Because it regularly happens that people get forced into Time-Outs by their opponent by not accepting the score and needlessly passing, that it would be nice if calling a moderator would pause the game until it is resolved.
Maybe that allows more options than just annulling a game that’s already timed-out when the Mods arrive.
This has been suggested in the past, I think it’s a good idea.
It got a bit stuck on “what about live tournament games - we can’t have a whole tournament held up because someone called a mod”
wouldn’t a real life tournament be held up as well if they are waiting on an response of a “judge” because of something that happens in a game.
Additionally, people who would abuse this automatically will get themselves some moderator attention.
Wouln’t it hurt especially in live tournaments to get timed-out by an opponent?
The timed-out player loses his game - and gets disqualified from the tournament, even if there are more rounds to be played - like in double elimination or McMahon tournaments (If I recall correctly that timing-out leads to complete disqualification)
The problem is that it can take hours until a moderator shows up. At this point in time, most participants will be offline.
Some trolls seek moderator attention. And some trolls would like to be able to keep a tournament at hold over hours, affecting tens of people at the same time.
I agree with what you are saying, and the only possible solution to that would be to have more moderators. But then…how many is too many? And what about over moderation? These are all problems.
Surly, if there were to be a problem solved it would need to be the solution that creates the best possible outcome while mitigating the worst possible results.
At the moment, its easier to not implament something like this, because of the array of things that need to be done to make said action viable.
Untill such a time where the problem becomes bigger than the issues created from the solutiion, then nothing realistically should be done i think.
Trolls are still able to stall the tournaments if they want. If they wanted to keep the tournament at hold for hours, all they have to do is pause their game if the opponent isn’t showing up. There can be many issues that take place on the opponent’s side, or they could just forget about the tournament, which can cause the tournament to last until a moderator unpauses the game or the opponent comes on.
If they really want moderator attention, they just have to troll the opponent. I was watching a game once that pauses and undos basically made the game take way longer than it should’ve, and the moderator had to come on, or the game would never have ended. Part of it was the work of the troll, and part of it was the opponent not completely realizing they were trying to troll at first, and accepting undos to give back most of the troll’s time.
Sure, but just because “trolls can troll” doesn’t mean that “therefore it’s OK to give them a brand new tool for it”.
Is it possible to cancel call for moderator?
Yes, the reporter can cancel their own report (AFAIK)
The only problem this pausing thing solves, is moderators cannot change the outcome of a decided game, or I’m missing something?
That is “the exact problem” that this is proposed to solve (in my eyes).
How about trust level three(regulars)become substitute moderators so If no moderators arrive in a amount of time then substitute moderators arrive to help.I am actually trust level two only so it is not to make me able to moderate things.
Would that solve any problems that adding an extra mod or two if needed wouldn’t?
Because @flovo said that moderators could arrive after a few hours and many people will be offline so this will fix the problem
There has been some discussion of the possibility of different levels of powers being awarded to different people, to ease moderators being responsible for everything, but I would be surprised if deciding the outcome of games were to be one of these delegated powers.
Here is some examples for levels but this will probably not what you add.So I won’t cover the ones in game.
Group levels:Recruit:can not create tournaments
Elder:can create tournaments
Co admin:capable of doing anything a admin can do but can’t make admin or un admin .
Special note:they can only promote people up to the level they are in
Ideas for site levels is coming soon I will put it on this post with edit (will be posted in about 37 hours later)
No that i am in any way an authority on the situation here.
But, in my opinion making regulars (Of which i no longer am), a mod by effectivly deputising them…sort of creates a ssystem more prone to being abused by the mods themselvs.
Now im not saying that people would do this, but one has to do a risk assessment, even if only mentally. What would happen is that many regulars would then get many of the same powers as a moderator. This increases the risk of accidental and intentional abuse of moderation powers.
I’m an admin on a facebook political debate group, so I know a little but about these things, but i dont dare call myself an expert… but, we have around 500 members, give or take a few, (I think its actually closer to 480 but whatever), but, it there was a system that meant that members who were very active, were given powers over other members to do what they wanted, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would be abuse of that power.
The Admin team, consisting of myself and six other people, run a pretty tight ship, but we cant be on every comment thread of every single post in the group. So we have a report system, we have a keyword alert system, and they work very well for Ad-homenim attacks in debate (which is against the rules).
Now, why have i explained this?
Well there are seven people for just under 500 people. And in here, and on the site, there are different challenges.
If there were too many mods on here, then there would be a much higher chance of overeach by the mod team. It would also become more and more difficult to keep the hierarchy in a condition whereby it would be able to self sustain. If i were to for example, add seven more admins to my team on the facebook group, then that would be seven more people which would perhaps not all be on the same page, and feel the same sense of responsability to not abuse their power. Perhaps they are fantastic, but the risk is there that at least some of them, would overstep. Which would be a price far too high to cut down on waiting times for the call mod option.
Now…
The idea of a lower level mod, that is spesifically (Trained) or chosen for a spesific duty, and can only act in those cases… that is an idea worth some salt. How it could be done… i dont know.
But, we do not want to put in to play something which could be worse than the actual problem itself.
This is the thought process here…
I know… i would not abuse the powers given to me, if i were made a moderator. But, that still does not stop accidental abuses of power, it only promises i will not purposfully abuse that power… but only i know that.
Then there is… How well am i known? How reliable am i? Can i be trusted? These are all things that the current admin/ mod team have to think about before they let anyone become a moderator.
So, bringing on the team a whole bunch of new people to cover more ground, may achve that in the short term, but may cause far more problems in the long term.
Sorry if i rambled, i wanted to cover as much of my thought process as possible.
((Also, as a note… I dont think I would make a good moderator. im not very reliable in terms of my activity and mental health, which makes me inactive for long periods of time. ((Not that i was a canditate ((I’ll shut up now))))))
So if a lower level mod does something wrong you can just call a high level mod plus mod level ideas are coming soon so stay toon for that