Why I should be given Admin status

[mc]

Modified needs a decisive, present admin. Currently, we have an admin who is great for the technological side of things, but he is neither decisive or present (decisiveness being precluded by the lack of presence).

I am both decisive and present. INCREDIBLY present. OBSESSIVELY present.

As for decisiveness... I've been around modified since the start, I know the users, and I know the problems. I've seen the flamers come and go. I know the difference between someone acting out in an isolated incident, and a repeat offender. I am more than willing to talk to someone and discuss why their actions are a problem and why they should cease, before any further action is taken.

Also, I have a good track record. I challenge anyone to name a user who has been more consistently involved and helpful for a longer (or at least comparable) period of time than myself. I can only think of a few, Erik Chan, Jeremy O'Wheel, and Ken Somolinos.

I've been more involved with footbag than the vast majority of people involved with this forum. I love the game, I love the players, and I love Modified.

Modified needs someone who is willing to get his hands dirty, interact with the users, and MAKE DECISIONS. Last time I was a mod, there was a lot of talk about what decisions should be made, but, like Colin said in my "Ban Kyle" thread, all that talk had a little caveat at the end... "but I don't want to be decisive without clear and referrable evidence for all our decisions", which, most often, led to no decision being made at all.

What modified needs is someone who knows what's up, and knows who's who, whether they can quote every statement ever made by User X or not.

I am MORE than willing for the justification of my actions to be "I've been around here a long time, I know the users, I don't take this job or this site lightly, and I'm not going to stand for your bullshit", as opposed to "Here is a list of every infraction you've made for the past two years, giving us unquestionable reason to take action."

That is not necessary. That's what they call red tape. We just need a capable person making a few key decisions once in a while, someone who's not afraid to stand behind their decisions on the merit of their knowledge of the situation and their presence. Also, we need someone present enough to take care of regular admin duties, like deleting spam / duplicate accounts, changing usernames, and the odd disciplinary function.

I am he.

This place needs an admin who's also a user. I've got the experience, the credibility, the willingness, and the time. Please weigh in with your opinions. Vicious Matt-hate is strongly encouraged.

[Colin]

Hail to the chimp, baby.

[Moxie]

EDIT: Sorry for the stupid mistype.

I agree with Colin. I agree that things should be run differently than they are. I feel like this could have been brought up with the mod team first, but whatever.

Modified needs a decisive, present admin. Currently, we have an admin who is great for the technological side of things, but he is neither decisive or present (decisiveness being precluded by the lack of presence).

But, if this is going to be done in a public way, I guess I'll ask some questions in public. You were decisive and present when you were a mod too but resigned because people disagreed with you. How will you resolve those same disagreements with the other members of the mod team?

I am MORE than willing for the justification of my actions to be "I've been around here a long time, I know the users, I don't take this job or this site lightly, and I'm not going to stand for your bullshit", as opposed to "Here is a list of every infraction you've made for the past two years, giving us unquestionable reason to take action."

Yes.

Also, we need someone present enough to take care of regular admin duties, like deleting spam / duplicate accounts, changing usernames, and the odd disciplinary function.

Have there been problems with regular admin duties sitting around waiting to be done? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I know, that's the sort of stuff that gets done. What you're suggesting is an admin. who is also an active mod, which is the way it should be.

[mc]

counter-edit

[King Monkey]

The problem i see with doing things like banning people with the justification being 'im not going to stand for your bullshit,' is balancing out the emotion attached. I know you are pretty riled about the Kyle situation and your demand to be made not just a Mod, but an ADMIN with the power to do just about anything, just doesnt sit well with that i think.
Before there were proper moderation rules we had mods flying off the handle locking whole forums and the like. Now we have rules to stop that and to protect users from the emotions and whims of those who have the power to ban users etc.
The problem is we have some people who want an iron-fist, no nonsense approach, and others who believe that the power to moderate should be mitigated through checks and balances - our rules. You cant please everyone, but id rather see the mods with less ability to just kick someone out than more. The main issue we have presently is that so few mods weigh in on issues so we can push forward with the appropriate actions.

If you were to be a mod again you would be required to follow the same rules we do now until such time as the community decides to change them.

