Who would make for good moderators in the D&D forum?

You make a good mod but I guess you are too busy.

 

@bobrek ?

 

I have no problem with this

 

I would be a benevolent Overlord. The power wouldn't corrupt me. I swear!

 

That, and I have had too many heated arguments with people, particularly about one topic. The last thing you would want people to be able to whine about is that a moderator has a bias because of prior arguments. Which is what makes this one tricky - those who were engaged have almost definitely had fights in that forum. Those who don't argue probably don't want to spend much time in there.

 

Political bias is one thing. Can't get around that. I would be uncomfortable with anyone wielding power who has a demonstrated history of trolling, crossing the line themselves, partisan immaturity, etc. Someone who constantly race baits or walks up to that line is not a good choice obviously but neither is someone who gets their jollies off harassing someone on the other side. It isn't because of their political bias though it's because they can't be counted on to wield authority without abusing it.

 

Maybe it would be better to just go one by one eliminating the people that won't work
and
which ever lurker is left standing . . . . .. LOL

Rocket RIver

 

The fan fiction and targeted harassment does get tiresome we should probably get it decided if that kind of thing is against the rules or not before picking a mod to enforce the rules.

 

So basically you want somebody to moderate an internet forum who has never heard of the internet.

 

5 mods. Every decision should be fairly evaluated and voted on by the mods. Need 4 votes to go through with the decision.

 

This place should function like Hyde Park, no censored talk,no moderator

 

I'm sorry you don't see the difference between what I said and normal internet amusement.

 

It will be nearly impossible to find anyone who is not politically bias to moderate but the issue would be someone who can recognize a situation when it is going down hill and can stop it before it bottoms out. I think there is a lot of good dialogue back and forth between the left and right sides of the aisle here and I see no reason why a moderator can't be opinionated and post as such but when it is time to step in they cannot have any bias. They should only step in when a "debate" gets personal or breaks the rules. They definitely would not be able to use their power to win debates only to keep the other debates between the ditches while avoiding getting into any heated debates with the other posters. Whoever it would be would still answer to Clutch and if they abuse power, they should be reported and handled accordingly. There is not much that needs to change here. We are all grownups and usually act that way. A mod should rarely have to step in and should not let their personal opinion of any debate sway their decision of when someone steps over the line.

 

I hate to agree with you lately, but it seems you are on the path of change, keep it up. Mean it.

 

Yes, I also think they should be paid. Maybe $100 a month.

 

There is 0% chance anyone who is active about political issues on the internet has never resorted to insults or trolling of any kind. It simply cannot mathematically happen.

 

You and Os Trigonom. Would be adding the humor 4 sure.

 

5 mods? This is an Internet forum not Survivor.

 

Maybe I was unclear. I didn't mean a perfect record because of course that's silly. By demonstrated history I meant demonstrated "consistent" history. A poster who is consistently harassing people, a poster who consistently walks the racism line, a poster who consistently is screaming about bias or being treated unfairly, etc.