Moderator Application Guidelines

[mnphysicist]

Is there still an age limit on moderator status?

Nope

I just applied. I think that some clarification on the religion icons would have been helpful. Until about 5 min ago, I was listed as a non-nicene Christian! (Christian-seeker icon).

Is that something that can cancel me out of a staff application? I truly was not aware of that clarification, and would not have chosen that icon if I would have known.

Nope

I have one problem, here:



The area I am most active in, has since the 7/7/07 reforms, has for all intents and purposes, died, or is dying a slow death.

So how is it that a person must have a substantial amount of posts within that area?

Now I have 200 posts just since Oct. 30th, 2007. But this is mostly in the formerally congregational area, and one area of the theology section.

The intent is to give staff a handle on evaluating how well a candidate relates in the area they are applying for. For new areas, or smaller forums, its less of a factor. The underlying issue, is folks need to be somewhat active in the areas where they are applying, and somewhat recent in doing so. Obviously for a low traffic forum, or a forum undergoing change, thats not practical, and teams evaluating a candidate will take that under consideration.

As far as the 3 month period goes, if you were active on CF during the last 3 months, even though the forums you want to mod were not, that is entirely reasonable to consider the other activity as part of the 90 days. If you just returned 30 days ago, and made 200 posts since then, it would be prudent to wait another 60 days.

There will always be changes, some no doubt will be popular, others probably not. Consistency of participation is one of the underlying aspects which drove this policy.

Would the fact that one was in the past a moderator be taken into consideration?

It can be beneficial for sure, but again folks need to be active under the current rules and policies, before coming back on staff. The direction Lee wants to take us in, is way way different than it was before. Many current staff are having to unlearn, and then relearn different ways of handling things, and thats not easy by any means. That being said, the soft skills of experienced staff when working with members are highly valuable... (ie, the detailed counseling PM's and such)

A couple examples may help.
1. Prior to Nov, we had very narrow and highly defined rules. Ie, at night, do not exceed 55mph. Currently, our rules are more like, drive the appropriate speed for the conditions at hand, and there are virtually no written guidelines as to what is ok, and what is not. That is a huge shift in moderating practice, where the old practices have to be unlearned, and replaced with new ones. (a huge shift for me as well.... its all too easy to fall into detail mode, so I find I have to edit a few extra times, to remove specificity, and formality in official communications).
2. Prior to Nov, the chain of command was somewhat loose. Now, it is quite strict. Admins have responsibility for their teams, and suforums staff have very little autonomy. Jr staff are not allowed to participate in appeals, unless invited by their admins, and even then, they don't have read access. Policy and procedures are much more top down, than democratic. Its a vastly different culture, pretty much 180 degrees from what we had a few months ago, and even hugely different than what existed in most of 06 and 07.

Thus, while mod experience can be helpful, having to unlearn prior practices can be trying as well. Teams no doubt will consider such, when evaluating mod applicants.

 

[DeaconDean]

Nope


Nope


The intent is to give staff a handle on evaluating how well a candidate relates in the area they are applying for. For new areas, or smaller forums, its less of a factor. The underlying issue, is folks need to be somewhat active in the areas where they are applying, and somewhat recent in doing so. Obviously for a low traffic forum, or a forum undergoing change, thats not practical, and teams evaluating a candidate will take that under consideration.

As far as the 3 month period goes, if you were active on CF during the last 3 months, even though the forums you want to mod were not, that is entirely reasonable to consider the other activity as part of the 90 days. If you just returned 30 days ago, and made 200 posts since then, it would be prudent to wait another 60 days.

There will always be changes, some no doubt will be popular, others probably not. Consistency of participation is one of the underlying aspects which drove this policy.

It can be beneficial for sure, but again folks need to be active under the current rules and policies, before coming back on staff. The direction Lee wants to take us in, is way way different than it was before. Many current staff are having to unlearn, and then relearn different ways of handling things, and thats not easy by any means. That being said, the soft skills of experienced staff when working with members are highly valuable... (ie, the detailed counseling PM's and such)

A couple examples may help.
1. Prior to Nov, we had very narrow and highly defined rules. Ie, at night, do not exceed 55mph. Currently, our rules are more like, drive the appropriate speed for the conditions at hand, and there are virtually no written guidelines as to what is ok, and what is not. That is a huge shift in moderating practice, where the old practices have to be unlearned, and replaced with new ones. (a huge shift for me as well.... its all too easy to fall into detail mode, so I find I have to edit a few extra times, to remove specificity, and formality in official communications).
2. Prior to Nov, the chain of command was somewhat loose. Now, it is quite strict. Admins have responsibility for their teams, and suforums staff have very little autonomy. Jr staff are not allowed to participate in appeals, unless invited by their admins, and even then, they don't have read access. Policy and procedures are much more top down, than democratic. Its a vastly different culture, pretty much 180 degrees from what we had a few months ago, and even hugely different than what existed in most of 06 and 07.

