We may "barely" have one, but we still have one. Therefore, why not worry about rating mods. It seems that moderators and the community aspect are greater issues than the functionality of the forums. I'd rather have a barely functional forum but with good mods and members rather than a great forum with a crappy community and staff.

So we dont promoted a site where moderators gay it up before the site is repaired.

Hm. I'm tempted heavily to give KK a thumbs down just for lulz.

You know that people are going to downrate the moderator that does something against them? I have a feeling that every time I edit/delete/close something that person will automatically give me a bad rating, you know, since not everybody here would able mature about it.

Oh you know I did that to everyone just for the lulz!

I'd be more wary of the community than the staff.

more than 3 ppl think Dapper is doing a good job...


This is hopeless.

Well I would have given him a thumbs up if I was taking this seriously. By the way, your opinion is worthless and completely unfounded.

I think it's a fine idea. At first I was thinking I'd suggest something more complicated, but this could due. If it's taken seriously and who is voting what for who is kept track of, then it's good. If you notice a moderator has a low approval rating but you can see it's because of many immature/moderated people, then note can be taken of that. Then, if a moderator ever gets a really crappy approval rating and it seems justified a topic can be made to discuss. But considering the people you hire (and on occasion from my suggestion ) there should be very few squabbles over moderators.

I don't like the idea. I think it's a bad idea to have this system in because it doesn't accomplish anything. What would the admins do if someone who was a great mod got bad ratings? Or if a bad mod got good ratings? It's not like it makes any effect on whether you're going to keep or fire a mod (and it shouldn't!). Frankly, you should simply maintain the moderating team by actually talking to them, and putting mature individuals who are good at resolving issues in moderator positions. If someone has something negative to say about a mod, they should talk to Moose or IP about it. This also allows them to use their judgement, as opposed to some computer pumping out a bunch of inaccurate numbers. Even though there are a lot of them, it's a lot of data which doesn't mean anything.

Summary: If members have a problem with a mod, they should talk to an admin. This system should not be used.

You fine me too much, but I still give you a thumbs up. Discrimination much?

I second that.

Don't take it wrong, I think it's great that you've created something to increase the quality of the moderating team, but I don't think this is the way to accomplish that.

actually, if you really think this system is a good idea, I have a suggestion to make: people who get fined or otherwise punished by a moderator aren't allowed to modify their votes (for any of the moderators) for 7 days. I think this is enough time to take most of the 'heat' off someone's frustration at being fined, but still gives them a voice if they still think they've been wrongly punished.

Also, on the page one of the suggestions is "Things to consider: Is the moderator active? Is a moderator of a specific forum knowledgable on the subjects discussed? Does the moderator enforce The Rules? Does the moderator follow the rules? How does the moderator handle violations? How does the moderator respond to disagreements?"
Why not condense these into a few distinct questions, and let people rate these aspects individually? Surely this more specific information would be more helpful to everyone.

That actually is a rather good idea. Getting deeper in different questions for each mod instead of just doing thumbs down and up. It's so stupid that there isn't even an average choice it is either good or bad but not average.

Keep in mind this is all an "experiment"...
Should this thing turn out to be stupid and made of fail... I can always put the code for something else... sort of a public polling station. Just take out the names of moderators and put something like "Warn Levels?" or "Membergroups?" and it gets refitted for a better purpose.

You can read deleted posts in the topic review when posting a reply.

Edit: oops this was supposed to be in the bug list topic.

I told IP about it probably months ago now over aim. It's clearly not a priority.

Moose has been deleting posts a lot on me lately, but I'd still give him a big thumbs up, it depends on whether or not you were fair about it . And I'm sure that's how most members will vote on people, seeing as that's how it seems to be going.

This is true. If I took a step back and looked at my post and read it throughly and still thought that I was right and the moderator was just stepping over the lines, then I would post something negative in this hypothetical points system. It would also be directly relevant to how many minerals were taken. This pretty much shows how much the moderator thought you broke the rules. I have been fined 1 mineral by Dapperdann which means to me that he must of just made a minor edit/combined two posts. There are a lot of variables in this.

Yeah, I deleted two posts that were spam. That's some hardcore shit right there.

You've done half of any moderation done to me But I still love ya