The forum review

[AgnesIO]

Not at all. People seem very quick to make accusations when they have no insight into the work put in behind these things.

I am not basing my feelings on nothing. I have heard one side of the story.

Now obviously, when people do not know both sides of the stories, they are going to believe the only story they have heard.

Which in this case is not in hx's favour.

[Nixt]

Dictionaries has said it was mainly due to his section not having enough activity which lead to not enough moderator action. However that could just be his side of the story and of course I will never hear the other side. All I'm saying is, it may not have been fair.

It potentially could be. It's unfortunate but the fairest way to do it would be to look at activity and choose the people with the most activity. That's not limited to Moderator logs - I am sure they will have taken into account all the things we used to take into account when giving moderators their reports: Infractions given and their quality, number of infractions reversed, hours spent online, whether or not they post often, involvement in the forum team, how often they report things to Super Moderators (signatures etc) and much more. It wouldn't have been a decision made lightly, and although activity within the category may have played a part there are LOADS of other things they would have taken into consideration too.

If this management was a political party you would be CONSERVATIVE. People losing their jobs. How devastating.

Nazis omg

[AgnesIO]

I always find it amusing that moderators get reports partially based on how many people they have infracted

[Hecktix]

I am not basing my feelings on nothing. I have heard one side of the story.

Now obviously, when people do not know both sides of the stories, they are going to believe the only story they have heard.

Which in this case is not in hx's favour.

Well, as you know very well our policies and procedures prevent us from revealing any further information, which is only fair for the member - afterall it is him you are supporting here. The thing is, if these reviews hadn't happened today, and Dictionaries had been fired anyway - nobody would have made anything of it, so I am afraid you are making assumptions on the half story you have.

Milestone, again - how would you be aware of that? Moderators are assessed on many aspects and infractions are not counted towards the moderators report (reversed infractions are however), moderators are also assessed on posting around the forum, moderator logs and "report rule breaking to super moderator" logs. Even in a dead section, should a moderator wish to, they could work hard in other areas which would cancel out the quietness of their section. Of course, this is all hypothetical and nothing to do with Dictionaries getting fired - I just felt I would correct you saying "moderators get judged on infractions".

[Josh]

Hypothetically, if Dictionaries told you it's okay to release the details, would you?

[Nixt]

I always find it amusing that moderators get reports partially based on how many people they have infracted

It's hardly a key to the decision, it's merely an observation. For example if a Moderator in the General Category has issued 0 infractions then you know there is something up, because there are generally more rule breaks in there than anywhere else. It's a small indicator of activity but only plays a small part of the overall report which take into account a huge number of things. You don't know the system that myself and Oli created and spent a lot of time doing, which has been developed monthly by respective FMs since then. It's more than adequate a judge of moderator activity and standard and isn't based solely on infractions, but it is certainly something that needs to be considered, as issuing infractions are a key part of their job.

[AgnesIO]

Well, as you know very well our policies and procedures prevent us from revealing any further information, which is only fair for the member - afterall it is him you are supporting here. The thing is, if these reviews hadn't happened today, and Dictionaries had been fired anyway - nobody would have made anything of it, so I am afraid you are making assumptions on the half story you have.

Obviously not. However the review clearly says:

Staff Changes
Due to these changes, General Management have seen fit to reduce the staff limit for the department. It will now consist of:
3 Global Moderators
3 Forum Super Moderators

Thus, it's regretful to say that Dictionairies. is no longer a Forum Moderator. We thank him for this hard work and time over the past few weeks, and wish him all the best for the future

Which, without even trying to think about it, clearly suggests he has been fired so you can have a perfect number. That's why it is seen as an unfair move.

And once again, I have said myself I am making assumptions based on one side of the story. What else do you expect me to do? Use my physic powers to guess what your side is?

[immense]

p.s. in all seriousness changes had to be made. don't think this will really make much of a difference to us (users) but should help moderators and make the department more effective. although, in theory we could be waiting a while to get unfair infractions to be removed. i like how there are the same amount of moderators (6) as the owners and general management team (6) - nice touch.

[Nixt]

Obviously not. However the review clearly says:



Which, without even trying to think about it, clearly suggests he has been fired so you can have a perfect number. That's why it is seen as an unfair move.

And once again, I have said myself I am making assumptions based on one side of the story. What else do you expect me to do? Use my physic powers to guess what your side is?

That's because he essentially has been fired. "Removed from the team" obviously because he was the least active on the basis of the reasons I posted above and probably more. It's almost certainly fair and if he thinks it is unfair there are plenty of people he can appeal to. I seriously think people should get over it. People moan when they say the forum needs improving and when they make really important and high standard changes people still have to nitpick and moan.

He was fairly dismissed to streamline the department. Big deal.

[Josh]

That's because he essentially has been fired. "Removed from the team" obviously because he was the least active on the basis of the reasons I posted above and probably more. It's almost certainly fair and if he thinks it is unfair there are plenty of people he can appeal to. I seriously think people should get over it. People moan when they say the forum needs improving and when they make really important and high standard changes people still have to nitpick and moan.

He was fairly dismissed to streamline the department. Big deal.

This is an online forum and having one extra moderator for a few months/weeks WOULDN'T HAVE AFFECTED the forum in a bad way. If it was a real life job, it would be an understandable decision to make money; however, they aren't being paid and it wouldn't have hurt for a few months because people do resign as you can see over the last few months.