They seem to have the abilities of moderators, like deleting posts that break the rules, so I'm not sure I see the purpose. Is it the same thing but less responsibility than a moderator?
For me its just to do with the wording of it. I have no problem with what they do. I just feel they should be called part time staff or something. Calling them Former Staff gives the impression to those that don't know that they have zero powers anymore on the site.Except being a moderator isn't a job, every single piece of staff and former staff are volunteers who choose to take the time out of their day to make this forum a better place. Former Staff, 99.999999999 times out of 100, are simply people who no longer have the time to dedicate to actively modding the forum but still may occasionally want to help. Given the size and scope of GBAtemp with the thousands of posts made everyday, why should we reject that occasional extra help? Better to have them there and not need them than to not have them when something goes down.
And it's not like they're here to abuse their powers, obviously they were trustworthy enough to keep them for an extended period of time, what suddenly makes them unqualified for those same powers when they decide they can't spend all day here? Nothing, because if they weren't trustworthy they wouldn't have those powers.
First being a moderator is a job. Second, you say that they should get to keep there powers because of abuse, however, what if an officer who quit many years ago starts arresting people just to make their town a better place. However, when they quit they lose their powers, meaning that they cannot enforce laws anymore. Just like how former staff can still enforce rules even though they quit their jobs. Third, I agree with you on the trust part, however, you cannot expect them to use powers they shouldn't have anymore to take down trolls, that's why we have a report button so if they thought something was wrong they could just report itExcept being a moderator isn't a job, every single piece of staff and former staff are volunteers who choose to take the time out of their day to make this forum a better place. Former Staff, 99.999999999 times out of 100, are simply people who no longer have the time to dedicate to actively modding the forum but still may occasionally want to help. Given the size and scope of GBAtemp with the thousands of posts made everyday, why should we reject that occasional extra help? Better to have them there and not need them than to not have them when something goes down.
And it's not like they're here to abuse their powers, obviously they were trustworthy enough to keep them for an extended period of time, what suddenly makes them unqualified for those same powers when they decide they can't spend all day here? Nothing, because if they weren't trustworthy they wouldn't have those powers.
I see where you are coming from. From my point of view, the title Former Staff is more about letting the public know that they should approach someone else who is actively in the modstaff team should they require any assistance on that front since they are no longer obligated to perform mod duties. I would think that making them Part-time Staff or Temp Staff (lol) might actually be more confusing since it will be more ambiguous as to whether they still have any modding responsibilities in that sense.For me its just to do with the wording of it. I have no problem with what they do. I just feel they should be called part time staff or something. Calling them Former Staff gives the impression to those that don't know that they have zero powers anymore on the site.
First being a moderator is a job.
Refer to my reply to AmandaRose above for the context of what Former Staff entails.Second, you say that they should get to keep there powers because of abuse, however, what if an officer who quit many years ago starts arresting people just to make their town a better place. However, when they quit they lose their powers, meaning that they cannot enforce laws anymore. Just like how former staff can still enforce rules even though they quit their jobs. Third, I agree with you on the trust part, however, you cannot expect them to use powers they shouldn't have anymore to take down trolls, that's why we have a report button so if they thought something was wrong they could just report it
Let me explain. I was referring to former cops, not off-duty cops, that's different. However, should a former cop be able to arrest someone? No! My third point was attempting to state that former moderators should only report, not delete, lock, or ban (not sure if they have the power to ban but you get my point).I'll just clarify a couple of things here.
I see where you are coming from. From my point of view, the title Former Staff is more about letting the public know that they should approach someone else who is actively in the modstaff team should they require any assistance on that front since they are no longer obligated to perform mod duties. I would think that making them Part-time Staff or Temp Staff (lol) might actually be more confusing since it will be more ambiguous as to whether they still have any modding responsibilities in that sense.
Aight. Imma have to stop you right there. Being a mod is a job? Wow. Guess I got shortchanged by @Costello because I sure as hell have not received a single paycheck over the years.
Are there expectations for what each staff member is meant to do? Yes, there are. But none of us are filling out any timesheets, or reporting our KPIs and what have you.
Refer to my reply to AmandaRose above for the context of what Former Staff entails.
I'm not sure why you are so salty for. A cop off-duty can do cop things. To reiterate what Tom said, if the need arises, why should we deny assistance? Why be limited by a label?
Your third point makes zero sense. Why should we not expect them to use their privileges properly? What is it that you are so worried about them abusing? Why have none of the current staff had any issues with former staff's interventions?
