The forum review

[Nixt]

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.

It could well have unfairly spread the work load. There is such thing as OVER Moderation. Better to strike a balance than have too many or too little, imo. Get the balance right and you have a perfect moderation team.

Not to mention the fact that he probably WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED anyway. Can you not get the obvious hints being dropped through this thread lol. J/S

[AgnesIO]

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.

That's what I don't understand.

We are expected to not be one sided, yet if we only have ONE SIDE to the story, how can you not be ONE SIDED.

I have clearly stated at the start of the thread what I think was good/bad about the moderation changes, we are in the feedback section after all.

--

I have nothing against a user being fired, however if you are going to fire a user to make the forum review look nice a smart, at least all back up each other lol

[Mathew]

Why is everyone suddenly complaining about tiny, unimportant and sometimes petty things these days? Or is there only me who doesn't care? :S

Come on, it's Sunday and the start of the holidays; do we really need to go around analysing each others posts to look for a flaws in each others argument?

[immense]

I do feel for that Dictionaries though there was a point when I really wanted to be staff and although I wouldn't care now I would have done a few years ago. I think they should have waited for one of the moderators to resign and just not replace them. When I was a RVR 4 years ago or whatever I would have hated to be told after working hard to pass my trial there was no room and I was the unlucky one to be cut. Awfully unfair. As is life however. Maybe it shows management are willing to make harsh decisions for what they see as the best and can be taken as a sign of intent. Maybe, most likely, I'm looking too deep into things and it's a Habbo related forum.

[Nixt]

That's what I don't understand.

We are expected to not be one sided, yet if we only have ONE SIDE to the story, how can you not be ONE SIDED.

I have clearly stated at the start of the thread what I think was good/bad about the moderation changes, we are in the feedback section after all.

--

I have nothing against a user being fired, however if you are going to fire a user to make the forum review look nice a smart, at least all back up each other lol

Because they have made it bloody obvious through subtle hints that the guy did bugger all and would have been fired eventually regardless. His excuse is of course that there wasn't enough or whatever, but I think it's safe to say that he clearly hasn't done anything and that is not limited to things like actual moderator actions it's stuff like POSTING AROUND THE FORUM, REPORTING TO SUPER MODERATORS, REPORTING POSTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR FORUMS ETC ETC.

For goodness sake people it's obvious why he's been fired and if he has a problem with it he can escalate it to general management who will spell it out even clearer for him.

If you're all that worried: http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/

[Mrs.McCall]

I like the changes, they make real sense.

I think one point that you might come unstuck is to do with the issue of trials. If one of your moderators quits I'm assuming you may open trial applications. That means you'll be advertising for one trialist. Then that person will undergo a trial and perhaps they don't pass. You'll then have to choose another and possibly another.

I mean, I don't know if you have planned around this already but I would presume a method of hiring 3 trialists and then picking the best one?

[AgnesIO]

It could well have unfairly spread the work load. There is such thing as OVER Moderation. Better to strike a balance than have too many or too little, imo. Get the balance right and you have a perfect moderation team.

Not to mention the fact that he probably WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED anyway. Can you not get the obvious hints being dropped through this thread lol. J/S

The fact remains then, if he was going to be fired for another reason, then the appropriate thread should have been made - it shouldn't have said he has been fired to make the numbers right.

---

Anyway enough of the moaning - I look forward to Part two

[Hecktix]

That's what I don't understand.

We are expected to not be one sided, yet if we only have ONE SIDE to the story, how can you not be ONE SIDED.

I have clearly stated at the start of the thread what I think was good/bad about the moderation changes, we are in the feedback section after all.

--

I have nothing against a user being fired, however if you are going to fire a user to make the forum review look nice a smart, at least all back up each other lol

Garion doesn't seem to be being one sided and he doesn't have access to the details either? We would never fire someone unfairly, most of my job involves moderating dismissal decisions and I take it seriously. Should dictionaries require more reasoning for his dismissal he is welcome to PM me.

[AgnesIO]

Because they have made it bloody obvious through subtle hints that the guy did bugger all and would have been fired eventually regardless. His excuse is of course that there wasn't enough or whatever, but I think it's safe to say that he clearly hasn't done anything and that is not limited to things like actual moderator actions it's stuff like POSTING AROUND THE FORUM, REPORTING TO SUPER MODERATORS, REPORTING POSTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR FORUMS ETC ETC.

For goodness sake people it's obvious why he's been fired and if he has a problem with it he can escalate it to general management who will spell it out even clearer for him.

If you're all that worried: http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/

Last thing, the thread that said he had been fired said he was fired to make the numbers right. I am sure it shouldn't have been worded like this, but at the end of the day it was?

I like the changes, they make real sense.

I think one point that you might come unstuck is to do with the issue of trials. If one of your moderators quits I'm assuming you may open trial applications. That means you'll be advertising for one trialist. Then that person will undergo a trial and perhaps they don't pass. You'll then have to choose another and possibly another.

I mean, I don't know if you have planned around this already but I would presume a method of hiring 3 trialists and then picking the best one?

That is a really good idea. Hiring three trialists for one spot would be a fantastic way to find out who really deserves the final spot. +Rep

[Nixt]

The fact remains then, if he was going to be fired for another reason, then the appropriate thread should have been made - it shouldn't have said he has been fired to make the numbers right.

---

Anyway enough of the moaning - I look forward to Part two

Well potentially the review just brought forward the inevitable, so there's nothing really major about it being added to a forum review which must have included the activity and competence of staff. I mean is where it was posted a big deal? I think not. But yes.. part two, woo.