Do you think we should choose who the mods are?

Wouldn't it be more fair for the people of GAG to choose who the mods are? There are many overly-sensitive mods on this site that hide questions and opinions just because they find it offensive to THEM.

We all have an idea of who those mods are, and I personally don't want someone that gets offended by the slightest thing, to be a mod, cause they will end up hiding every single thing, as they already do. That added to the fact that they have a quota they have to meet, makes things even worse.
Plus, we have dozens of mods that we don't even need.

So, do you think GAG should let us choose who becomes mod? Let the majority decide.

I've been asked twice to become a mod, so I don't know exactly what their criteria is xD

  • Yes, we should choose
    58% (18)50% (12)55% (30)Vote
  • No, we should let the admins choose
    42% (13)50% (12)45% (25)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

2|0
20|15

Most Helpful Girl

  • @AleDeEurope why did you decline if you would like to see things "better"? It doesn't matter who the moderators are, they're still going to be human. Hell, there are a couple of super/uber mods that have me blocked. LOL - what does that say about personal views?

    Anyway, the number of posts that you report, and the success ratio of those reports are the main criteria. Which means, yours must have been pretty good.

    http://www.girlsaskguys.com/faq/moderators

    Also, once in a while, a moderator has their mod status revoked other for poor community behavior, or unsatisfactory success ratios. I would hope that if one (or some) are "abusing their power" - that the admins would catch on and revoke their moderator status.

    I didn't see anything wrong with the CAH posts, but if their weren't reinstated by admin after being hidden and reviewed, they must've somehow violating posting rules.

    http://www.girlsaskguys.com/faq/posts

    0|1
    0|0
    • I said no cause I don't agree with how the mods should operate. I believe we should be allowed to say anything we want, except in very special cases like if they're inciting violence and/or terrorism, obviously that should go, or if they post a porn picture.
      Words don't hurt. So if someone calls you an asshole, deal with it, get over it, you're not gonna die, and plus, it's their opinion about you.
      I wouldn't hide even half the stuff I'm "supposed" to hide, so I don't want to be part of a "group" that I don't agree with how they operate. Plus, I would never meet my quota xD

    • OK. Fair enough. I'm sure they're are plenty of other on-line communities that allow for a lot more "spirited behavior" let's say.

      But like I said, we are all human, so it's always going to be a judgment call. You'd just be a "liberal" judge. ;)

Most Helpful Guy

  • Picking out mods from the people we like just so that they could moderate based on our preferences? Instead of letting an unbiased system pick them for us?
    Granted, the system can not tell wether the person in question is overly sensitive, or faulty in any other way, or not but it still none the less is a better and more fair option than making moderating in to yet another damned popularity fest.

    Mean, it would be highly convenient for you if only your friends were moderators. That way they would be

    3|1
    0|0
    • ... inclined to not hide your stuff, giving you more freedom in writting obscene shit that ofherwise would not slide.

    • Show All
    • But same thing could happen with this system, and it is happening. The system doesn't know if the chosen one will abuse their power, if they'll be biased, or favor certain people.
      At least if we're able to choose, we the people are responsible if that happens.
      How is someone that is an absolute sexist who doesn't want to listen to other people's opinions, a mod? That's an obvious sign that the system is failing. People know who these people are, if we are able to choose, we won't choose the sexist and racist ones.

    • True, even someone chosen by the system can change for the worst afterwards.

      "At least if we're able to choose, we the people are responsible if that happens."

      And what good does that do us? What difference does it make where the blame for bad mods is put?

      Look, the way I see it - BOTH a system and a user based selection would be faulty BUT the system is the leaser evil here. Becaue a mod handpicked by other people would be cosen simply based off of popularity. And no, arguing that people would 'fairly' choose them based on what they believe are 'good' criteria is naive. Sure, you may bieve that you yourself will perhaps be true to your word and choose people whom you actually deem fit for the task... but most will still simply choose people they juat like or are friends with. That's a given.

      So in light of that, I'd much rather prefer the unbiased, although admittedly faulty, but still unbiaser system with no affections for single individuals, over biased humans.

What Girls Said 19

  • There have been tons of offensive things that I've come across but haven't removed because it didn't break a rule. I'm pretty sure most mods are the same.

    7|2
    0|0
  • At some point in time, I think every year the admins would hold 'Mod Selections' where users could pick who they felt should become a mod. Not too sure if that's still happening or not though...