[mc]

Modified needs a decisive, present admin. Currently, we have an admin who is great for the technological side of things, but he is neither decisive or present (decisiveness being precluded by the lack of presence).

You were decisive and present when you were a mod too but resigned because people disagreed with you. How will you resolve those same disagreements with the other members of the mod team?

Hi Emily!

I was decisive and present, but ineffective. I had no power!

I recall the issue at hand.

Basically, a particular user was having a bad week (and reacting similarly to how Kyle reacts to bad weeks). I felt the rest of the mod staff was disinterested and / or disinvolved with the issue, although it was clear that the forum was being subjected to an out-of-control, completely unreasonable member, and nothing was being done about it.

So, I made it clear to the forum community that I felt wrong was done, and I cited that wrongness in no unclear terms (read: not friendly). I came back to the forum after a night of drinking with Erik Chan and found that a freestyler that I HIGHLY regard and admire (DC) had posted a finger-wagging statement in the thread, to the tune of, "you should be bigger than this and I can't believe you would waste your time with this kind of nonsense" (basically, the EXACT SAME THING he posted in my "Ban Kyle Permanently") thread. So, the lack of support and / or involvement from my fellow mods, combined with the criticism of someone I held in such high regard, combined with my powerlessness, combined with some drinking, led me to resign my post.

So, to answer your question, I would say that, instead of angrily resigning my post like I did last time, I am currently more likely to respond like I did to Dave in the "BKP" thread; I will explain why I disagree with the user's assessment, and cite my reasoning in a calm, clear way.

Furthermore, before making any decisive disciplinary action (ie: permanent or long term ban), I pledge to seek forum input and participation in my decision, in the same way that I sought it in the "BKP" thread, if my offer of admin services is accepted.

I am MORE than willing for the justification of my actions to be "I've been around here a long time, I know the users, I don't take this job or this site lightly, and I'm not going to stand for your bullshit", as opposed to "Here is a list of every infraction you've made for the past two years, giving us unquestionable reason to take action."

Yes.

I think that, by that statement, you're offering me support for that mindset... so, thanks for your support, if indeed you are offering such support!

Also, we need someone present enough to take care of regular admin duties, like deleting spam / duplicate accounts, changing usernames, and the odd disciplinary function.

Have there been problems with regular admin duties sitting around waiting to be done? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I know, that's the sort of stuff that gets done. What you're suggesting is an admin. who is also an active mod, which is the way it should be.

Well, I suggested that Matt Bailey (current user matt_bailey, former user kidzanshin) PM Mike and edit his previous account to change the name to "Matt Bailey" and delete the new account that included the underscore as part of the name. I'm not sure if he ever went through with it, but we had discussed it.

I just get the impression that Mike is not around very much. I am around VERY much. Also, lots of users aren't aware that they can change their usernames. I'm sure there's plenty of people who've been around for a while who would like to change their name from something they randomly picked when they started playing, to their real name, so they can represent themselves properly on the forum.

So, yeah, I'm suggesting an admin who is also an active mod. I'm suggesting that I be such a person. Or rather, I'm suggesting that SOMEONE be such a person, and I don't see anyone stepping up, although I do think that Colin's got a good head on his shoulders and that he could do a good job. HOWEVER, he does say clearly in the "BKP" thread that he hasn't been reading the forum regularly, and has only been reading more often because he's just come back from a jam. I check modified (literally) over 20 times a day, every day, and that's a very conservative guess.

I like this place. I want to keep it clean and happy. Please consider.

<3 matt[/quote]

[mc]

The problem i see with doing things like banning people with the justification being 'im not going to stand for your bullshit,' is balancing out the emotion attached. I know you are pretty riled about the Kyle situation and your demand to be made not just a Mod, but an ADMIN with the power to do just about anything, just doesnt sit well with that i think.

Hi Ian!

You say that you know I am "pretty riled" about the Kyle situation. Can you give an example of how I've approached the Kyle situation in a "riled" manner? I take "riled" to mean "filled with strong passion and emotion in response to an issue", and, although I've suggested a strong resolution to his situation, I feel that I've done it reasonably, and with a cool head.

