulookinat?"

I think whilst the textual medium does not give rise for such visual delivery of such eyesore attention grabbing, we do have the textual equivalent.
If someone says something (belief or not) that is nothing but offensive and then says they are all trolling (staring) at me, then where does the fault lie in this context?
If I were to say that "my belief" was that people with a abhorence to people of homosexual bent were likely fearful of either becoming that which they did not want to be or threatened by the thought of wanting to be homosexual then would this belief be sanctioned? Hypothetically speaking?

The fault here might be mine, but I cannot make sense of that question.


I do not personally believe speaking against something automatically makes someone phobic in that particular area, but neither do I believe that kind of disbelief therefore gives one a license to step into same area and speak his or her unsolicited beliefs.

Possum that is OK it may be senility creeping pervasively into my posts.

I guess what I am saying is when one says things that are inflammatory then they really are in no position to respond with the premise that they are being trolled or picked on or bullied.

I was trying (albeit badly) to place a metaphor in respect to what may be a non-textual equivalent. I suppose to be fair I ought to say that another alternative in concrete terms would be a good-looking lass dressing in high up the leg dress and going out on the town. If she were to complain that young boys were drooling over her then an expectation of the persona listening would simply be "...and you were expecting what different reaction dear?"

To behave in a way that is bound to draw a specific reaction and then condemning the reaction is rather silly. To expect that the reaction be punished is as silly as the girl in question demanding all boys in her immediate vicinity be punished for looking at her legs (or whatever it is that young drooling boys have a want to look at)

Do you see my point now, possum?

... trolling, but I believe it is also my own responsibility to not lust after my neighbor's young daughter just because she happens to be exposing herself a bit while experimenting with fashion for whatever reason/s of her own. So then, and as a simple example here:

It is not "phobic" to say atheism is insanity invading public/government schools even though it could be foolish (if not at least pointless) to do so within a given setting. However, it would still not be okay for me to call WP "stridents" insane. Rules are rules, and civility is the rule here.

This is the problem with the term "homophobia." People always try and get around it by saying "well I'm not SCARED of gay people!"

(although actually, a lot of homophobic people - I hesitate to say all - actually ARE afraid of gay people imo. Mainly because they're insecure themselves. Hence my comment about latent homosexuality in the other thread)

Because I have always understood "phobia" as being some kind of fear, I personally think this (a judgment of "negative" always being bad) is the actual problem with the term:

============
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
============

Take the work "negative" out of that ...

"... a range of attitudes and feelings ..."

and we have mere opinion ... just like with flavors of ice cream.

Can't the same be said about racism and sexism though?

I do not understand your specific question here.

My father is/was a bigot, and I am now grateful for the help of many people who have since shown me how to hold my own beliefs and views properly and without having to do so at the expense of others.

I mean homophobia is just opinion yeah, but so it racism/sexism then

Sure, but then there actually are some people with true "social phobias" or whatever, and that leaves the rest of us to do our best at assuring the ill-informed of a bit of security and comfort, as best we might be able.

I would like to see the difference between the two forums maintained, however the moderators see fit to do that (if they see reason or need. It's hardly my call.). And I would like to see an end to the ad hominem attacks that, I fully understand, are an effort to mock the opposition until they are the ones to pack up and leave. They are unacceptable; particularly coming from someone who has been on the forum only one day.

Trust me when I say that there are many eyes on the situation, but as long as everyone follows the rules there is no grounds for banning anyone. The simplest way to make these things go away is for the opposition to stop feeding the cycle. If nobody responds then they get bored and go away. If any rules are broken then action will be certainly be taken.

The PPR forum is there for debate, and I assure you that there are mods from both ends of the political spectrum watching these threads so everyone follows the rules and there will be no special treatment for either side.