TFF Governance

What manner of Admin?


  • Total voters
    155
  • Poll closed .

toraneko

Well-Known Member
Admins: I prefer three, just to cover bases in case of incident. Be extremely cautious about who goes here, and make sure that they are completely trustworthy.

Mods: Yes, and at least ten of these.

Mod powers: They should have the power to lock threads, move threads from one board to another, and hand down tempbans of no greater than three days' time. They should be able to mark (and lock against editing) whichever posts are considered offensive to the rules, but not to edit their content or delete them outright; this is to prevent the removal of evidence in the event of disputes.

Rotation: No, the last thing we need is to have campaigning on the forum. Admins and mods should remain such until and unless they are removed from office or voluntarily step down. In the event that a moderator is absent for a significant length of time, the admins should decide whether to replace them, and with whom. If there is a move from the userbase to impeach a moderator, posted on the Disciplinary Actions Board (see below), then it will be required that the admins vote to retain, remove, or ban outright the offending mod.

Other:
There should be a Disciplinary Actions Board. Users who are tempbanned should be prevented from posting except on this board - and even then, only under a single thread created by themselves, whose purpose should explicitly be to appeal or question their ban - but should not be blocked from reading any board's content. Moderators should be unable to edit, lock, or delete any threads or posts in the Disciplinary Actions Board; admins alone should have those powers.
Users who are permanently banned, however, should be blocked from accessing anything except their own control panel and PM inbox. Only Admins should have the power to permanently ban users.

And, as is the case on old TFF, any user should have the power to edit or delete his own posts, and to lock or delete any threads he creates (except, in both cases, where a mod has flagged a post or thread for disciplinary action, in which case it should not be alterable except by an admin).

Also, as if this weren't obvious, the creator of this forum should have the final word on any goings-on, period. If he turns out to be untrustworthy (and I'm counting on this not being the case), the lot of us should all pack up and ship out, anyway.
 

Muramasa

Well-Known Member
Admins: 1 regular, 1 back up

Mods: Multiple, Medium

Rotation: No.

However I do urge that mods only act when things really get out of control.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
It would be nice if people actually read the proposal instead of assuming they knew what "Low, Medium, and High" means. I don't know how to count your post when you say "High" and then specify less powers than "Low" has.
 
As an update to my earlier pontifications upon how nTFF should be a Kingdom with one King, I would like to state a desire to have an Heir to the Throne. Such a thing vastly simplifies matters in the event of the King's untimely demise.

(Yes, I'd like to have a backup admin, such as Shiro, who is a root admin and can't be removed. I also don't think mods should be able to affect the powers of other mods - only the admin should be able to do that.)
 

ArchfiendRai

Well-Known Member
Shirotsume said:
It would be nice if people actually read the proposal instead of assuming they knew what "Low, Medium, and High" means. I don't know how to count your post when you say "High" and then specify less powers than "Low" has.
LOL

You did say it would close tonight at 12 right? (Aka, already closed by one minute.)

Do you think we have enough votes to go on, or will there be an extension?
 

toraneko

Well-Known Member
Shirotsume said:
It would be nice if people actually read the proposal instead of assuming they knew what "Low, Medium, and High" means. I don't know how to count your post when you say "High" and then specify less powers than "Low" has.
Thus why I listed the specific things they should be allowed. I guess in a general sense you can count mine as a subset of "Low".
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
Nah, look carefully- 11:59PM 3/27/13.

We still got 24 hours.

That's why I said 11:59PM instead of 12AM, because I know that fucks with people (why do you count from 12 to 1?!)
 

ArchfiendRai

Well-Known Member
Herp. Guess I remembered it wrong. i thought it was 12 on the dot. My bad.


Also, I seemed to have burned my finger. Fucking ow.
 

Ninsaneja

Well-Known Member
For clarimification, I am in favor of one Admin (because two is the same as one?), many mods with high power, but checked by the requirement of justifying their actions (with the exception of maintenance actions like locking a thread at the request of the author) in a specific forum. No rotation except when made necessary by losing a mod somehow. And make the Admin take an oath of office.
 
Avider said:
Multiple mods are required for a forum of this size.
Funny you say that, considering how long TFF's been running just fine with no mods at all.
 
I am fine with Shirotsume's assessment, though I do think rotation might be a good thing. Considering how things went when Hawk went AWOL, we should be able to shift the responsibilities of admin around to prevent an accident or real life from interfering in the basic running of the site. It can be a shared responsibility.
 

T.L

Well-Known Member
Hope I get in B4 the deadline. 11:59PM 3/27/13. Where?

Admin = 1,
Is there a way that will allow the moderators to contact icyboard administration in case of the admin walking away?
Mods = Multiple - High,
and not everybody from 1 geographical location. So that there is a good spread of time zones.
Remember it is a global board.(see above)
Rotation = No

You do need a appeal area for banned members.
I think that some sort of private appeal by xyz amount of members to the Admin if a Mod starts to get too full of themselves.
 
