I don't like this thread.
I read it yesterday and debated commenting something like this, but decided against it for the sake of avoiding conflict, but since then I've changed my mind. It feels like people sometimes forget that even though this is an online platform, these are still real people.
Moderating should not be a popularity contest. I understand this is meant as a bit of fun, but I don't think this is the best way to do this. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, who knows, but I wanted to share this in case I'm not and it can be used to improve it in the future (as you mentioned the "coming years" so I am guessing this won't be the only one of these?).
I highly doubt this was intended as much more than a way of getting some opinions from within the community as to who to look into, so I have some points that I feel would help focus on this without having any negative side effects.
(1) Team feedback exists. Notably, team feedback is anonymous and not something the whole community can see. Imo, this is good as it provides a way to praise/thank a team member without it negatively affecting others. It is surprisingly hard sometimes to give a compliment to one member of a team without unintentionally bringing others down. It shouldn't work that way, and it's sad, but it often does (especially when this is a rather young, and hence unavoidably often immature, community...). An example of this is the constant use of comparitive language. If you want specific words you can just read the comments before mine-
(2) Purpose. From what you've said, it seems the idea is to use this to decide who you "will make a study on". Then why not just ask a question like "who would you like to see a study about?" instead of "who is the best moderator?". It just feels unnecessarily provocative to me.
(3) What does "best" even mean? There is no clarification as to what metric is being used here. I suppose it is just your personal favourite, but comments like "this will be their for all the other mods, who want to improve/win in the coming years" (it is spelt there btw) suggests these results actually mean something past that and go any way towards saying who is actually the "best" mod. They do not. Are they the one who spends the most time interacting with the community? Do they help out the rest of the team internally the most? Do they handle the most tickets/appeals/reports? Only the first questions seems like something that most the community can accurately answer and these are just a small selection of ways "best" could be interpreted.
(4) Why is it public who you voted for? Just why.
I'm sure someone will look at this essay (I didn't intend for it to get this long, I promise..) and immediately think that me being so picky is unnecessary. Maybe they're right, in which case no harm is done, but if they're wrong then harm is done. It's a simple case of why would you not try to take others' feelings into account when you can? If it takes very little extra effort to reduce the chance that your actions hurt someone then I can't see why you wouldn't put in that tiny bit of effort.
I'll finish this by adding that I consider a lot of people on this list as friends and every single one to be a great mod, however I shall not be d
Did you fr type all of thatI don't like this thread.
I read it yesterday and debated commenting something like this, but decided against it for the sake of avoiding conflict, but since then I've changed my mind. It feels like people sometimes forget that even though this is an online platform, these are still real people.
Moderating should not be a popularity contest. I understand this is meant as a bit of fun, but I don't think this is the best way to do this. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, who knows, but I wanted to share this in case I'm not and it can be used to improve it in the future (as you mentioned the "coming years" so I am guessing this won't be the only one of these?).
I highly doubt this was intended as much more than a way of getting some opinions from within the community as to who to look into, so I have some points that I feel would help focus on this without having any negative side effects.
(1) Team feedback exists. Notably, team feedback is anonymous and not something the whole community can see. Imo, this is good as it provides a way to praise/thank a team member without it negatively affecting others. It is surprisingly hard sometimes to give a compliment to one member of a team without unintentionally bringing others down. It shouldn't work that way, and it's sad, but it often does (especially when this is a rather young, and hence unavoidably often immature, community...). An example of this is the constant use of comparitive language. If you want specific words you can just read the comments before mine-
(2) Purpose. From what you've said, it seems the idea is to use this to decide who you "will make a study on". Then why not just ask a question like "who would you like to see a study about?" instead of "who is the best moderator?". It just feels unnecessarily provocative to me.
(3) What does "best" even mean? There is no clarification as to what metric is being used here. I suppose it is just your personal favourite, but comments like "this will be their for all the other mods, who want to improve/win in the coming years" (it is spelt there btw) suggests these results actually mean something past that and go any way towards saying who is actually the "best" mod. They do not. Are they the one who spends the most time interacting with the community? Do they help out the rest of the team internally the most? Do they handle the most tickets/appeals/reports? Only the first questions seems like something that most the community can accurately answer and these are just a small selection of ways "best" could be interpreted.
(4) Why is it public who you voted for? Just why.
I'm sure someone will look at this essay (I didn't intend for it to get this long, I promise..) and immediately think that me being so picky is unnecessary. Maybe they're right, in which case no harm is done, but if they're wrong then harm is done. It's a simple case of why would you not try to take others' feelings into account when you can? If it takes very little extra effort to reduce the chance that your actions hurt someone then I can't see why you wouldn't put in that tiny bit of effort.
I'll finish this by adding that I consider a lot of people on this list as friends and every single one to be a great mod, however I shall not be voting.
Totally agree with this, and initally I also wanted to not vote/comment, but decided to do so anyway just to shine a bit of light on the moderators - in this case - who I know best. My answer simply was decided based on the fact that there isn't a day I don't talk to Anol, and outside of him, I know Eli best.I don't like this thread.
