Following on from the 'lack of moderators' thread, as I've always said it's idea's we need not complaints.
I feel it's own thread may mean this idea won't be shadowed by the debates in the other thread, hope thats ok with everyone.
I actually went away and thought about this problem, and I think I've reached a verygood compromise. Read carefully.

admins/mods want: more mods, more thorough recruitment process to filter the bad eggs.
Users want: more mods.

And in between stage is what we need. so say at any given time we have 10 assistants. People change drastically when given a little authority but we need to be sure they'll change for the better before giving them a mod position.

Rather than a vote, those who apply are reviewed very briefly by staff (ie any objections) and are promoted to this provisional position. There is no time restraints but 3 months would be a good average time for potentials to spend in this role.

The important facts:
They would have no access to priveledged information so from the beginning trust doesn't have to be immense.
They're only real powers would be to boot and they MUST give a full warning. Mods can be trusted to make judgment calls on whether a warning will have any impact, these guys don't. They will not be locatable by the 'find online mod' feature.

I think this idea really hits the nail on the head guy's, whats everyone else's opinions? I'd be especially happy to hear from fellow mod's and admin's.

I can't see any drawbacks to this plan so if you do (spinner?!) please, enlighten me!

WOW! Like it alot! I think you've pointed out alot of problems and solutions in both threads magic, a good days work!

I'd like to see this!

Excellent idea Magic!

Only one question (dont worry! LOL!)

When someone is booted, is there a chatlog automatically kept?

If not, i suggest that these assistants should have to keep a note with a reason for anyone they boot.

Doesn't have to be fancy, just a method of keeping a record.

(as i said, this might already exist but us mere mortals dont know )

I don't think that currently exists, I'm am not qualified to talk of server space so Nick would have to answer whether that option is feasibe.

As for keeping records, I am qualified to say that this would be impossible for a mod/assistant during busy times. today I had to boot 4-5 guys in the space of 30 seconds!!

Oh and just to make it interesting, they don't get stars! that will have a huge impact on the chat rooms, invisible booters everywhere!

Understood - I'm confident space isn't an issue, but i hope you understand why i suggestd it. Just a way for admin and experienced mods to keep an eye on assistants, and as a deterrent from abusing the system.

It would only take one "bad egg" to spoil what is an excellent idea.

Hope you realise i'm not trying to be negative. Its a great idea it just needs some accountability.

I'm assuming this would be subject to the standard age/time as a member stipulations?

Of course, but none of the other requirments of approval. I agree completely it would be great if log's would be kept, even randomly for admin/mod's to look over.

i think it's a great idea but one question remains if they click on find online moderator or admin would there user name be visable.

although it's debatable, they won't be able to deal with 99% of the queries without access to privileged info. so It would be quite pointless. Of course to call them to chat room would be good, maybe the asssistants could have an announcement in their window:
'Moderator requested in the chat room'

In fact that would be handy for everyone rather than big long conversations.

I have reservations about them being locatable as described above because they won't have proven themselves responsible or mature to deal with member queries.

Edited at 13:33 Tue 23/01/07 (GMT)

{edit - posted the same as Magic}

I totally agree with this. Invisible mods would make a big difference through time (once poeple become aware that they are always being watched)

The reason i thing some kind of log is necessary is simply to prevent abuse of "power"

Edited at 13:33 Tue 23/01/07 (GMT)

It's fantastic we can ALL agree on something great progress guys, this is how to get things done!

This is true spinner, and perhaps the only slight criticsm of this.

When i was a cadet many years ago now, i remeber watching people getting promoted, and they suddenly went from being nice and approachable to being horrid little men! I was only a lance corpral and one of my other lance jacks got promoted before me, he was a right bugga, and he ended up getting binned for bullying and all sorts! (not that you all wanted to know this, just a personal example)

However i do like the whole stelth thing!


EDIT: Is true magic, all 3 of us agree. STRANGE! hehe!


Edited at 13:41 Tue 23/01/07 (GMT)

After my little rant on the other thread, sorry!

Magic, this is a great idea, exactly what we need!

Further thought: they could be called 'trusted members' both on their profile and as their title (in pm windows etc.) Their function to help with the 'online' moderation. This wouldn't be a gateway to becoming a moderator but a position in itself, sort of like the way being a moderator is now compared to being an admin.

Sounds like a community support officer to me.

Why have watered down versions of the real thing? Would it not be best if the mods/admin were not so picky with the people who applied? This way we would have some more moderators in the chat rooms with real responsibility, and every function needed to do the job instead of a toy version.

Who wants to take this?

Sounds very negative to me. I don't see whats wrong with a community support officer. And you say "Would it not be best if the mods/admin were not so picky with the people who applied?." Do you want just anyone to be a mod?
I think if you look on the other thread, you will see the argument for this!

And how much responsibilitry does a mod need in a chat room? As long as they can boot out the offensive people, i don't see what the problem is!

Edited at 14:07 Tue 23/01/07 (GMT)

Thanks!

Great idea i think. Aslong as all of the "trusted members" were given clear instructions when and how to warn/boot, it would be of great benefit to the site.
The Idea of random/all booting chat logs being sent to staff is also a brilliant idea.

Of course not.

Surly there's room for compromise? How about some of the people posting on this thread for instance?

I'm not being negative because any help is good. I'm just pointing out that having more moderators with full capabilities is the best option, and with so many users i can't see why this is a problem.

Who's been applying, Hannibal Lecter and that bloke from se7en?