Thus, while mod experience can be helpful, having to unlearn prior practices can be trying as well. Teams no doubt will consider such, when evaluating mod applicants.

Many thanks for the response. But just so you'll know, i have not left the forum. Never have, never will, just resigned from staff because I personally did not agree with the "reforms."

I have been, and continue to be, active on the forums.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PlaytimeforTonks]

test

 

[Amoranemix]

MODERATOR APPLICATION GUIDELINES

If these are only guidelines, why are they written and discussed as if they are rules ?

In order to apply to be a staff member, you should have at least 200 posts in the last 3 months, with a number of substantial posts within the category you wish to mod.

I disagree with that. First, why would someone who posts a lot in fluff threads be allowed to apply and someone who reads a lot without posting much not ? Second, why prevent someone who posts little in an area to apply for that area rather than let the voters decide whether the (s)he can join staff ?

Moderator applications, voting, and commentary will be private to protect the applicants confidentiality.

Lol. Joking aside, what is the real reason moderator applications are secret ?

Regarding participation:
From the members of the *team to which the applicant applied:
1 post, 1 clarification/retraction post
1 vote.

The moderator application wiki was never snapshotted and the ‘temporary’ version of the rules also contained that clause and under the circumstances back then it was good enough as a temporary measure against too many posts by few people in a thread, but why now ?

Commentary
All commentary must be entered into the application so it can be addressed by the applicant, either by the commenter or the staffer receiving it. Attacks on applicants which are of a political or religious (etc) nature will result in revocation of mod app voting/commenting rights for 1 year.

I find that to be a confusing rule. This appears to be actually protecting an ordinary member from staff. Is that possible ? What is the catch ?
Sarcasm aside, I find that a good rule as the ordinary members can use every little bit of protection they can get. What if it’s an administrator who is breaking that rule ?

Vetos
The team admin may veto all votes.[1]
HR may veto all votes based upon information which may not be available to staff.[2]

[1] I disagree. A majority vote should decide. At best administrators should have two votes. [2] HR are staff, so they cannot decide based on information they don’t have. What are the reasons to deny an applicant ? Such a decision must be documented at least to the applicant and staff from the pertinent team.

Non-Christian Staff
Non-Christian mods as a general rule may not moderate the following categories on CF. Exceptions may be made by admins in conjunction with Lee and/or his advisors.

• Congregation
• Theology
• Ministry
• Edification
• Outreach

• We have had this discussion a long time ago and concluded it didn’t matter. Why bother making a rule about it ? With mnphysicist’s clarification (post 2) this makes sense now as teams and categories are different. So non-Christians may apply for any team.

Prior admin approval is required in order for non-Christian mods to apply for the following categories.

• Life Stages
• Recovery

If administrators have veto power, why bother requiring their prior approval and why make it difficult for non-christians to moderate those areas ?
I do congratulate LeeD though for not excluding non-christians completely though. However, how many are there currently ranked above supermoderator ?

Non-Nicene applicants are encouraged to apply for non-Nicene forum positions, but the ratio of non-Nicene to Nicene staff in such forums may not exceed 33%.

I find your petty power struggles to be ridiculous, but fortunately I am not member of message board that puts my beliefs to shame.

Interviews via msn are encouraged, pm interviews are acceptable.[1] The use of an essay question to be returned via PM is highly encouraged, and each team may customize the essay question as best fits their area.[2]

[1] It should be taken into consideration that ordinary members don’t have a 4-digit PM box size. [2] What is an essay question ? How does it differ from other questions ?

Interview questions

1. If a Christian, cover all questions, if not, skip to #9
9. What kind of volunteer work have you done or are you involved in any ministries or hope to be involved in some ministries and what ministries?

I suppose questions are to be skipped to #10.

15. What goes on in the moderator's area of the board is confidential. Are you good at keeping confidentiality...

I wonder whether there is any candidate who would say no to that question. Perhaps an honest one. So that is a good question to weed those out

Cross Team Operations and transfers:
It is not necessary to repeat an interview to transfer teams. Complete agreement between both incoming and outgoing admins is required.

I think it would be good for staff members to be able to start a normal moderator application regardless of what their current position is.

Should a staff member want to be considered for an admin or superadmin position, they should make their desires know to Lee's advisors.[1]
The ratio of admin to team members should be between 6:1 and 12:1, but this is only a general guideline.[2]

[1] The guideline doesn’t say how an administrator is chosen. I think (s)he should be subject to a public vote by the membership.
[2] That seems rather low. The current ratio, not counting the 3 administrators from the Chaplaincy team is 5:1. BTW, the Total Members column at foru.ms/staff.php is wrong.

