Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
about the inflation of moderators counts even more for globs.
we have there everything, sincer ones, lazy ones, miss ellies and perpetrators ...
a bit too fully featured in my humble and modest and worldfamous opinion ... ~*~
this is a bussiness, I can't go to MacDonalds and tell them that I don't like they way they make their hamburgers and expect them to change, however I can complain about an employee to the management, and then he would take care of it as he sees fit, most likely in private, hmmm. just like here
gekrompen hoofd: The Global Moderators will look at everyones issues, pawns included. We are in a private board with Fencer to discus any issue that needs talked about - pawns, knights, or rooks.
The Listener toimetatud (24. aprill 2005, 03:46:12)
Lemme try this again -- We need Democracy around here. An Official Moderators' Council would be able to address EVERYONE'S grievances, not just Members. I'm talking about people who post.
they sort of have that already, a fellowship for moderators that fencer sits in on, if someone has a problem with a moderator,they should contact another moderator with their grievence ant they would take it up on that board
gekrompen hoofd: The number of mods on that board is to ensure that the board is covered at all hours when needed. With this being a global community, its difficult to cover all time zones.
The moderators tend to be united in the decisions as well.
OptimistMB, I agree! That's exactly how the process works.
OptimistMB: you make a lot of sense.
You have my vote for lead moderator and I think many should really pay close attention to what you say, even if it means changing their minds a little.
After all, discussions are pointless if all you are doing is trying to change someone elses ideas and are not open to your own point of view changing also.
gekrompen hoofd: First, I should mention that I haven't noticed a problem but if there is a problem I would attempt to work within the current leadership system to fix the problem. I would start with discussing the problem with the moderators that are not causing the problem. They may be able to convince their fellow moderators to straighten up.
If that fails to work, I would bring the problem to the attentin of those who run BrainKing. Since they have a vested interest in the proper running of their web site, I would assume that if my concerns are valid they would do something about it.
If the above process didn't work, I would suggest alternatives to remove the offending parties. One possible alternative would be to create a lead moderator or a moderators' council. Complaints would be sent to this person or group to investigate. They would have the power to recomend solutions up to and including dismissal of any moderator who behaves inappropriately. The owners of BrainKing would review their recommendations and make the final decision.
gekrompen hoofd: The problem with your solution is that moderator reduction is as easy as getting rid of some moderators, it doesn't need a rule. On the other hand, if you insist on understaffing, especially with volunteers, you'll find yourself shorthanded when there really is a need for moderation.
I have moderated and administered a number of discussion boards in the past ten years. Those with lots of moderators were almost always better run than those with just a few.
Rules for the sake of rules don't solve problems. If moderators are such a large problem on this site, address why the problem causers can't be removed, don't simply remove random volunteers.
gekrompen hoofd: hmhm - yehes less mods less fiddling sums it down
quite well thusfar - an inflation brings too many perpetrators in a postion
where they cAn enjoy themselves swelling to judges ... latenite comedy ... ~*~ .
The Listener toimetatud (24. aprill 2005, 02:37:05)
Let's face it, there is no quick fix to 'problem-causers' in high places. BUT, Moderator Reduction is a good start, because it would greatly decrease the possibility for contradicting opinions among Mods, which does affect how a Moderator will act on any given situation. It would also ensure a better chance that many 'problem-causers' will be blocked out.
OptimistMB: ur so right but we can't get rid of the
problem causers since they are moderators creating rules which
may not ge rid of the problem causers ... - wannan aspirin or pacifyer ? ~*~
Teema: Re: Whups, almost didn't mention the topic!
gekrompen hoofd: If moderators are causing problems, I think taking action against those causing the problems would be a better move than creating rules which may not get rid of the problem causers.
The Listener toimetatud (24. aprill 2005, 02:28:57)
Aherm, yeh, Ladies and Gentlemen I shall like to bring up discussion on something which would help this site tremendously. It is called 'Moderator Reduction'.
Take the General Chat board for example, there are currently six (6) people Moderating that board. Now what would be so bad about taking that number down to just 3 (three) Moderators (including the Head-Mod) ?
And another suggestion (you don't have to implement it if you're in doubt) would be to put a limit on how many Co-Moderators can be appointed by the Head-Moderator. Perhaps only two extra Co-Mods could be allowed (just a shot in the dark)
This way we won't have so much Moderator-related clashing and things can get done more smoothly on the discussion boards!
OptimistMB: A simple solution and a great idea. Once placed there, they'd have to play a certain number of games to get back on the established list again? 25 ought to do it.
grenv: As grenv pointed out, there are apparently people who are high in the rankings who no longer play here. Perhaps after a period of time (3 months? 6 months? a year?) the system could move these players from the main list to the provisional list. In this way, their accomplishments would still be noted but the main list would be made up of those who are active BrainKing members.
Since there are sixty-five games and fifty-two weeks in a year, there could be a new "official championship" tournament for each game each week giving us a new champion in almost every game once a year. If we wanted more opportunities than that, we could double up and have new champions for every game every six months or have four championships start each week giving new champions every quarter. (Just expanding on these great ideas )
grenv: When you say 1 round only, you must also mean only 1 section, also? Correct?
I think ties would still be relatively common, though..
I do think, however, that some sort of "official" championship tournament would be fun..
wayney: I know that. I even have that page always open on a separate tabon my browser. And that's the smile list I was refering to.
But if you look closely, you won't see this one there yet...
grenv: Some games, even with one day per move option can last for more than a year (AntiBG come to mind, for instance, and some Espionage games might qualify as well). The no vacation seems a bit harsh in these cases, and what's the fun in knowing the 2004 WORLD CHAMPION in mid 2005?
(peida) Kui Sa tahad kindla mängutasemega vastast, siis võid uue partii loomisel määrata tema BKR vahemiku. Siis teised mängijad ei näe ega saa seda kutset vastu võtta. (Katechka) (näita kõiki vihjeid)