    Regardless, I think there would be a lot of bias and subjectivity if users were allowed to choose who should become a mod all the time. Even though being popular and well-liked amongst the community are good traits for becoming one, it's ultimately the report success ratio that is the most important factor.

    2|3
    0|0
  • I think we should let the admins because if we chose instead then I bet you only the popular users will get moderator status. People will only choose the well known users. Well known gagers are friends with a bunch of other gagers which increase their chances of getting that mod privilege. Think about it, of course people are going to pick their friends or people they mention all the time in popularity questions. This makes people who are able to perform a good job in moderating this but are unpopular left out. If we get to choose then it will decrease chances for users like me to become a mod. Another good reason why admins should be the ones to choose is because they can see the reports we make. They select the moderators based on that. If they see that the user has clicked on a fair amount of reports on posts that go against the posting guidlines, then the admins might select that user as a mod. It will show that user will do a good job at hidding posts that can later be confirmed to be removed. Us regular users can't judge based on that. We can't tell if a user reports or not, therefore we don't deserve to choose who can and who can not be a moderator.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Yes i think that should be an option , but in all fairness i would choose the mods who are mods right now. With the exception of one or two.

    0|3
    0|0
  • I think they should be able to put it out there, but the admins would have the last say.

    As far as being offended and hiding things, the admins have the last say on that as well. If it doesn't come back, then it should have been hidden in the first place.

    4|2
    0|0
  • YOU TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO TAKE MY JOB PUNK? 😠

    2|1
    0|0
  • Not sure how well that would go with people from gag voting on who they would want as a mod.

    Though they should change who becomes a mod and the quota thing.

    I have no idea what you have to do to get them to start asking you. A long with a lot of things that they have to do.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I have no idea either. I barely ever report stuff, only when it's pornographic content, like when you find a dude with his dick as a profile pic. Besides that, I barely ever report. Maybe they just focus on how active you are.

    • Show All
    • Now I refuse to believe that from a veteran gamer. 200+ APM I bet, you just give the rest of us a chance by not reporting 😁

    • @Cosytoasty When it comes to acting fast on finding that kind of thing here I do. Plus it's why I'm not that great at league of legends. :D

  • I like the idea

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yeah. When your account gets frozen for basically no reason it's quite clear that there are a few who just loooooove to abuse their power and I have a feeling I know who they could be. Or the party poopers, those fucks who took down all the CAH questions, even though it wasn't necessary, just to fill their quota I'm guessing. GaG staff have done a shitty job when it comes to selecting mods. There definitely are some who do not deserve that position.

    1|1
    0|0
    • What were the CAH questions?

    • Show All
    • Hey well Max's question appears to have survived for whatever reason lol

    • @dangerDoge Pfft, he always gets away with everything 😂

  • You mean like the elections? Yeah, that's a very good idea :D

    0|2
    0|0
  • I wouldn't mind if there was a poll for potential mods and the community voted or something.

    0|1
    0|0
  • viva la democracia!
    viva la revolucion!
    xD

    1|1
    0|0
  • You do know not everyone who is a mod didn't ask for the job right? Some of us (like me) were given the offer through GaG for it. :T

    0|1
    0|0
    • I know, I was asked twice and "declined" twice.

    • I ignored it for like a good 2 months, but people being stupid enough to as questions with pictures including nude photo's of themselves is what made me cave in so I could make sure things like those were taken down asap because they weren't being taken down sooner like I hoped they would be when I reported them. Seriously, there were youngin's askin' questions showing their taints 'n' everything, and I'm like "Are you seriously posting child porn on here?" Why are some people so dumb? e. e

  • Most mods will do that, even if they were picked by the people of GaG.

    2|1
    0|0
  • Yes we should and please people vote for me 😃😃😃😃

    0|1
    0|0
  • Sounds like a good idea.

    0|1
    0|0
  • A lot of offensive stuff doesn't get removed.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Sure, sounds fine by me.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Even if we voted mods in we could still end with some off the wall mods.

    0|1
    0|0

What Guys Said 14

  • I would imagine a better solution would be more so a mix of the two. Example being "hey, these are people who we chose as potential mods" and the GAGers decide who they want. I don't know if that would be a good plan, but it's a thought.

