|
Originally Posted by Aardark
Well, I suppose the idea is that we shouldn't all be sMods in the first place. On one hand, I can sort of agree with that, but it would be weird to be restricted to three forums after having been a sMod for half a year. I dunno, I guess it's something that can be discussed.
|
As someone who started out as a regular moderator before all mods were bumped to supers, I can say that I think this would raise our efficiency level quite a bit. Knowing that a person is responsible for a specific task makes it seem less like an insurmountable object. It's like making a list of chores. If you know you have certain things to do, it can help you get them done. Thinking something like "Well, I should probably clean house" isn't going to give you much motivation. Sure, the mod team has forums they're responsible for by title, but not in practical nature. I think reducing the amount of responsibility would increase productivity.
Put plainly, I think some of the overall spam problem can be reduced if we go back to the old moderation system. There's no real need for all the super moderators we have, in my opinion. People have made the argument that a supermod or an admin needs to be present all hours of the day just-in-case-something-bad-happens. I suppose to a certain extent that may be true, but it seems to me like an exaggeration of the potential problems.
I don't think that if there is a period between 4 and 6 am during which there is no supermod or admin present, that a major catastrophe will occur. But even if it does, then
we know there are people who are primarily responsible for it.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
85242
35212
Skexis