I read it yesterday and debated commenting something like this, but decided against it for the sake of avoiding conflict, but since then I've changed my mind. It feels like people sometimes forget that even though this is an online platform, these are still real people.
Moderating should not be a popularity contest. I understand this is meant as a bit of fun, but I don't think this is the best way to do this. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, who knows, but I wanted to share this in case I'm not and it can be used to improve it in the future (as you mentioned the "coming years" so I am guessing this won't be the only one of these?).
I highly doubt this was intended as much more than a way of getting some opinions from within the community as to who to look into, so I have some points that I feel would help focus on this without having any negative side effects.
(1) Team feedback exists. Notably, team feedback is anonymous and not something the whole community can see. Imo, this is good as it provides a way to praise/thank a team member without it negatively affecting others. It is surprisingly hard sometimes to give a compliment to one member of a team without unintentionally bringing others down. It shouldn't work that way, and it's sad, but it often does (especially when this is a rather young, and hence unavoidably often immature, community...). An example of this is the constant use of comparitive language. If you want specific words you can just read the comments before mine-
(2) Purpose. From what you've said, it seems the idea is to use this to decide who you "will make a study on". Then why not just ask a question like "who would you like to see a study about?" instead of "who is the best moderator?". It just feels unnecessarily provocative to me.
(3) What does "best" even mean? There is no clarification as to what metric is being used here. I suppose it is just your personal favourite, but comments like "this will be their for all the other mods, who want to improve/win in the coming years" (it is spelt there btw) suggests these results actually mean something past that and go any way towards saying who is actually the "best" mod. They do not. Are they the one who spends the most time interacting with the community? Do they help out the rest of the team internally the most? Do they handle the most tickets/appeals/reports? Only the first questions seems like something that most the community can accurately answer and these are just a small selection of ways "best" could be interpreted.
(4) Why is it public who you voted for? Just why.
I'm sure someone will look at this essay (I didn't intend for it to get this long, I promise..) and immediately think that me being so picky is unnecessary. Maybe they're right, in which case no harm is done, but if they're wrong then harm is done. It's a simple case of why would you not try to take others' feelings into account when you can? If it takes very little extra effort to reduce the chance that your actions hurt someone then I can't see why you wouldn't put in that tiny bit of effort.
I'll finish this by adding that I consider a lot of people on this list as friends and every single one to be a great mod, however I shall not be voting.
Hi @caraMel, I will do my best to answer all 4 of your questions.I don't like this thread.
I read it yesterday and debated commenting something like this, but decided against it for the sake of avoiding conflict, but since then I've changed my mind. It feels like people sometimes forget that even though this is an online platform, these are still real people.
Moderating should not be a popularity contest. I understand this is meant as a bit of fun, but I don't think this is the best way to do this. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, who knows, but I wanted to share this in case I'm not and it can be used to improve it in the future (as you mentioned the "coming years" so I am guessing this won't be the only one of these?).
I highly doubt this was intended as much more than a way of getting some opinions from within the community as to who to look into, so I have some points that I feel would help focus on this without having any negative side effects.
(1) Team feedback exists. Notably, team feedback is anonymous and not something the whole community can see. Imo, this is good as it provides a way to praise/thank a team member without it negatively affecting others. It is surprisingly hard sometimes to give a compliment to one member of a team without unintentionally bringing others down. It shouldn't work that way, and it's sad, but it often does (especially when this is a rather young, and hence unavoidably often immature, community...). An example of this is the constant use of comparitive language. If you want specific words you can just read the comments before mine-
(2) Purpose. From what you've said, it seems the idea is to use this to decide who you "will make a study on". Then why not just ask a question like "who would you like to see a study about?" instead of "who is the best moderator?". It just feels unnecessarily provocative to me.
(3) What does "best" even mean? There is no clarification as to what metric is being used here. I suppose it is just your personal favourite, but comments like "this will be their for all the other mods, who want to improve/win in the coming years" (it is spelt there btw) suggests these results actually mean something past that and go any way towards saying who is actually the "best" mod. They do not. Are they the one who spends the most time interacting with the community? Do they help out the rest of the team internally the most? Do they handle the most tickets/appeals/reports? Only the first questions seems like something that most the community can accurately answer and these are just a small selection of ways "best" could be interpreted.
(4) Why is it public who you voted for? Just why.
I'm sure someone will look at this essay (I didn't intend for it to get this long, I promise..) and immediately think that me being so picky is unnecessary. Maybe they're right, in which case no harm is done, but if they're wrong then harm is done. It's a simple case of why would you not try to take others' feelings into account when you can? If it takes very little extra effort to reduce the chance that your actions hurt someone then I can't see why you wouldn't put in that tiny bit of effort.
I'll finish this by adding that I consider a lot of people on this list as friends and every single one to be a great mod, however I shall not be voting.