POLICY: VIPs and Titles

"No one said no. So I changed it."

And that's the problem right there, administration.
Not that it's a world shattering revelation to anyone but there it is.

 

The entire MS had a say, not just one admin.

Honestly, I didn't change it because Sape said yes. I changed it because no one objected. Had people objected, I wouldn't have changed it. Since no one did, I felt there wasn't a problem with it. I had prior Admin approval, and current MS approval. If it's an issue for users who feel my title is objectionable, then that's another issue. But I don't feel the MS or the admins have to be dragged in the mud for giving me permission to do something that makes me happy, and as far as I can tell brings harm to no one.

 

But isn't the rule that you can't have novelty titles?
Has that been changed and we haven't been notified?
Cause if it hasn't changed, then someone should have set this stratight at the time and we wouldn't have a reem of mods with novelty titles.

Unless of course it has been changed and you're all allowed to do it and I haven't read the MS Update where it was mentioned.

IMO all mod/manager/admin titles should simply state their rank and the forums they run. End of debate, creativity and thread.

 

As one of the common folk, I have no problem with dehrian having 3SA Sherrif in his title, or Amos having JCC Manager of Cookie Goodness in his. They both gave me a chuckle. The only ones who really care about titles and the such really are mods and ex-mods(mostly). As long as you can piece together that so-and-so moderates this forum, what's the big problem?

 

Wow, is this really a problem?

 

MariahJSkywalker posted on 5/17/05 1:35am

---

As one of the common folk, I have no problem with dehrian having 3SA Sherrif in his title, or Amos having JCC Manager of Cookie Goodness in his. They both gave me a chuckle. The only ones who really care about titles and the such really are mods and ex-mods(mostly). As long as you can piece together that so-and-so moderates this forum, what's the big problem?
[hr][/blockquote]

I agree, as long as I know who is a mod and who is an admin, and that users can call on them...what's the big deal? Other boards let users have wacky titles. Not suggesting that here, I'm just saying that if it isn't a big deal everywhere else why should it be here? Even if it's been a changed policy.

 

Other boards allow profanity. Other boards allow porn. Other boards allow you to post hacking exploits, and torrent links to bootlegged material.

We are not other boards.

What's the big deal ? Well, there *isn't* a big deal - the future of the JC doesn't depend on the outcome of this discussion. It's just the some people view having 'wacky' titles as an abuse of the position that we hold at the JC. Other's don't view it as a big issue, and both sides view the other sides opinion as silly.

*That's* the issue.

It doesn't make a difference to the running of the boards, other than highligh the separation of the regular users and the MS. That separation (IMO) should be as little as possible.

 

Well, for me it's not that it's an abuse of power, but that there was such a big push made for titles for everyone who was a VIP or regular member (who were 'stripped' of titles and only allowed for VIPs) that was the actual reason in the first place for this thread. If there was such a burning need for a reformation of titles for everyone not a moderator, why is that exempt for moderators?

 

Moderator = 1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
3 : a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor


Magistrate = 1 : an official entrusted with administration of the laws: as a : a principal official exercising governmental powers over a major political unit (as a nation) b : a local official exercising administrative and often judicial functions c : a local judiciary official having limited original jurisdiction especially in criminal cases



Well I thought they were close enough.

 

I'm going to respond to a few general points.

If Sape posted that reply to dehrian on 2.3.05, then does that mean that the policy described in the first post of this thread has changed somehow?

No, it doesn't. The first post specifically addresses the VIP title policy. If you read it (and I did not change anything with my edits, excpt to lock and unlock it), it does not once mention moderators. THere is a reason for this. There are different policies for moderators than there are for VIPs. When we did the reform, our focus was entirely on the VIPs. Moderator titles and colors didn't enter into it at all.

But isn't the rule that you can't have novelty titles?
Has that been changed and we haven't been notified?

Most of the policies that we announce publicly are those that affect the users. We don't always announce when an internal policy is changed. It's internal to the MS, and doesn't really affect much outside of there.

As for if it was changed, read back through my posts, and you will see that I posted the exact bits from MS on this issue, from 2/3/05.

