The new mods!

[etrnldarkness]

I stepped down. =)

And yes - PM please <3

@Figaro: It has been my experience that some of the greatest mods/admins are those whom don't post heavily, but instead stick to business. You do of course need a mixture since mods should help keep things active.

[MsArianna]

i dont understand why they didnt make me a mod.. :/

because they didnt trust you and your oily muscles
or they were jealous haha

[woody513]

I reckon a good mod should be like Foxybunny to be honest. She gets the balance of being strict and sociable just right.

[Zenrax]

FoxyBunny is like a drink. One part responsibility, two parts awesome, two parts goofy, with a sprinkling of strict.

Shaken, not stirred.

[woody513]

lol good way to put it

[Zenrax]

I'm sorry for some of the posts that have been put on here, but the original post in no way hostile towards the mods. Is a graph showing Apple's stock price over a month hostile towards Apple?

Again, this is ABSOLUTELY not a complaint geared toward the conduct of the new moderators. As you can see, I anticipated that some people could take it as such, and included a disclaimer. "Feel free to formulate your own opinions on the new moderators, and remember, this information might not accurately reflect their performance."

I'd really prefer if you could just take threads at face value, instead of automatically suspecting them because my name is on the post.

[! mINDsELFiNDULGE !]

I don't know...there are actually two schools of thought regarding moderator involvement in the process. (which it sounds like Zenrax was kinda alluding to)

In help and questions I can see how a thorough knowledge of the information would be required, but in general discussion and OTcrowd? I can see it going both ways...

If the person is well aware of what has gone on before, they could use their judgment concerning whether a post really is breaking the rules...on the other hand I can see this person giving leeway to those same people because they know them....It really depends on the moderator in question and if they can keep their perspective.

I don't see what post counts really have to do with how good a moderator is. Remember they might be the type of moderator who likes to stay in the background. The activity of the forums they are moderating would also be in question. If they are doing their jobs well, everyone knows the rules then they rarely have to step in and spank someone. So THAT might be a point of contention to discuss, but really if that is a problem, it sounds like it would be more appropriate for a PM to their boss.

I have no problems with a guideline being put in place making 18 the minimum age to moderate. There are exceptions to this and that is why I think it should be a guideline and not a rule. If someone 16 or 17 comes along and has no issues treating everyone with respect and consistently applying the forums rules then there is no problem...

True. Also, just because a mod has low post counts doesn't mean they have no previous mod experience.

And three, it does not mean it is their first account. New accounts. They can be protecting their in game accounts from spammer and bullies/jerks/malcontents. Unbelievable, but true! There are people who are so weak mentally, who will target your 'home' to get revenge for other unrelated issues.