time to dump your very legitimate suggestions here so i can filter out the actual good ideas. heres what i thought:
- 6-12 month moderation team on rotation
- SMS identification to get rid of multis
- Revisited bans and rules by moderation every so often to see whats working and what isnt.
If you think anything like a *shops raffle* is priority please take those suggestions elsewhere!!!
-Bring back the Transparency forum that states why users were banned so there is less conspiracy & is more communication
- more options under the report button / a better way to report for topics other than harassment /pedophilia
- an odd # of moderators so there isn鈥檛 a weird power struggle where 1 overpowers the other
maybe make the site 18+
like you can ban predators easy with mods but it could still happen and might be best to try and prevent any minors coming on the site and being at risk
- Revamp the code of conduct so it's crystal clear what's bannable and what isn't, and how long bans are for (and for first time, second time offenses, etc.) and like you said, revisit this once a year or so and adjust as needed.
- Some sort of group of people like a "Mod Council" (maybe 6-7 users or so) that can hold mods accountable and raise awareness if there are unfair or biased bans (though randomize would always have the final say, they could provide input that would be taken into consideration). Make it so bans have to be approved by at least 2 different mods before being enacted ( LeXXXy's suggestion). Also rotate this group out every 6-12 months. Idea is to dilute the potential favoritism as much as possible without making it needlessly bureaucratic.
And maybe some sort of forum where mod council members can be elected via the public? Not sure exactly how that would work BUT it would give regular tengagers feel like they have a voice in running the site.
-Whoever the moderators are shouldn't be anonymous.
-Perm bans for every multi, including the "main" account, as they ruin the integrity of an innately social game
- I don't believe elections for moderators are the answer, as it highly incentives campaigning/ass-kissery... I don't know of a perfect solution to this problem but there should be at least some user-input for moderators with a shorter term-length.
My personal recommendation for choosing moderators would involve:
* Users that are up for consideration to be moderator are put to a yes/no vote
* Users that receive above a certain percentage of this vote after a period of time are "approved"
* Descriptions of a users character from third parties should be left to give context to randomize
* A small amount "approved" users are chosen by randomize to actually be moderator.
* Unchosen "approved" users remain for potential consideration before next moderation term.
Obviously no concept is perfect, but I feel that this gives users enough power to "filter out" bad candidates without giving us too much power where "mob rule" will take over... that can still easily happen no matter what, but I think a moderation team is very important so we need some sort of solution.
rules need to be set by randomize and not adjustable by moderators.
Bans for serious offenses...porn, pedophilia, cheating, etc.
harassment and other small things that are reported should not result in banning, I'm not talking like slurs I mean 2 people bickering and 1 decides to report it most they should get is a blacklist and not for a month, maybe a day up to a week. Habitual can be referred to randomize for his discretion. People should not be banned because they aren't liked there should be something that stops moderators from banning for personal or game reasons.
I'm not sure I like the idea of that many moderators cus then you risk a few getting close and stopping others from actually helping the site. 2 or 3 is best but it should be a majority rules not a 2 people agree and 1 stops it from going through.