Well, for me it's not that it's an abuse of power, but that there was such a big push made for titles for everyone who was a VIP or regular member (who were 'stripped' of titles and only allowed for VIPs) that was the actual reason in the first place for this thread.

That "burning need" came about for one big reasons. We realized that there was no clearly defined policy on awarding VIPships or titles, and so we endeavored to standardize the process. However, as with all policies, it is not intended to be absolute. For example, last week I requested that I be demoted to normal user and banned while I am on my honeymoon (starting sometime tomorrow evening), for security reasons. I also asked for an exemption to the rule on titles, so that I could keep a title while banned, and have it state why I was demoted. I asked for it because the last time I needed to step away from the boards for a few days, I was similarly demoted and banned, and a lot of people freaked out over it.

My request was approved.

If there was such a burning need for a reformation of titles for everyone not a moderator, why is that exempt for moderators?

There are many reasons why it is not unreasonable to exempt moderators. Many of them are very similar to the reasons to prohibit them.

For example, opponents of joke titles say that they emphasize the gap between users and moderators (the whole ITS issue). However, they can also help bridge that gap (see E_V's comments earlier). I know that there are quite a few users out there who seem to think that some mods lack a sense of humor. Some people have said that about Genghis, for example (when he really does have quite a sense of humor, just a little more sarcastic than people expect). Where some people see an abuse of power/elitism, others see it as evidence that moderators can have fun.

Depending on your perspective, a joke title can either be a symptom of the problem (the gap between users and moderators) or a solution to it.

On another front, little things like that can be a great benefit to moderators. It can help reduce burnout by adding a little bit of fun variety to moderating. It really is such a small thing, but it is often the little things that can make all the difference.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball_Kinnison posted on 5/17/05 6:41am

---

Where some people see an abuse of power/elitism, others see it as evidence that moderators can have fun.

Depending on your perspective, a joke title can either be a symptom of the problem (the gap between users and moderators) or a solution to it.

It really is such a small thing, but it is often the little things that can make all the difference.

Kimball Kinnison
[hr][/blockquote]

Yep, See I happpend to *like* seeing the words "3SA Sherriff" and "Magristrate" ect for the reasons posted above.

Both posters are [i]active[/i] in thier forums as both users and moderators, and I can almost always tell when they are posting with "Mod athority" (as in [b]Mod so and So Edit: You can't say that[/b] vs contributing to the discusion. In the rare event I need to PM a Mod (lately with the influx of new folk that don't understand the *F-bomb* is a forum wide no-no it's more frequent than it has been since I joined) and I'm in a forum where I don't know who the 'regular' mod is, I can always *gasp* simply read the header to find out 'who's the mod'...

 

What's the big deal ? Well, there *isn't* a big deal - the future of the JC doesn't depend on the outcome of this discussion. [...] Other's don't view it as a big issue, and both sides view the other sides opinion as silly.

And this is new in Comms?

 

The policy regarding the information outlined in the initial post is essentially set. What I really want to get a feel for is our titles. That's where conversation has led us. Do regular users feel we can have informational titles with some humor per se or should they be informational only because it's what we require of everyone else and if we didn't it would be a double-standard?

Examples:

Informational Titles w/ Humor: 3SA sheriff, 3SA Magistrate

Information Only Title: JCC Manager, Senate Manager

 

I say go for it. I don't have a problem with it at all. In our FF alone we have two or three titles that quite honestly don't make any sense having. Heck, mine could be considered one of them, I guess.

 

So it's clear, this discussion is solely about JC mod titles and not any FF titles. Different policies entirely regarding titles and colors.

 

Right. That was a general observation. I say Mods should go for it.

 

Do regular users feel we can have informational titles with some humor per se or should they be informational only because it's what we require of everyone else and if we didn't it would be a double-standard?

I think that if you allow informational titles with humor for the mods, you should for everyone with an informational title, so as not to set a double standard. That means, however, that everyone should have the same access to creating and editing a humorous title as the mods do, meaning that whenever someone requests an edit to their title, it should happen. Which is (for obvious reasons) impractical. Thus, there should be no informational titles with humor, as they can't be provided for everyone.

The information serves a purpose, the humor doesn't.