Staff Removals:
Staff serve at the pleasure of the CEO, and may be removed at will.[1]
Admins are responsible for their teams, and may remove staff if need be [2], but transfers to another team may be considered, provided both incoming and outgoing admins agree.[3]

[1] I would be ashamed to write a rule like that. I would be ashamed to be LeeD’s puppy as well.
[2] Who decides when need be ? The admin who doesn’t like a staff member criticizing him for his misconduct ? [3] That is redundant.

Essay questions have been discussed for over a year in numerous places in order to get a better handle on who would work well, and who might run into problems. The interview questions do help, but folks do fall through the cracks. Essay questions hopefully will assist in making the call.

I have never seen them being discussed. Where did these discussions take place ?

[FONT=&quot]I find it a little ironic that our itinerant new CEO would not meet the post requirements to be a moderator for the site.[/FONT]

Only a little ironic ?

There will always be changes, some no doubt will be popular, others probably not. Consistency of participation is one of the underlying aspects which drove this policy.

The problem with most of the changes is not their popularity, but their quality.

1. Prior to Nov, we had very narrow and highly defined rules. Ie, at night, do not exceed 55mph. Currently, our rules are more like, drive the appropriate speed for the conditions at hand, and there are virtually no written guidelines as to what is ok, and what is not.
[*] That is a huge shift in moderating practice, where the old practices have to be unlearned, and replaced with new ones. (a huge shift for me as well.... its all too easy to fall into detail mode, so I find I have to edit a few extra times, to remove specificity, and formality in official communications).

[*] That is definitely a change for the worse. After the 7/7/07 changes many members went through great lengths to write detailed rules to prevent staff and member abuse. With the current Gestapo-practice-friendly system, such is needed more than ever.

2. Prior to Nov, the chain of command was somewhat loose. Now, it is quite strict. Admins have responsibility for their teams, and suforums staff have very little autonomy. Jr staff are not allowed to participate in appeals[1], unless invited by their admins, and even then, they don't have read access.[2] Policy and procedures are much more top down, than democratic.[3] Its a vastly different culture, pretty much 180 degrees from what we had a few months ago, and even hugely different than what existed in most of 06 and 07.

[1] Where is that rule ? What is junior staff ? Even as an ordinary member I had better comments to make in appeals than some staff members. [2] What sort of access do they have then ? All staff should have write access to appeals and all members should have read access.

Many thanks for the response. But just so you'll know, i have not left the forum. Never have, never will, just resigned from staff because I personally did not agree with the "reforms."

Why does your staff title say you are a forum moderator if you have resigned ?

For those interested, my moderator application is at foru.ms/t6454172-moderator-application.html. Ordinary members are not allowed to see it because my privacy must protected from their prying eyes.

 

[flaglady]

When Dean said he 'just resigned' he was referring to the time of the 777 reforms. Now he is back on staff.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Speaking of Nicene Christians: who the put in the bit in the FAQs about some Nicene Christians believe Jesus died on the cross, but not God?

That statement has so many theological errors I don't know where to begin- and I don't see why it is even stated. Either make a statement about the hypostatic union or just leave it alone, please.

 

[""]

I would like to ask, why, after a team has voted overwhelmingly to allow me to return as a moderator, was my application closed by SuperAdmins, because some "SuperAdmins" and Admins from other teams were not comfortable with my return to staff.

I am not trying to cause a problem here, but I would really like a real answer to my question, not just for me but for all person's applying for a staff position. When a team has accepted an application from somebody, is it normal for Admins on other teams, and/or SuperAdmins who disagree with the person that has applied, to disallow the application? If this is the normal procedure then it should be put within the rules.

For the record, my application had 9 yes votes, 2 from Admin, and one no vote from a non-Debate member. Suddenly one of the Admin was removed, and then allowed back on as a Supervisor. Following that, new staff were brought onto the team, then Letalis was made a temporary Admin for Debate Team, and he closed my application. I was written by Constance that my application was closed because some were not ready for me to return to staff. When I asked about this, I was told that Admins and SuperAdmins would be polled, and then was told that it would still be best for me to apply 6 months later.

I am not asking to be put on staff. I am not complaining because I was rejected (technically I was not rejected by the Debate Team). I am asking if this is normal procedure and if all persons who apply should expect the same. And, if this is the case, why should anybody be applying to any team for a vote. Should we not all be applying to the Admins for the entire forum, and then you all can decide if we should be allowed? That's how it was done for me, so shouldn't that be how it's done for all?

