- Age / Gender:
- 26, Male
- Yarm, UK
- All Stats >
If you find me ignorant, enlighten me.
- Community Stats
Level 32 Blank Slate
Ranked as Staff Sergeant
Contact Info / Websites
After seeing yet another stupid baww thread whining about a mod locking things that didn't belong in General, I decided I've had enough of the fact that most of the criticisms of the mod team are little more than directionless, incoherent anger that fizzles out in a day. What if a mod really is being an overly authoritative asshole and, due to the structureless nature of most of the complaints, gets away with it by passing all of them off as petty butthurt?
This is my attempt at separating the mods that are here for the right reasons from those that aren't (or at least, finding out once and for all if there are any genuine pricks on the mod team). The idea is simple:
Numbers don't lie. By looking at the mod's recent post history and assigning numerical values to certain types of behaviour, it's possible to create a scoring system that uses nothing but their own posting habits as evidence of excessive authoritarianism, thereby removing the inherent (and rampant) user bias in judging their actions.
The method has 3 steps to it, and all of them use the last 100 posts of the mod's post history. Each step will produce a 'final score', and the sum of those 3 final scores is what, in my personal method, is used to determine the likelihood that a mod is using the BBS for the sake of a personal need to feel superior instead of a desire to maintain and improve the community they're supposed to be a part of.
Look at the last 100 posts the mod has made. Count the number of lock messages. The reason for counting the percentage of lock messages is self-explanatory. The final score for this step is:
less than 10 lock messages = 1
10 - 15 = 2
16-20 = 3
21 - 29 = 4
30 or more = 5
Take the percentage of the 100 posts that were NOT lock messages. Count how many different threads they appear in. A post history that is restricted to just a few threads is an indicator of a lack of interest in the wider community as a whole, and many older users often end up circle-jerking in threads they started / liked when they were 'regulars'. This isn't a desirable behaviour in a person who has an obligation to assist the entire community. The final scores for this are:
More than 20 different threads = 0
15 - 19 = 1
10 - 14 = 2
5 - 9 = 3
less than 5 = 5
(This step is harder to explain, but not actually hard to do once you get what I'm trying to say.)
Going back to the posts that ARE lock messages, see how many are adjacent to other lock messages. Count every time 2 lock messages are next to each other in the post history. 2 lock messages together equals 1 'link' between lock messages. 3 lock messages together will equal 2 'links' as the 'top / middle' and 'middle / bottom' post joins each count as 1.
Why does this matter? It shows if the mod is locking things in waves, raising the possibility that he or she is actively going looking for things to moderate instead of just dealing with them as he / she comes across them. Going out of your way to use mod tools indicates that they like the mod buttons a little too much (or at least, more than using the forums normally, which should be the main point of coming here, moderator or not). The final scores for this are:
3 or less = 0
4 - 6 = 2
7 - 9 = 3
10 or more = 5
Add up the 3 final scores you got from all of the above steps. Based on the result, the likelihood that the mod in question is moderating more for the sake of his / her own ego than anything else is:
3 or less = Very unlikely
4 - 6 = Unlikely
7 - 9 = Possible
10 - 12 = Likely
13 - 15 = Very likely
This is the most reasonable way I can think of officially standardising how we, as ordinary users, can judge how the mods act. However, it does have its limitations. These scores can cause a mod to appear power-hungry if something such as a spam flood or stupid meme forces them to lock a lot of things in quick succession. If you want to be really thorough, you can do the calculation again with the next 100 posts (posts 101 - 200 in their history). If you get an overall score that's within 2 points of the first, it's safe (IMO) to say that what you're seeing isn't a random blip.
And yes, this only works on forum mods. And no, most of the people who cry over mods will not suddenly stop crying as a result of reading this (hell, it's FAR too much effort to actually do your own research before calling someone out on abusing their position right?). Most of the people who cry about mods won't read it, full stop. But if it gets so much as one person to stop and think about what they're actually doing when they go rage at Wade, or one more person besides me to stop and think about if all the complaints really do have some truth to them, then it was worth writing as far as I'm concerned.
And if you are a forum mod, and do this on yourself and get a 'likely / very likely' score, please have a long, hard think about why you're really here.
(K, I'm fucking done.)
Recent Game Medals
Total Medals Earned: 164 (From 29 different games.)