Army.ca Staff Reset

[Stoker]

Just an observation. I get why the structure of the DS is what it is as this is a military themed site, however we seem to forget many people come on this site are not military and often looking to join and have questions. I know I would be turned off if a DS was ignorant or abrupt as they I think they have a tendency to revert to military mannerisms with this structure. I think a lot of this is due to many DS were in place for way too long and rightly so were fed up with people asking the same questions without searching or reading the FAQ's. The result was that sometimes they took it out on the member by being abrupt.
If anything with this reset I would like to see a term of service for any new DS for 2 years only, 6 month probation with perhaps a year break in between until they can reapply so they won't be burnt out.

In regards to the warning system and I'm not exactly sure how it works behind the scene what I would suggest is before a warning is handed out, the majority of mods must agree to it so that one mod can't act as judge, jury or executioner. I would further like to see the option for an appeal so the member can have their say.

 

[mariomike]

< snip >  fed up with people asking the same questions without searching or reading the FAQ's. The result was that sometimes they took it out on the member by being abrupt.

I believe that is where Mentors can be helpful.

Mentors can politely suggest relevant discussions the OP ( not always applicants ) may, or may not, find of interest.

Moderators may consider merging the OP with existing discussions for future reference.

 

[Scott]

I'm not overly fond of term limits. Rather, I'd like to see staff that are feeling pressure or burned out just walk away for a little while. That has happened and been a great benefit to us. Of course, Mike as boss can also ask someone to step away. I think with the limited numbers actually wanting to do the job that having turnover could only harm us, but that's me and I don't know how full Mike's inbox is with applications - I just know that everyone I communicate with, when the topic of moderation comes up, tells me they wouldn't want to do it.

Far as warnings go: I think change in the system is good, but the amount of warnings I have seen over the last few years has been in steady decline. So much so that I often forget about the handy tools Mike has put into place to issue warnings. Must be okay if I can't remember how to issue one! Here's one that comes up from time to time: an article is posted by someone we host no works from on the site. The person posting it is sent a PM explaining why the post has been deleted and it is asked they no longer post said links. With one exception I have gotten nothing but cooperation as it is usually a case of someone not knowing the policy. That one exception didn't shock me and was referred to Mike if he wanted to complain further.

When it comes to behavior, for the very most part, I find that when someone issues a warning publicly it is rather air tight. When it is not it is discussed, sometimes heatedly. Other times Mike arbitrates and his word goes. Biggest thing with being wrong: admitting it, taking ownership, and improving.

If I am pushing for anything with Mike's new intake of mods, it is transparency, fairness, and inclusion. So if I am on that side of the coin again in the future, you, or anyone, can feel free to ask me how certain things work. If you're referring to a particular situation I will almost certainly ask for you to link me to the post(s) you're talking about. Not t try and fuck you off, but so I can get right to the subject matter. I hope that any new/old mods will be open to this. If you're going to do/say something then you should be prepared to stand by it.

I'm enjoying seeing people get involved here.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

......... If you're referring to a particular situation I will almost certainly ask for you to link me to the post(s) you're talking about. Not t try and fuck you off, but so I can get right to the subject matter. I hope that any new/old mods will be open to this. If you're going to do/say something then you should be prepared to stand by it.

Remember folks; the REPORT TO MOD feature makes this so much easier for the Mods to address in a timely manner.

Some of the suggestions seem to be of the opinion that there are always a number of Mods online to discuss each and every transgression on the site.  This is not always the case, and in fact there are certain times when there are NO Mods online, and periods where there may only be one online to deal with a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. 

 

[Scott]

Remember folks; the REPORT TO MOD feature makes this so much easier for the Mods to address in a timely manner.

Some of the suggestions seem to be of the opinion that there are always a number of Mods online to discuss each and every transgression on the site.  This is not always the case, and in fact there are certain times when there are NO Mods online, and periods where there may only be one online to deal with a problem that needs to be addressed immediately.

Not certain that reports work all of the time. Every now and then someone wants to have a one on one via PM with the person who edited/deleted a post, or with the person who warned them, or about a series of posts in particular. Also, the report feature is character limited, so someone can't always say what they wish. And there are those who may not wish their report being published to all mods, or when it's about a moderator.

I believe that with more openness, like I have suggested, the times when something must be done immediately and sorted out later will be viewed with less scrutiny. I think there will be less guff overall.