Mods Moderating Sections

[.:Raymond:.]

Hey,

IMO I think mods should NOT allowed to moderate sections here they are selling there own goods. My reasoning is that when other user that sell in that section get there threads locked, ect. People think mods do it to get rid of competition and such. We don't know if the mods were really doing this or no but yea, if this was here it would get rid of a lot of useless drama.

.:Raymond:. Reviewed by .:Raymond:. on 3rd Mar 2012. Mods Moderating Sections Hey, IMO I think mods should NOT allowed to moderate sections here they are selling there own goods. My reasoning is that when other user that sell in that section get there threads locked, ect. People think mods do it to get rid of competition and such. We don't know if the mods were really doing this or no but yea, if this was here it would get rid of a lot of useless drama. Rating: 5

[DLow]

Yup i agree they shouldnt be able to moderate certain forums ie web hosting etc if they as them self are selling the service.

[pankaj]

Yes, just moderating a section where they sell is just like taking part in a contest organized by themselves.

[Jesse]

Report it if it happens. Mods are no more important then a regular user. Most of the time when a thread is locked, we do not go making an announcement with the reason why. the place would be flooded with useless info then.

Threads are locked for a reason. Not because of "competition."

As for people thinking that; doesn't bother me. We know the truth. People here think a file host not paying is a scam. Shows how much a lot of the users here really know. So does their opinion really matter in the end? Maybe a bit, but oh well.

[.:Raymond:.]

@Jesse

If this rule were to pass thou, none of the above would ever need to happen. Would make it easier to deal with shit here.

[Jesse]

^^ added to my point

If it were to pass, it'd make modding harder on the rest of the staff.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. I just know the mods here are honest. There is always a bad seed here and there though.

[.:Raymond:.]

@Jesse

It may but it would prevent all the useless drama that goes on around here. This wouldn't even effect many mods. The only ones I can think of on the top of my head are LT, RT, and Sp32. And the only real sections affected would be Hosting > Shared and Hosting > Other

[Lifetalk]

The number of such events is grossly insignificant; to the point that this rule is quite a useless one, assuming it passes, which it won't.

The amount of work mods do to keep this place clean is not the kind you can, as a member, imagine. Passing this rules serves to restrict a mod's ability to maintain the forum in the absence of another mod. And for what? To prevent potential issues that involve conflict of interest, which is generally never the case, just a useless whistle being blown by the member.

Your suggestion is counter productive, and is meant to solve an issue that does not yet exist.

[.:Raymond:.]

@Lifetalk

Dam I hadn't thought about that.

[Hawk]

Some of the members of staff are actually specialised to what they do and they're good at moderating places they specialise in. E.g. robert420 moderates the hosting sections as he specialises in hosting. It isn't just that section he moderates, but generally if X doesn't know what to do, we normally leave a report or forward a report to the member of staff that are specialised in that specific field.

I have, nor has any other member of staff took advantage of our powers over competitors. We've been chosen for a reason and that reason being trust. Limiting the sections staff can moderate wouldn't be a good idea, especially when no one is taking advantage of their powers (over competitors).