China DOS Union

Originally posted by Kinglion at 2007-3-10 02:07:
……So, don't mind that because you are a moderator, you can't speak as an ordinary member...

I can think so, but others, it can be said that quite a part of people don't think so. This is not my imagination, but I have seen such phenomena too much, and it makes me angry. I don't want to be constrained in speaking because of the change of identity. Of course, if our big environment becomes better, then I don't need to go to so much trouble.

Originally posted by Kinglion at 2007-3-10 02:15:
Supplementary note: Being a moderator is to win over others with technology, sense of responsibility and online ethics. It is not that because you are a moderator, you may be convinced by everyone. Gaining prestige needs to be reflected in the actual work of the forum.

Using a newly registered account to be a moderator, what actual performance is used to win over others?

Because these two accounts are actually the same person as me. If my other account is not qualified to be a moderator, it also means that my account is not qualified to be a moderator. I said that the other account is only for organizing posts and basically doesn't speak. To put it simply, it is to be a cleaner.

If you just want to add an ID that basically doesn't speak but only organizes posts, and you don't want everyone to treat it specially, why not set up a similar group like "maintainer" or "cleaner" and add it?

Scavenger...........................................................................Just don't clear me away

In fact, this situation mainly targets two types of people:

1. Novices: Because they don't often come to the forum or come to the forum for the first time, they don't know or are not clear about where to post their own posts, resulting in chaotic post classification.

2. Habit: Habit becomes second nature. That is, they post any problem to the section they like, resulting in chaotic post classification!

Originally posted by Wengier at 2007-3-10 14:28:
If you just want to add an ID that speaks very little and only organizes posts, and at the same time don't want everyone to treat it specially, why not set up a similar group like "Moderator" or "Cleaner" or something?

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to set up this group for forum management. After all, moderators are the ID group that assists administrators in forum management and maintenance. Setting up too many management groups will only make the forum management seem a bit chaotic. Having moderators manage corresponding sections is sufficient. If moderators feel that the area they are in charge of is limited and not conducive to work during forum management, they can apply to be promoted to super moderators to enhance their management level.

The following is the "Responsibilities and Obligations of Moderators" released by a certain forum, which is hoped to be a reference for forum management:

① Moderators should ensure that they log in to manage their own sections at least once every three days. If a moderator is temporarily unable to manage their own section due to personal reasons, they should post a leave application in the forum affairs discussion area in advance and state the corresponding leave time.

② Moderators should ensure the number of posts in their own sections.

③ Moderators have the right to carry out activities to activate sections.

④ Moderators should establish a good personal image in front of members, should not have bad quarrels with members, and should not maliciously abuse members. Treat each member fairly and fully mobilize the enthusiasm of members.

⑤ Moderators should carry out all corresponding management in their own sections,
¤5.1. Setting rules: Moderators can formulate section-specific rules according to the situation. The rules can reflect the moderator's management ideas, policies, and goals. After being discussed and agreed by the management team, they can be used for management, and the board rules can be pinned in the corresponding section;
¤5.2. Deleting posts: Moderators have the power and obligation to delete off-topic articles, reactionary, personal attack or serious abuse, pornographic and other improper remarks in the section. After deleting the post, the moderator should explain to the posting member or state it in advance;
¤5.3. Transferring posts: For articles that are irrelevant to the theme of this section, if they belong to the scope of other sections, the moderator has the obligation to transfer them to other sections. If they belong to off-topic articles, the moderator can transfer them to the off-topic area or delete them directly according to the situation;
¤5.4. Editing posts: When the article title does not meet the forum requirements, the original content has typos or too many blank lines, it can be directly edited; and when other situations such as the content not matching the title occur, it must be edited in the quote, and the original content must not be directly tampered with. The moderator should state that the article has been edited after editing;
¤5.5. Highlighting: If the moderator finds excellent works in the section, they should add these articles to the index and give them a highlight or pin them for a few days for members to browse;
¤5.6. Management: Moderators must maintain the normal discussion order of the board and handle various disputes reasonably and impartially;
¤5.7. Punishment: For members who disrupt the forum and do not listen to dissuasion, the moderator has the right to impose punishment on their points. For those with serious circumstances, after consulting with the administrator, the ID can be blocked.

⑥ For moderators who are not diligent and are reported, the site administrator will first give an oral warning. If the situation does not improve, the administrator will cancel their moderator qualification after the moderator meeting.

⑦ Moderators should actively promote the website within their capabilities to make the forum more active.

Originally posted by Kinglion at 2007-3-11 09:50 AM:


Personally, I don't think it's necessary to set up this group for forum management. After all, the moderator is an ID group that assists the administrator in forum management and maintenance. Setting up too many management groups will only make people feel that the forum...

What is said above makes sense. However, judging from the post on the top floor, DOSforever means that there is a need for a special management authority ID that can temporarily organize forum posts across sections but not make posts, rather than managing specific sections as a moderator. This is the current point of controversy. It is suggested that we can continue to study it to make the best plan.

Originally posted by Wengier at 2007-3-12 18:11:


However, from the post on the top floor, it seems that DOSforever means wanting to have a special management permission ID that can organize forum posts across sections but not post, rather than being a moderator to manage specific sections.

