Redefined Moderation Roles

[Landon]

I know, there's been a flood of "more staff" suggestions, but this isn't really that. Rather then me just saying "hire more staff" this suggestion will go into detail on how to fix the backlog of support, rather then just hiring staff.

I believe we should redefine the Moderation roles and tasks on MC-Market. Currently there are: Chat Mods (Trial-Mods essentially), Mods, Resource Mods, Scam Resolvers, and Admins. Chat Mods moderate chat, Mods moderate both the forums, chat, support, and reports, and Admins do all of the below tasks, plus some other backend tasks.

This creates an immense responsibility for Moderators. They have to cover all of these things, which is hard as is, and especially with such a small team.

I believe the roles should be redefined as the following:

• Chat Moderators - Moderate shoutbox and shoutbox reports.

• Forum Moderators - Moderate threads and replies. Find threads that break the rules. Deal with reports in regards to threads and replies.
  
  
• Reputation Moderators - Handle all reputation reports and disputes.
  
  
• Support Moderators - Handle all support requests (That permissions allow. Higher requests would still need to be handled by either Justis or Mick).
  
  
• Resource Moderators - Handle the approval process of resources. Deal with any reports regarding resources or reviews.

So, rather then having Moderators do chat, reports, support, etc, have more 'defined' groups for each task. This in turn would lower the work for one person, and spread it across evenly, so the Moderation team of MC-Market isn't as worn out easily (As we all know that's an issue with the current team, the backlog is tiring, and wears you out).

Of course, with this, you would need to hire more members to the staff team, but that isn't the meaning of this suggestion, this is just an idea to help prevent future causes of backlogs of support like we are in right now (Months to get a report resolved).

Let me know what you think,
Landon

 

[Justis]

Your argument starts with:

This creates an immense responsibility for Moderators. They have to cover all of these things, which is hard as is, and especially with such a small team.

However, your solution would only make things more difficult for a small team, and impossible for one of our current size.
The only way your solution would be able to keep support across all site functions from being strenuous on its assigned team and ensure support for that section is reliable, is if we greatly improved the size of our team.
I believe you're mistaking the benefits that come from having a larger team as the benefits that come from separation of responsibility.

In the end, the solution is still to have a larger team, because the problem right now is not that there's too too much to look at, the problem is purely that there's not enough hands on deck.
Our moderation team is almost completely absent at this point, and creating more roles won't fix that. None of it has to do with the fact that the mods have the ability to help in "too many sections". It's completely personal, in each case, and there's nothing we can do other than hire more staff members, and we have every intention of doing so.

 

[Landon]

Your argument starts with:


However, your solution would only make things more difficult for a smaller team, especially one of our current size.
The only way your solution would be able to keep support across all site functions from being strenuous on its assigned team and ensure support for that section is reliable, is if we greatly improved the size of our team.
I believe you're mistaking the benefits of your solution for the benefits that come from having a larger team, not necessarily benefits that come from separation of responsibility on its own.

In the end, the solution is still to have a larger team, because the problem right now is not that there's too too much to look at, the problem is simply there's not enough hands on deck.
Our moderation team is almost completely absent at this point, and none of it has to do with the fact that they have the ability to help in "too many sections". It's completely personal, in each case, and there's nothing we can do about that other than hire more staff members, and we have every intention of doing so.

I stated: "Of course, with this, you would need to hire more members to the staff team". Without taking that step, this is completely useless, but once that step is taken, organization is key to success. I do see your point- this suggestion isn't entirely needed (now), but better to suggest it now then never.

 

[Justis]

I stated: "Of course, with this, you would need to hire more members to the staff team". Without taking that step, this is completely useless, but once that step is taken, organization is key to success.

Support requests either require moderator/admin permissions, or they're questions which any of our chat mods are completely able to answer if they're properly informed, and they should be kept informed at all times.
Chat mods currently have very little to do. Taking away one of their few abilities, to assign support requests to mods or answer them themselves, is not going to help us.

That leaves a reputation staff role. I can understand this, and it has been discussed within the team. However, we've never had a surplus of hands available to where we can cut a pair off from the rest of the site and have them focus purely on reputation, and at the same time, cut the rest of the moderation team's hands from reputation leaving it completely dependent on the activity of the staff in that specific role.

If we had enough moderators to where we'd be able to section off reputation, then perhaps we wouldn't even need to section it off, because we'd have enough hands to handle everything anyways, and reputation reports require no more special knowledge or skills than any other moderation report.
Separation does not necessarily equal better organization.

However, there have already been suggestion threads made for reputation specific moderators, and at this point, this feels like a duplicate.

 

[MTG]

Support requests either require moderator/admin permissions, or they're questions which any of our chat mods are completely able to answer if they're properly informed, and they should be kept informed at all times.
Chat mods currently have very little to do. Taking away one of their few abilities, to assign support requests to mods or answer them themselves, is not going to help us.

That leaves a reputation staff role. I can understand this, and it has been discussed within the team. However, we've never had a surplus of hands available to where we can cut a pair off from the rest of the site and have them focus purely on reputation, and at the same time, cut the rest of the moderation team's hands from reputation leaving it completely dependent on the activity of the staff in that specific role.

If we had enough moderators to where we'd be able to section off reputation, then perhaps we wouldn't even need to section it off, because we'd have enough hands to handle everything anyways, and reputation reports require no more special knowledge or skills than any other moderation report.
Separation does not necessarily equal better organization.

However, there have already been suggestion threads made for reputation specific moderators, and at this point, this feels like a duplicate.

Then hire more moderators? Problem fixed.

 

[Mick]

Then hire more moderators? Problem fixed.

We have been!

Support requests either require moderator/admin permissions, or they're questions which any of our chat mods are completely able to answer if they're properly informed, and they should be kept informed at all times.
Chat mods currently have very little to do. Taking away one of their few abilities, to assign support requests to mods or answer them themselves, is not going to help us.

That leaves a reputation staff role. I can understand this, and it has been discussed within the team. However, we've never had a surplus of hands available to where we can cut a pair off from the rest of the site and have them focus purely on reputation, and at the same time, cut the rest of the moderation team's hands from reputation leaving it completely dependent on the activity of the staff in that specific role.

If we had enough moderators to where we'd be able to section off reputation, then perhaps we wouldn't even need to section it off, because we'd have enough hands to handle everything anyways, and reputation reports require no more special knowledge or skills than any other moderation report.
Separation does not necessarily equal better organization.

However, there have already been suggestion threads made for reputation specific moderators, and at this point, this feels like a duplicate.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.