Andrew Joshua Talon said:
I am fine with Shirotsume's assessment, though I do think rotation might be a good thing. Considering how things went when Hawk went AWOL, we should be able to shift the responsibilities of admin around to prevent an accident or real life from interfering in the basic running of the site. It can be a shared responsibility.
Which is why I remain on board with the Four Corners (and one root admin and tiebreaker) plan, though it could easily be reworked into four moderators and a single admin as well. So long as any potential mods only ever use their powers in an emergency, anyway. Everyone running around petitioning for ten or twelve moderators (isn't that half of the current active membership?) with 'high' moderator powers and little oversight are missing the point of this community entirely.
 

Vexarian

Well-Known Member
Honestly, the way this forum self-polices it's not even like the moderators need to be attentive. Someone's bound to go get one of them whenever something needs doing.

Heck, considering the janitorial duties, that's a requirement for a good deal of the things that need doing.

I'm also changing my vote from low power to high power.
 

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
Vexarian said:
Honestly, the way this forum self-polices it's not even like the moderators need to be attentive. Someone's bound to go get one of them whenever something needs doing.
With us accepting new blood again, I expect this to change.

On another note, I'm changing my vote on mod powers from "low" to "high". Give a mod every privilege EXCEPT to perma-ban. Max limit a mod can ban anyone should be .. umm... 3 weeks?

I consider myself a forgiving person, and if someone really REALLY needs to be "perma-banned", I think its better to just renew the "ban" every 3 weeks than to actually have the system do it. The time delay will help cool tempers all round.

-chronodekar
 
Admins: One
Mods: 2/4/6* Medium
Rotation: None. Replaced as needed.

*With the one Admin it'll stay an odd number for tie breakers.

or

Admins: Two
Mods: 3/5/7* Medium
Rotation: None. Replaced as needed.

*In the case of two Admins, keep the number of Mods odd.

Mod Forum: Sure, why not.
 

Xon

Well-Known Member
Admins: at least 2(3 is good), OldTFF got into the state it was because there was only 1 admin.

Either give mods high powers, or have more admins. That is a structural thing with forums.

Rotations is just a bad idea.
 
I would like to change my vote.

At least 2 admins
Mods - Mutliple with medium power
Still want a ban appeal board with mod only forum
 

ArchfiendRai

Well-Known Member
I think this may have gone smoother if an actual poll was included. :p

That was there would have been an easy tally.

I'm not changing my stance on powers. We've self policed fairy well, even when Hawk went AWOL. Low to Medium is all we need, really.
 

Ashaman

Well-Known Member
Geez guys, I go away for a week and you move.

Anyway, time to cast my vote.

Admin: 2 please. At first I thought 1, but I think a back up Admin would be a good idea. Someone who would only step in case of emergencies or the main Admin goes AWOL.

Mods: Multiple, High. While I agree they should be able to act immediately, I think they should be required to justify themselves after the fact, even if only to their fellow mods and Admin.

Rotation: No.
 

Dartz_IRL

Well-Known Member
I don't mind a little occasional rotation on mods.

If only to keep things from stagnating and keep people from getting too secure in their positions Truth is, on most boards, the moderators quickly become a cabal of pricks if they're not swapped out regularly enough.

Applying rules fromthe Hitchikers Guide, the last person who should be a moderator - or have any authority whatsoever - is the person who wants it.
 

Raye_Terse

Well-Known Member
Ashaman said:
Geez guys, I go away for a week and you move.

Anyway, time to cast my vote.

Admin: 2 please. At first I thought 1, but I think a back up Admin would be a good idea. Someone who would only step in case of emergencies or the main Admin goes AWOL.

Mods: Multiple, High. While I agree they should be able to act immediately, I think they should be required to justify themselves after the fact, even if only to their fellow mods and Admin.

Rotation: No.
After some consideration, this seems quite reasonable. So, same as above.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
Ashaman, Raye: please clarify. You say High and then you give for your reasoning "So that they can react instantly to in an emergency." which every level can do.

LOLRAINE: Please vote on moderators as well or I can't take your vote.
 

Raye_Terse

Well-Known Member
Shirotsume said:
Ashaman, Raye: please clarify. You say High and then you give for your reasoning something even low can do >.>

LOLRAINE: Please vote on moderators as well or I can't take your vote.
You specified that low and medium can only act based on a report. High is the only one where a mod can act immediately when they see something that really needs to be done.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
Low: Mods have the power to move/rename threads and edit posts. They may issue warnings and, in some cases, they may also give temporary bans of a short time, and are required to wait for someone to report the post/issue in question before being able to use their mod powers, except in specific cases to be determined (like CP.)
They can act instantly when needed, they just have to justify it later with proof, and it has to be an defined emergency. They aren't THAT neutered, and I wish people would stop thinking so.
 
Top