Forums and Members, The Unspoken Truths

[♠ Squirt]

Yo mates time for a discussion on forums.

What do you guys think about forums and their members?

Do you think that it is fair that some members get special treatment because they talk to or are liked by certain staff members?

Do you think it is right that female members get treated better just because of their sex?

Do you believe that all members should get the same warnings regardless of rank?

Should donators get an extra warning just because they gave money?

When it comes to choosing staff, would it be more appropriate to choose well known members, members that the admin likes ,or just those that post the most?






I've personally seen a very sad pattern with in forum owners. Most of which give special privileges to the female members of their boards.
I don't think its fair at all that just because a member is female they automatically have the upper hand when it comes to breaking the rules.

As for donators I don't think they deserve special treatment either, they may have donated but it doesn't mean they bought a ticket to harrase everyone and get away with it.

In my opinion, staff members should be chosen by their "popularity" and respect on a forum. By this I mean members that are widely known and has been on the board for a while.

Discuss.

Please don't deny these allegations because 90% of boards that I've been to run through this system... This is a mere discussion.
To the winner goes the spoils.....

[Miya]

What do you guys think about forums and their members?

People talk to other people. multiple personality's combine for better or worse

Do you think that it is fair that some members get special treatment because they talk to or are liked by certain staff members?

not really

Do you think it is right that female members get treated better just because of their sex?

no.

Do you believe that all members should get the same warnings regardless of rank?

yes.

Should donators get an extra warning just because they gave money?

Yes and no. They donated money to support the forum so they gave a little more then most members so maybe a little tiny bit more warning. But it's stupid to give them a extra warning when they do something that is a bannable offense.

When it comes to choosing staff, would it be more appropriate to choose well known members, members that the admin likes ,or just those that post the most?


Well known members. They know who they are and what they might do if they are moderator.

[Sneaky]

Squirt wrote: When it comes to choosing staff, would it be more appropriate to choose well known members, members that the admin likes ,or just those that post the most?

There is more to it than that. Activity, dedication, and if they can actually do the job area always factors when choosing staff. Sure it helps of the admin like them, if they post a lot, and if they're well known, but just because they don't have those last three things doesn't mean they can't do the job and do it well. If they have shown they can do the job, why not give them a shot to prove themselves?

[♠ Squirt]

Sneaky wrote: There is more to it than that. Activity, dedication, and if they can actually do the job area always factors when choosing staff. Sure it helps of the admin like them, if they post a lot, and if they're well known, but just because they don't have those last three things doesn't mean they can't do the job and do it well. If they have shown they can do the job, why not give them a shot to prove themselves?

Ahh yes, but would you risk highering a stranger to take care of your bank account balance? And you've only talked to the person a few times?


*To Miley Cyrus*
Before you post in this thread now this is no way has anything to do with the staff updates. This is a thread that I've been thinking of posting

[Sneaky]

That's kinda an extreme example but that is what you do when you open a bank account isn't it? Trust a bunch of people that you have never met(and most likly never will) with your money.

[♠ Squirt]

Sneaky wrote: That's kinda an extreme example but that is what you do when you open a bank account isn't it? Trust a bunch of people that you have never met(and most likly never will) with your money.

Yes but you have federal laws behind you ensuring your safety.

What do you get if you give a new member mod powers and you have no idea how they will react? They will get power to mass delete threads in their sections

[♥ Serena]

What do you guys think about forums and their members?
Pretty general question, it depends entirely on the focal point of the forum (Discussion, anime, movies, roleplay etc) and on the members themselves.

Do you think that it is fair that some members get special treatment because they talk to or are liked by certain staff members?
It's human. You will be kinder to someone you know, than to someone you've never met. It's not fair, but it's human nature.

Do you think it is right that female members get treated better just because of their sex?
No.

Do you believe that all members should get the same warnings regardless of rank?
Yes. I also believe that members should be sure they understand their mistakes in order to avoid them repeating.

Should donators get an extra warning just because they gave money?
No. Giving money is a choice, done to help the forum keep running. If it's done for personal gain, then it shows that the person is merely doing so to be selfish, and is most likely an annoying person.

When it comes to choosing staff, would it be more appropriate to choose well known members, members that the admin likes ,or just those that post the most?
None. What matters is knowledge and skill. I don't give a fuck if you've got 10,000 posts more than anyone else and nobody will say a bad word about you because you're perfect, if you don't know how to do the job, you shouldn't be given it. In the same vein, you don't give someone who makes their only post a request to become staff the job either, because there's no guarantee they'll stick around to be of use.

In my opinion, staff members should be chosen by their "popularity" and respect on a forum. By this I mean members that are widely known and has been on the board for a while.

I disagree with you on this. As I mention above, what matters isn't popularity or length of time, but whether the person is up to the job at hand.

[♥ Sutoraika]

Squirt wrote: *To Miley Cyrus* Before you post in this thread now this is no way has anything to do with the staff updates. This is a thread that I've been thinking of posting

For some reason I find that difficult to believe...

But whatever. * Sutoraika moves on.


(On topic: I mostly agree with the others have posted. So meh.)

[♠ Squirt]

Blair Waldorf wrote: For some reason I find that difficult to believe... But whatever. * Squirt moves on. (On topic: I mostly agree with the others have posted. So meh.)

Why?
Seriously why? If I said that it has nothing to do with it then just don't bring that crap in here and move on.

And yes if I do oppose to some of the members that were chosen to be staff should that really matter if I created a thread that relates to it?
NO

[♠ Cosmo|naut.]

how long have you noticed these things?

i cant help but think that Donor question points to Ps360 since hes the only donor that youd think would be banned or warned, considering all the other donors are pretty inactive.

pretty much everything ps360 said with Mileys answer for the choosing of staff.