Also, you label this thread as a "demand", and it is FAR from being a demand. It is a reasonably-supported suggestion, and in no way is a demand.

Before there were proper moderation rules we had mods flying off the handle locking whole forums and the like. Now we have rules to stop that and to protect users from the emotions and whims of those who have the power to ban users etc.

1. I wasn't one of those mods who locked a whole forum and the like.

2. I'm not suggesting that an admin should be above the rules system. I AM suggesting that an admin should be able to act within those rules without having to seek the input of a bunch of people who don't care and may not even respond to (or even be aware of) the issue in the first place.

The problem is we have some people who want an iron-fist, no nonsense approach, and others who believe that the power to moderate should be mitigated through checks and balances - our rules. You cant please everyone, but id rather see the mods with less ability to just kick someone out than more. The main issue we have presently is that so few mods weigh in on issues so we can push forward with the appropriate actions.

I am not suggesting an iron first. I am suggesting that this community picks someone, and says "we trust you to make good decisions. you have a good track record. please enforce our rules in a reasonable way". I am also suggesting that I be picked as such a person, although, if a better candidate were to come forward, that would be suitable as well, in my opinion.

If you were to be a mod again you would be required to follow the same rules we do now until such time as the community decides to change them.

I'm with you there, as long as the rules don't require that we wait for a decision or input from people who either don't really care, or don't have the time to care.

[Jeremy]

1. No other positions on modified are elected. The poll function is very misleading as well, as not only is there nothing stopping people from registering multiple accounts but we don't know which people are voting and which aren't - clearly from the amount of comments in this topic, the majority of people have made the same choice I've made and not voted. If you've chosen to have a poll on this topic then does that mean you'll be making other decisions by poll or some other kind of popular vote? What weight do you think that poll indicates in general?

2. I agree with Ian - there should be reasons given for moderating decisions - not just personal judgements. I would oppose anybody being a mod or admin if they intended to decision make without explaining themselves as transparently as possible.

3. Having just stated that last time you were a mod you resigned partly due to drinking, what assurances can you have you won't make other decisions while drunk? While I hold a contrary view, lots of people feel like what has been said on this forum in the past is important and should be preserved. It really is quite easy for an admin to accidentally delete stuff - as we saw with a previous admin. What can you say to reassure the people who are worried about that happening again that it won't?

4. I agree with the gist of what Ian wrote about you getting "riled" up in the past. I perhaps wouldn't use that word, but definitely I can think of a number of cases of you getting rather emotive, making personal insults and taking people disagreeing with what you've written as personal attacks - or at least that is my perception. It's passed 5pm on Friday night so you'll have to wait for examples if you disagree with this. What can you say to assure the rest of us that this wouldn't happen in the future, or if you don't think it's a problem - why not?


A long time ago I decided that the best way to run forums was to have a large number of moderators and admins - I'd suggest everybody who has had 0 or close to 0 infractions, posts in a mature manner without resorting to personal attacks etc. and has been around the forum for a fairly long period of time. I'm sure I could easily name 20 or 30 people who I would easily trust to be mods/admins. This would mean there are almost always active mods reading every post and in a position to respond to issues very quickly. Modified, and really all internet forums, are really a product of the content produced by the users, so it makes sense that the users be the ones to have control over the forum - not arbitrarily selected people. While this certainly wouldn't result in some kind of virtual utopia, it would mean the people who were making the investment in forum content were responsible for it, and I think that's a good thing. I apologise for the 'weasel words' in this paragraph

I don't know if my idea would ever get enough support. I do think the mods could be more active, but I'd also like to see them be more transparent - and while your suggestion meets one of these criteria it seems to suggest a step backwards in the other. If that were the choice I'd prefer things to stay as they are. The current team appears to be largely doing a good job and it's been some time since there's been any kind of conflict on the forum that I would consider serious.

[jay7]

I agree with the points made in the posts above, and I'll throw in my opinions to the ones I feel I can have something to say about.

Jeremy said:

1. No other positions on modified are elected. The poll function is very misleading as well - - -

I think that is one of the problems that Matt is addressing. None of the mods seem to be active enough, or have enough power to delete users the prevent something like this from happening. I can recall the case of a "mysterybagger", a completely public and well known second account, taking more than a few days to become banned/deleted. Now, I think that the possibility of multiple accounts being made simply to vote for Matt like this is rather unlikely, you're right that it is a possibility I suppose. Does it really happen that often?