    It's starting to feel like we're making a governmental system. Now we just need to formulate a legislative system and elect a president haha

    As for the quota thing, I decided at one point that I was going to only hide things and not think about the quota. That was actually partially the reason why I messaged the admins at one point to stop being a mod. (Since then I worked my way back up.) I can't guarantee my judgement is perfect-- I'm human after all, but I like to think I do a decent job lol.

    I mean, if someone was REALLY worried about their quota, they can google all the past "answermien" posts that were spammed by the guy with a billion accounts. I'm pretty sure there are still hundreds of them on gag in the archives haha

    1|1
    0|0
  • The worst thing about the moderation of the site is that the mods have quotas. I don't agree with that at all. That incentivizes the mods to go out looking for something -- anything -- that just might be offensive to somebody. It shouldn't work that way.

    3|1
    0|0
  • Sure. And let prisoners select who the guards are.

    The job of the mods is to monitor what is put on here and to hide things that violate the rules. But when they do, it then goes to the admins, who will reinstate it or delete it. The mod hiding is only temporary. So if you are unhappy with things that have been removed, realize it was the administration that made that decision. So apparently the mods did the right thing by the rules that the admins administer.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Yes, but I don't want my stuff to be hidden for who knows how long. I've had opinions/questions hidden for hours until the admins took a loot at it.

    • So have I. Big deal. It is not like a bomb is being dropped and we have to save the world quickly. A small delay does not mean that you will not get your word out.

      And you can often speed up the process by letting an admin know that you feel wronged. I can only remember one time that I had something permanently removed and it was because I used offensive language. The owner of the opinion reported me as best as I can tell. I argued the point because I had simply responded to a comment that was offensive toward me. The admin agreed that my statement was offensive and it was deleted. But the opinion owner's statement was also deleted. Bet it surprised her that she had brought about the removal of her own comment.

  • I think it would be best to have a mixture of both. The admins could select few candidates and the users could vote for the candidates, but that seems like too much work and too much formality lol

    0|1
    0|0
    • That's what I was thinking. They select a few, and then make a poll and let us vote.
      It's a little bit more work, but I think it's worth it. There are people that are mods, that I and others, don't want them to be mods. I'm pretty sure that many mods right now wouldn't have become mods if people were allowed to choose.

    • lmao I get what you mean and yeah the selection process they currently have is horrible cause even I used to be a mod xD and I am the type of person to have content removed.

  • I do not think that users should choose moderators. The entire premise of that is that special interests would arise and even though the moderation system now does have special interest behavior alongside its prejudices it probably works better than if it were user decided.

    They used to do this a long time ago though.

    2|1
    0|0
    • How would that arise special treatment?

    • Show All
    • But that thing happens already. "Popular" people getting away with sexist and racist comments, just because.
      If we're allowed to choose, I think that wouldn't happen as often. It will still happen, but not as much.

    • I completely agree and am not saying that the current system is perfect but I do think that between the two evils allowing voting wouldn't be best. What MIGHT be a better idea is rotating the moderation. That way no one gets too haughty for too long and furthermore perhaps voting on moderator performance or being able to see who is moderating what would be more fair since that allows for policing the police?

  • Well, voting seems to be a fantastic idea for the mods, I support.

    0|1
    0|0
  • This is where I try to be philiophocal and say "democracy in its purest form is mob rule".

    I say leave it to admins, but members can most certainly recommend others to be mods, and the admins can have the final word

    1|1
    0|0
  • the whole system seems flawed to me.
    but I'm fine with the admins choosing

    1|1
    0|0
  • No but they should ditch the quotas it just begs for corruption.

    2|1
    0|0
  • Watch out! They'll hide this question!!

    0|1
    0|0
    • Pff, I wouldn't be surprised, everything is offensive -_-

    • In all seriousness, an election sounds interesting. What I have noticed is that posts that are legitemitely insulting or antagonistic are left on the site. While the slightest post that is hardly offensive or tells the cold truth... REMOVED.

      There definitely seems to be some bias towards this.

    • Exactly, those that tell the truth are removed. I could literally post statistics of something not "PC", proving everything I say, and it will get removed xD
      It's ridiculous sometimes.

  • you know, i dont really give enough shits about this site to bother xD

    0|1
    0|0
  • They should just do away with mods all together.

    0|1
    0|0
  • To democracy!

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yeah I agree we choose

    0|1
    0|0
Loading...