Yes, basically that's what I mean. If there is an existing user group with this permission, any name can be used. Of course, I mean basically not speaking, which means not participating in the discussion of issues, not absolutely not speaking. If the situation requires, I still need to speak. There is a difference between I don't need to speak and absolutely not being allowed to speak

Originally posted by Wengier at 2007-3-12 05:11:

From the post on the top floor, it seems that DOSforever means to temporarily have a special management right ID that can organize forum posts across sections but not post, which is the current point of contention. It is suggested to continue researching to come up with the best solution.

The super moderator level of the forum should be the management level with this right. It can be set for super moderators to manage certain sections, such as the DOS Discussion Area, the Site Affairs Area, etc. However, due to the expanded management rights, higher requirements are put forward for the members who hold this position.

Originally posted by Kinglion at 2007-3-13 07:30 AM:

The super moderator level of the forum should be the management level with this kind of permission. It can set super moderators to manage certain sections of the forum, such as the DOS Discussion Area, the Administration Area, etc. However, due to the expanded management permissions, higher requirements are put forward for the members who hold this position.

If we only look at the permissions, it is like this. But we also need to consider it comprehensively from various aspects. The original poster from the very beginning proposed wanting to hold a position that basically doesn't speak or doesn't need to speak but can manage posts across sections. However, if as a super moderator, in addition to having the permission to manage posts across sections, it is also necessary to often coordinate forum affairs and post through communication. These two are obviously not completely compatible. Moreover, super moderators are usually first ordinary moderators, and then promoted after gaining the trust and support of everyone. It seems inappropriate for a member to be directly "jumped" to a super moderator, and there is no precedent. It is precisely because of these reasons that I proposed the idea of setting up a group like "cleaners" or "maintainers" above.

I think the reason for such a need to arise is entirely because most of the moderators of our forum should have long been included in the "honorary moderator" category (add a new group). Next, a part of new frequently online moderators should be selected.

Originally posted by Michael at 2007-3-13 12:37:
I think the reason for such a need arises completely because most of the moderators of our forum should have long been classified into the "Honorary Moderator" category (add a new group).

Next, a part of new frequently online moderators should be selected.

I also think this is the root cause of the problem. It is suggested that the forum rehire moderators, and require current moderators to log in to the forum regularly for maintenance operations. If they cannot log in to the forum for maintenance operations for a short period due to something, they should also ask the administrator for leave. Moderators who cannot log in for maintenance operations for a long time should have their moderator information canceled or classified into the "Honorary Moderator" group according to their contributions to the forum.

In addition, for newly joined moderators, there should also be a probation period, which can be called "Trainee Moderator" during the probation period. And whether to turn regular or cancel their information will be considered according to their performance during the probation period.


If the above problems can be solved normally and the moderators of each section can perform their duties, the forum will not need to set the level of "Cleaner" anymore.

Originally posted by Wengier at 2007-3-13 12:06:


If we only look at the permissions, it is like this. But we also need to consider it comprehensively from various aspects. The owner started by proposing that he wanted to take up a position that basically doesn't speak or doesn't need to speak but can manage posts across sections. However, as a super moderator, in addition to having the permission to manage posts across sections, he also needs to often coordinate forum affairs and post through communication. These two are obviously not completely compatible. Moreover, super moderators are usually first ordinary moderators, and then promoted after gaining everyone's trust and support. It seems inappropriate and there are no precedents for directly "jumping levels" from a member to a super moderator. It is precisely because of these reasons that I put forward a vision of setting up a group like "cleaner" or "maintenance staff" above.

What the administrator said is indeed like that. Combining my previous post, if the moderators of each section of the forum can perform their duties, then the vision of setting up a group like "cleaner" or "maintenance staff" doesn't need to be considered anymore.

Therefore, I suggest that a large-scale rectification of the current management team should be carried out.

Originally posted by Michael at 2007-3-13 12:37 PM:
I think the reason for such a need arises entirely because most of the forum's moderators should have long been included in the "Honorary Moderator" category (adding a new group).

Next, a part of new moderators who are often online should be selected.

I looked into it, and if we include current moderators who haven't logged in for three months into the "Honorary Moderator" category, the following three moderators will become "Honorary Moderators":

Shen Jie, cn_archer, Sandy

Originally posted by Wengier at 2007-3-14 00:24:

After checking, if the current moderators who haven't logged in for three months are classified into the "Honorary Moderators" category, the following three moderators will become "Honorary Moderators":

Shen Jie, cn_archer, Sandy

A moderator performance attendance system should be established. For moderators who fail to fulfill their moderator duties, their moderator positions should be considered for removal. If a moderator has made great contributions to the forum but has not been able to log in to maintain the forum due to other reasons and has asked for leave from the administrator, they can be considered to be included in the "Honorary Moderators" group.

The contributions of the above three moderators are obvious to all. If the three still fail to log in to the forum for a long time, it is supported to include them in the "Honorary Moderators" group.

3?
In my memory, there are at most 3 people who have shown up in the past 3 years.