- DEUCE MORELLI
- |
- Noble Heroic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
http://bungie.me/sig/dot2/DEUCE+MORELLI.png
You and other mods are missing the point of the "More moderators" idea.
You're focused on "empowering posters" by allowing them to screen out objectionable content, when what we're saying is more eyes available to patrol forums (or in the case of my idea, particular forums) means that stuff considered objectionable can possibly be seen and dealt with before a report button is pressed.
You're looking at it from the standpoint that you're a volunteer and it's a helluva job to do because of the time required, so let people screen out what they want, whereas we're saying "let's get a few more mods out here to moderate so it's less time consuming and more effective.
Posted by: dazarobbo
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
That doesn't remove the content though. And [bad] content removal is a moderator's job. If we hide it for ourselves, its still viewable by everyone else who hasn't "hidden" it.thus resulting in the problem still existing. If there were more moderators, then there would be more [bad] content REMOVAL, thus nullifying and voiding the need to hide it for ourselves exclusively, and not the community at large.1) It removes the content for you. You get to dictate what you want to see, and what you don't.
2) Other users will hide it as well if they take offense to it. This could be used in conjunction/integrated with a report feature (ie. a post becomes hidden enough and it gets dropped into a queue to be looked at).
3) "More moderators" are very unlikely to give people the instant gratification they want from hitting the report button because of a number of reasons: the "lag-time" between the report taking place and a moderator assessing it; the moderator not agreeing with the report; etc...