To be clear: I was not disallowed due to bad behavior. I was not disallowed due to any wrong doing. I was not disallowed because my team did not vote me in. I was disallowed because some Admin from other teams, and some SuperAdmin, were not ready for me to return to staff. I was told that though suzy and I had made amends, it was easier to forgive than to forget. This was an odd statement to me, because there was forgiveness on all sides, and many had asked for my forgiveness, because of behavior exhibited toward me. Nobody was holding any grudges, supposedly, and at least I can say that from my end, as I don't believe it's godly to do such a thing. We cannot expect to be forgiven if we cannot forgive. To suggest that forgetting takes longer, is to suggest that I took part in some heinous crime, which is not the case. I cannot imagine suzy moving to keep me off of staff, as she is a good and kind person. However, if that is the case, then I guess all applicants should be made aware that any superadmin and/or admin from another team, who does not happen to care for them, can request that they not be allowed on staff.

I have taken more than a week to think on this and pray about it. I am not a rash acting person. All of this happened more than a week ago. I have written this out because I feel that honesty is important, or should be, to us all.

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Adiya

 

[drstevej]

I would like to ask, why, after a team has voted overwhelmingly to allow me to return as a moderator, was my application closed by SuperAdmins, because some "SuperAdmins" and Admins from other teams were not comfortable with my return to staff.

I am not trying to cause a problem here, but I would really like a real answer to my question, not just for me but for all person's applying for a staff position. When a team has accepted an application from somebody, is it normal for Admins on other teams, and/or SuperAdmins who disagree with the person that has applied, to disallow the application? If this is the normal procedure then it should be put within the rules.

For the record, my application had 9 yes votes, 2 from Admin, and one no vote from a non-Debate member. Suddenly one of the Admin was removed, and then allowed back on as a Supervisor. Following that, new staff were brought onto the team, then Letalis was made a temporary Admin for Debate Team, and he closed my application. I was written by Constance that my application was closed because some were not ready for me to return to staff. When I asked about this, I was told that Admins and SuperAdmins would be polled, and then was told that it would still be best for me to apply 6 months later.

I am not asking to be put on staff. I am not complaining because I was rejected (technically I was not rejected by the Debate Team). I am asking if this is normal procedure and if all persons who apply should expect the same. And, if this is the case, why should anybody be applying to any team for a vote. Should we not all be applying to the Admins for the entire forum, and then you all can decide if we should be allowed? That's how it was done for me, so shouldn't that be how it's done for all?

To be clear: I was not disallowed due to bad behavior. I was not disallowed due to any wrong doing. I was not disallowed because my team did not vote me in. I was disallowed because some Admin from other teams, and some SuperAdmin, were not ready for me to return to staff. I was told that though suzy and I had made amends, it was easier to forgive than to forget. This was an odd statement to me, because there was forgiveness on all sides, and many had asked for my forgiveness, because of behavior exhibited toward me. Nobody was holding any grudges, supposedly, and at least I can say that from my end, as I don't believe it's godly to do such a thing. We cannot expect to be forgiven if we cannot forgive. To suggest that forgetting takes longer, is to suggest that I took part in some heinous crime, which is not the case. I cannot imagine suzy moving to keep me off of staff, as she is a good and kind person. However, if that is the case, then I guess all applicants should be made aware that any superadmin and/or admin from another team, who does not happen to care for them, can request that they not be allowed on staff.

I have taken more than a week to think on this and pray about it. I am not a rash acting person. All of this happened more than a week ago. I have written this out because I feel that honesty is important, or should be, to us all.

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Adiya

I think you would make a great staff member. Sorry you went through all of this. Blessings to you. You are always welcome to chill out in the Repaholics Sub Forum.

A few reps -- good medicine.

Steve

 

[Letalis]

In rare circumstances, HR does have authority to deny applications.

Vetos
The team admin may veto all votes.

HR may veto all votes based upon information which may not be available to staff.

Note: This isn't in specific reference to you, Adiya.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

In rare circumstances, HR does have authority to deny applications.

Vetos
The team admin may veto all votes.

HR may veto all votes based upon information which may not be available to staff.

Boy, the Staff get disrespected from every direction, don't they?

 

[drstevej]

What is the process of becoming a Chaplain?

 

[brachah]

how cf treats an application? how long is the time between a response to the applicant & the application pm is sent? tks.

 

[constance]

you must be ordained or licensed by an official body. Once that information is provided, an applicant goes through a process similar to that of a mod app.

 

[drstevej]

you must be ordained or licensed by an official body. Once that information is provided, an applicant goes through a process similar to that of a mod app.

Any doctrinal requirement ???

 

[constance]

Any doctrinal requirement ???

Your doctrinally appropriate church must find you doctrinally appropriate enough to license or ordain in the first place.

We would not allow an orthodox believer ordained by a non-trinitarian church. We might consider a universalist ordained by the Methodist church.

We are not bishops and do not presume to know more, or have more authority than, an individual's ordaining body or bishop.

 

[ravenscape]

This thread is closed for a 24 hour review/cooling off period.​

Thanks,

Raven​