The Arbiters are back!

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:52 pm

Is there any good reason not to?

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:54 pm

Then you seriously need to think about it and stop sucking up to what your "higher friends think" just because they may say bad things about you

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:01 pm

greennc wrote:i dont like Arbiter's one bit

Ombre wrote:Maybe provide some reason why you don't like them?

The Swamp Fox wrote:He doesn't have to - I haven't seen any good reason for having them.

Wow... That is empty... You don't like them... yet you won't explane why...

Iron_Forge · Post by **Iron_Forge** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:28 pm

Kirk wrote:Then you seriously need to think about it and stop sucking up to what your "higher friends think" just because they may say bad things about you :)

I assume this was in reference to Swamp...Not really the "high road of maturity" I'd expect from a JA...But meh...Maybe I misinterpreted you...

I think the reasons against arbiters have been iterated plenty...I can't help it if the people I associate with (note, peers, not "lower friends") happen to agree with me...Then again, seems to me peers tend to agree on things...They don't do it for the sake of being friends...They're friends because they see eye to eye on things...

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:30 pm

It would appear anyone with a problem can't directly state it.

Iron_Forge · Post by **Iron_Forge** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:38 pm

Arbiters weren't actually needed...Moderators were just inactive and not doing their job (volenteer or not)...

Arbiters were (for the most part) chosen based on who was friends with who...

Arbiters were rushed into place this time around by those who felt it was for the best...They ignored evidence proving they weren't required...Several upper staff were against the idea, and some of the selected arbiters...Again, pushed through anyways...

Also, some people were "acidentally" promoted...A sure sign it was rushed into play without proper consideration or research...

That direct enough?..

Ombre · Post by **Ombre** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:40 pm

The one acident that did happen was because of name issues. Please tell me some of these inactive moderators I keep hearing about.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:46 pm

I disagree about the comment about Arbiters being "friends" of staff, ect - From what I've seen, most of us are people who are genuinely helpful.

The Swamp Fox · Post by **The Swamp Fox** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:53 pm

Alright, let me state my point directly. As directly as it gets. Arbiters are not necessary. Now, let me explain it. Arbiters, defined simply, are moderators. There is no difference other than the avatar and the color of their names. One might say that they are "closely monitored" and "keep logs", but many administrators would agree that the prior should be instated for all staff, and the latter is foolish. If you think the person in question should be logging everything he or she does, then you don't trust him or her enough to run your forum. Also, the fact that moderators run all forums and arbiters run a single or maybe two forms is not valid either. Moderators, for the most part, only work with one or two forums as it is. Now that I've got that thought into your head (if I haven't, you have quite the thick skull), why don't we need them? Well, for one, it's fairly redundant. Just get more moderators, and have them unanimously approved with a decent quorum of administrators and junior admins, not just moderators. To include a topic of discussion from a different thread, assign them to specific forums that they choose, but leave them global. If work in that forum is lacking, can them, and bring in a new moderator. Next, I'll point something out that has been said multiple times, but from a different viewpoint. Many say that "All arbiters are just friends of staff!!" While this is not entirely true, having two separate ranks, with arbiters seen as the lesser, the staff in charge of selection isn't as specific as they should be. Anyone who has more than two post reports against them should not be a moderator (or an arbiter, for the thick-skulled). That's not saying I don't like the people you chose, just some of them. xbox7887 for one, seems like a good choice. ScottyGEE isn't one, but that seems like a decent choice as well. Last, but not least, I dislike the color yellow.

Now, if anybody says that I haven't provided any valid reasons for my claims, you are completely false.

Xiion · Post by **Xiion** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:56 pm

Im... jsut gonna stay outta this one...

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:58 pm

Iron_Forge wrote:
Kirk wrote:Then you seriously need to think about it and stop sucking up to what your "higher friends think" just because they may say bad things about you
I assume this was in reference to Swamp...Not really the "high road of maturity" I'd expect from a JA...But meh...Maybe I misinterpreted you...

I think the reasons against arbiters have been iterated plenty...I can't help it if the people I associate with (note, peers, not "lower friends") happen to agree with me...Then again, seems to me peers tend to agree on things...They don't do it for the sake of being friends...They're friends because they see eye to eye on things...

I see what you mean. I was a bit immature there... sorry.

I have nothing against you or TheSwampFox, but what does slightly agitate me is that he said that he saw nothing beneficial of having Arbiters. I'm sorry, but there is really nothing to that statement. There has to be something good about it. More help? Ah, but you say all moderators are lazy, and we need our slaves (the arbiters) to do our work for us. I can see how you think that. I also know nothing will change your mind, which I believe is your worst fault.

Personally, I have nothing for or against arbiters... I'm sure we could do without them, but they are nice to have.

The Swamp Fox · Post by **The Swamp Fox** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:06 pm

Nothing to it?? I just spent five minutes explaining to you what there is to it... If five minutes isn't worth your time, then you shouldn't be an administrator.

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:00 pm

The Swamp Fox wrote:Nothing to it?? I just spent five minutes explaining to you what there is to it... If five minutes isn't worth your time, then you shouldn't be an administrator.

Sorry, I was in the middle of typing a couple posts (including mine up there), and you posted while I was still typing. Please ignore that for now.

And I agree with you... to a certain extent.

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Hmm... You Hate ( dislike...) the Arbiters... Because you see them as not being nessesary...

So a "smaller" type of Moderator... in the fourm.. is what agitates you... cause you see them as useless...

Correct?

---

Also... I can agree with this...

[quote="The Swamp Fox"] Anyone who has more than two post reports against them should not be a moderator (or an arbiter, for the thick-skulled).quote]

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:20 pm

If you suggest the Arbiters were put in place because of an inactive moderator group, then how is it bad, if it couldn't really get any worse. What negative effects do Arbiters have on the forum as a community?

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:43 pm

I agree with Tural.

ScottyGEE · Post by **ScottyGEE** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:45 pm

I get your point swamp fox about the more moderators area instead of selective mods as arbiters...but either way this still solves the problem about inactivity and certain moderators not going to certain forum areas. Both ways could do it, and plus with being an arbiter you'd want to do better to become a moderator so the person is being even more active (well in my view anyway) than usual.

The Swamp Fox · Post by **The Swamp Fox** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:12 am

Yes, I'm sure that there are people who are motivated by the thought of maybe becoming a moderator in the future. It's a valid argument. I don't think that the same idea would work on me, however. I would be thinking "<sarcasm>Yeah! I wanna do more work than everyone else, so I can get promoted and have to do even more work!</sarcasm>"

ScottyGEE · Post by **ScottyGEE** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:32 am

Haha, ok, although I don't have that mindset, its funny yet I bet true for some people.

But don't worry too much Swamp fox, I think the Arbiters are somehow going to have a very short time in power. Just a shame I never will have had a shot to see if I could do the job well enough to everyone's standards...
Woops, sounds as I'm making out that the arbiters are going definatley, I have no clue on that. We shall see

xbox7887 · Post by **xbox7887** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:59 am

ScottyGEE wrote:Haha, ok, although I don't have that mindset, its funny yet I bet true for some people.

:X