Ian said:

The problem i see with doing things like banning people with the justification being 'im not going to stand for your bullshit,' is balancing out the emotion attached. - - -

I'm not sure how Matt proposes to voice his decisions if he does get Admin privileges, but if he handles it in any fashion like the "Ban Kyle" thread, I wouldn't disagree with him banning him. I wouldn't be surprised if, with the current status of modified, Kyle was never banned. However, if there was a fear of actual power to ban people, it would keep a fraction of the "troll" types to think before they posted. If lets say, Kyle was given a temporary ban before he got out of hand, then he returned being a troll, and then was given immediately a 3 month ban, and then still came back as a troll, and was threatened for a permanent ban, maybe
he would think twice about being all around annoying.

Ian also commented about the iron-fist approach and whatnot. I think that again, if there were votes/majority voices who wanted a decision, it would be a bit more democratic than that.

It is true that Matt has had some personal posts in the past in the heat of an argument, and at such a time I don't think it is right to make any decision when you hold an amount of power. I think in some emotional state, we have all wished that we had waited a day to say what we had to say. That is why I agree with the idea of having a second admin, (I am thinking Erik Chan -> Extremely present, long term user, already a mod, etc) so that in a time of a decision to be made, Matt would truly have to consider the entire problem and make the best decision.

All in all, I think I would rather have Matt be made an admin, and deal with problems, than having a group of moderators who let crap be thrown around for days/weeks, and sometimes like in Kyle's case, years. I would agree with him making a decision to someone who was causing a fuss, that was possibly a little harsh, than to simply let it breeze on by and have nothing done about it. Of course, my words don't hold a great amount of value on modified, so I'm not sure if this post will amount to be anything more than one vote on the Matt poll.

Matt for President.

[Rieferman]

jeremy wrote:

I agree with Ian - there should be reasons given for moderating decisions - not just personal judgements. I would oppose anybody being a mod or admin if they intended to decision make without explaining themselves as transparently as possible.

Matt, are you basically seeking the ability to apply judgement to exceptional cases that are left a little gray when considering the forum rules? That's sort of what I'm getting... That the rules are basically fine, but this isn't a court of law and there are sometimes instances where a common sense application of judgement may be needed - and you're looking to be the guy that does that.

Just want to be sure I understand correctly.

[mc]

Hey Jeremy!

1. I am not trying to hold some sort of vote that will result in a decisive action. I am gauging opinion. That is the purpose of this thread and that poll. Glad to have your input.

Believe me, I take the poll function with more than a grain of salt. I put a lot more weight on opinions expressed verbally, like yours, than on a few votes in the poll. I guess one could make the case that the polls are useless and misleading because of the low rate of response, and for the reasons you suggested, so, maybe it's a good idea to leave those out of forum-decision-making threads in the future.

2. I also agree with you and Ian. I suppose that you could read my initial post as meaning that I would throw out the rules and just use my opinions and judgements, only. That is not the case. I believe I will put this next part in bold, because I think it's extremely important that it jumps out at other readers (not to drive it home to you, Jeremy): It is not my feelings about the current rules, or the spirit of the rules, that are making me feel a need for someone to fill this admin role. I think they're good rules. I just think that someone a little more interested in the job should be enforcing those rules in a MORE transparent (not less transparent) way. Jeremy, as you and I have both pointed out lately, we would like some response from the powers-that-be regarding recent forum upsets. Over the past weeks and weeks, between your post and mine, we've received one quasi-reply from a mod who said he hasn't even been checking the forum. So, in short: Rules, good. Transparency, good.

3. Yeah, I cited a night of drinking with Erik Chan. I had 3 beers Neither me nor Erik are super hardcore dudes, I guess.

I am generally in favor of preservation as well.

To those who have concerns that I would make bad decisions while drunk, I would say, "I don't have a drinking issue that causes me to make bad decisions in my real life. I drive sober, and I haven't partied myself sick in over a year. I don't have a track record of getting drunk and flipping out on modified, and I don't see that becoming part of my track record. I can't say that I won't ever make an accident, but I can pledge to exercise caution. I can't say that I won't ever have a drink while reading modified, but I can pledge to seek public and moderator input before making decisive action".