 

I think if mods need silly titles to help "bridge the gap" and remind users that they are friendly and approachable, they should work on their people skills.

Mods should be POSTING in their community, and an involved member. If they are that way, the regular users should already feel comfortable sending them a PM for a question or help.

I still think the silly titles cause more of an aggrivating double standard than they do help user/mod realtions.

 

I still think the silly titles cause more of an aggrivating double standard than they do help user/mod realtions.

For some forums (such as the JCC), that may be the case. However, in other forums, it may be just the opposite (such as in Games).

If we make it a blanket ban, then it removes the option from those forums where it could be effective. If we allow it, then moderators still have the option of not having joke titles.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: I guess what I am saying is that moderators are supposedly selected because they tend to exercise good judgement and know their forums. Shouldn't we be able to trust them to know what would help their forum, too?

 

"I think if mods need silly titles to help "bridge the gap" and remind users that they are friendly and approachable, they should work on their people skills."

keyword is help bridge the gap. It's not their last and only device to seem super-funny and cool, after everything else fails.
I don't think a mod with crappy people skills who knows he's not well-liked would bother going through the "effort" of changing a title.

Why are those titles thought up anyway? Aren't they born out of user interaction? Aren't there stories behind them?

 

If I may inject my two cents here, titles like "3SA Sheriff" and "3SA Magistrate" are pretty basic and still relay what that person does. Plus a simple click on their username will show you the exact position they hold whether it be Manager, Moderator, Administrator, or otherwise. Just so you can tell what they do from their title I don't see the difference with using "Manager" or "Sheriff" (as an example).

Again, just my two cents.

 

I see no problem with them because they still tell you the information you need to know.
The humor is a bonus.

There is no - "everybody deserves them if one person gets them" because they don't.
That's the way life is sometimes.
The queen of England gets to be called "Your Highness" while Laura Bush and Oprah do not.
Elvis is "the King of Rock & Roll" Wil Smith is "the Fresh Prince" and Billy Joel is "the Piano Man" while Raven Samone has no title.

 

For the love of... I can't believe that this issue is the basis of 15-plus-page thread of users and former-mods whinging about trivial things.

This is a SW message board for people to come online, discuss SW entities, have fun, make friends and quite frankly...have more fun. If there are moderators with, shall we say, slightly more creative titles than others, so what? We're not little children (at least, that's the theory) that start crying and shouting "Whaaa, I want one like that!" when we see a neat little title under a moderator's name. Take dehrian for instance. So his title has the word "Sheriff" in it. So what? We all want one like that? We all need it? No we don't and people that think this issue involves double standards need to remind themselves that this is just a message board, with un-paid, volunteering moderators. What difference does one word make? Nothing. I feel stupider than a village idiot for pointing it out, but everyone seems to ranting about dehrian's title like it's the end of the world. When you read the title, along with the colours and the acronym "3SA", logic would denote that this guy is in some shape or form related to moderation side of the 3SA. So why the whole big ho-ha about it then? This isn't an issue that's going to make or break these forums. So stop acting like the admin are causing a big problem by not deciding on a strict policy regarding titles.

Seriously. Grow up. Go and watch Revenge of the Sith (when it comes out) and stop trying to turn these forums into something that they're not. This isn't the political stage where everything needs a policy, followed through by respective governing and ruling by the admin. It's a title. Get over it.

 

I personally am in favor of allowing MS members to have their title as they choose. As was said a couple pages back, it is "a thankless job". This is obviously no exception to that- mods are doing hard work and although it may be a rewarding job for them, but really have nothing to show for it. I think that the mods might as well get this tiny reward.

Not to mention, I do not find it angering when I see a fun title. I don't mind one bit. This is a message board where we talk about Star Wars for entertainment, for fun. Fun!

 

Personally, I think that as long as they convey information, they should be fine. And, personally, I don't have a problem with mods being allowed them and VIPs restricted only to informational titles; people need to be able to know that a VIP is NOT a mod. Yeah, there's the line in the profile near the name, but it took me a good long time to notice that myself.

Plus, being a mod means you get little benefits here and there; it goes with the territory of putting up with everything they have to deal with.