You are meaning to tell me that there is someone out there willing to put in all that effort to deal with all the BS that comes with the "job" for years on end. All for that one opportunity to destroy whatever reputation you have built up for the lulz? Can't tell if that is beyond stupid or 2000 IQ galaxy brain 5D chess move.
Let me explain. I was referring to former cops, not off-duty cops, that's different. However, should a former cop be able to arrest someone? No! My third point was attempting to state that former moderators should only report, not delete, lock, or ban (not sure if they have the power to ban but you get my point).
When did I say it wasn't brokenSystem is fine as is.
Don't fix it if it isn't broken.
This clearly shows that you have not fully read my explanation and are arguing for the sake of arguing. Smells like bait but I'll bite.Let me explain. I was referring to former cops, not off-duty cops, that's different. However, should a former cop be able to arrest someone? No! My third point was attempting to state that former moderators should only report, not delete, lock, or ban (not sure if they have the power to ban but you get my point).
What made you think I didn't read your full claim? Either way, I believe there should be perks for former staff. Where you said "ex-police officers could very well be given the right to continue doing police things if the governing body so wishes". Even if the governing body allowed for it that would be just wrong! The donut claim is different because it's not like their enforcing laws, just like how moderators are enforcing rules. Also, yes my claim is that it is fundamentally wrong. Benefits are like "testing out beta features" not being able to delete threads which they could just report.This clearly shows that you have not fully read my explanation and are arguing for the sake of arguing. Smells like bait but I'll bite.
Former Staff are essentially modstaff who are on a loooooooooong off-duty period. Any staff members who are removed will not retain their privileges. Staff who do become FS are ones we trust enough to continue being staff at their own leisure.
Your example of comparing FS to former police officers is a terrible analogy because the two organisations function very differently in very different environments with different needs, and thus different rules apply. For all intents and purposes, ex-police officers could very well be given the right to continue doing police things if the governing body so wishes. Or maybe their perk would be to get free donuts whenever they want. Heck, they could be given the right to do ANYTHING so long as the legislation allows for it. It is not done not because it is fundamentally wrong, which seems to be the point you were going for, but because the downsides outweighs the benefits.
Again, if you have fully read my response, you would have understood why your analogy was poor.What made you think I didn't read your full claim? Either way, I believe there should be perks for former staff. Where you said "ex-police officers could very well be given the right to continue doing police things if the governing body so wishes". Even if the governing body allowed for it that would be just wrong! The donut claim is different because it's not like their enforcing laws, just like how moderators are enforcing rules. Also, yes my claim is that it is fundamentally wrong. Benefits are like "testing out beta features" not being able to delete threads which they could just report.
Let me explain. I was referring to former cops, not off-duty cops, that's different. However, should a former cop be able to arrest someone? No! My third point was attempting to state that former moderators should only report, not delete, lock, or ban (not sure if they have the power to ban but you get my point).
I do not believe my analogy was poor but I want to thank you for staying respectfulAgain, if you have fully read my response, you would have understood why your analogy was poor.
It is not fundamentally wrong just because you think it is. Your specification for what is right and wrong is not universal. That is why we have different rules for different things. Different laws for different countries. Different ideologies and schools of thought. To top it off, we have provided justification for why we do what we do, even though we don't really have to. If you still really believe that your standards are one-size-fits-all, then there is no point for discussion. At best, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Never thought of it that way!Would you rather porn bots post spam at 4AM and Veho quietly catches it before anyone notices, or would you rather it sit in general off topic for 20 minutes before say, Alanjohn murders it because he just woke up and saw it?
Easy concept.
/thread
It's like they're retirement or pension...they deserve that right!I personally think of former staff as "formerly active" staff.
They can do the staff stuff if they feel like it, or log off and come back 2 weeks later.
That's not a very difficult concept to grasp.
Formerly active staff is a better title than former staff. As we all know former means no longer. Former staff therfore implies they no longer have any power.I personally think of former staff as "formerly active" staff.
They can do the staff stuff if they feel like it, or log off and come back 2 weeks later.
That's not a very difficult concept to grasp.
One could also argue that stating that a staff member is inactive or formerly active could easily be misconstrued as being no longer in possession of staff privileges.Formerly active staff is a better title than former staff. As we all know former means no longer. Former staff therfore implies they no longer have any power.
"formerly active" staff lets everyone know they are still technically staff just not active ones.
So the site should now go with VinsCool's brilliant solution