4. Jeremy, examples are not necessary. So, to answer your question - I can't guarantee that emotions will not come into play when I make my decisions, any more so than any other decision making person anywhere can guarantee that. Now to the second part of your question, whether or not I think it's a problem - If you were to collect every instance of me acting out of anger, you'd paint a pretty nasty picture, but if you were to look at all my acts on modified, contributory and anti-contributory, the scale would tip vastly in the direction of contributory. So, honestly, I don't think I have an abnormal propensity to anger or frustration, and I don't see it playing out negatively in an authority role.

Also, I think your perception of how often I have a moment where I act out in frustration or anger could be skewed, considering that I generally have more of those moments when you are involved in a situation.

Thanks for the questions, though... just like Emily's, they bring up some important points that definitely have to be discussed.

[mc]

Hey Jay and Rob!

You guys pretty much have my mantra pretty much figured out:

1. analyze
2. consult
3. act

I am NOT suggesting a no-accountability, no-reasoning approach.

I am suggesting a no-nonsense approach. When someone is acting out as clearly and egregiously as Kyle was, that person needs some sort of punishment. When involved, dedicated community members like Jeremy and myself ask for a response from the staff about decisions they have made or haven't made, that staff needs to respond.

I wouldn't feel a need to nominate myself if I saw anyone else filling in these gaps that I perceive.

[Frank_Sinatra]

Matt, I think your heart is in the right place & I agree with your approach. But I think you'd make a bad admin for the same reason I would - too short of a temper.

I think an admin that checks the forum regularly would be a great thing. But someone who can keep a cool head all the time.

I see where Ian and Jeremy are coming from with not wanting moderation based on whim, but what I really think modified needs less of is debate society/roberts rules of order nonsense where we have long threads about the precise wording of a rule when it really just takes a quick application of that oh-so-subjective "common sense."

[mc]

okay, fair enough... just a quick note...

It's not that I really really want the job!

It's that I'm really really tired of what I perceive to be a rather dispassionate (and arguably disinvolved) mod staff.

here's the problem with someone that can guarantee that they're going to be cool-headed all the time - someone who feels that "cool-ly" about modified is probably not the right person for the job! we already have a bunch of people with relatively cool heads, and they can't seem to respond to major issues or to reasonable public outcry.

So, like I said, I'm not dying to have the job... I just want it to get done, and I currently feel like the people with the power now are falling short.

[Colin]

OK, I've decided to have a crack at administrating the forum, and have said so to the powers that be. If it happens, expect a couple of posts from me in this forum over the next few days after discussing some stuff with the mods. If anyone thinks this would be the worst thing to happen in footbag since Clavens' stress fracture, now's a good time to speak up.

[mc]

... my plan is complete ...

[draws curtain]

[Colin]

sooooooooo banned.

[Rieferman]

damn it, now I owe Matt $5. He PM'd me:

I'll bet I can get Colin to take this job before the weekend

not really

[Muffinman]

For the record, I'm not a mod anymore.
And the reason is because of the problems that Matt is trying to address -- that the mods don't do anything and that they have no power, etc. I disagreed with other mods and felt like I didn't have a voice as soon as another spoke against me (or when users criticized my moderation tendencies). And it's pretty hypocritical of me to just give up if I want a difference to be made, but really, giving up didn't seem like it would make any difference, because I didn't feel like I was really making much of a difference as a mod, anyway (or that I had the capability). And maybe that's how it should be -- they should be invisible? But I agree that issues like "trolls" should be allowed to be dealt with in some controlled, authoritative fashion. I'm definitely all for Colin. As far as I know he's proven himself honest, level-headed, and righteous. (Which I can't claim for myself, as diplomatic as I try to be)

(Just thinking out loud. Feel free to attack me, mods.)

[King Monkey]

OK, I've decided to have a crack at administrating the forum, and have said so to the powers that be.

Who would these powers be? Will you be consulting Mods such as myself or is there an arrangement we aren't all privy to?