I'm going to be blunt, but respectful about this.
I don't know about you, fellow tempers, but @porkiewpyne is a half-assed moderator. First, you can't pick and choose what is off-topic. If it is off-topic, it's off-topic, end of story. Your idea of "justice" (or whatever you operate by) is flawed. You pick and choose what to "censor" in a way that seems to lean toward favoritism rather than actual "moderating".
Literally, you never give a reason for your "moderating", you just censor. It is far more logical (albeit more work) to add a reason, if you choose to "moderate", yet you never do, and this is why @raulpica is leagues beyond you, and will always be. @Issac, half-asleep, is still a better choice for moderator than @porkiewpyne.
Since Day 1, you have been the bottom "mod" (can't even type that without quotes) and you seem to have no ambition on improving relations with members of this site; you pick and choose at your discretion what is or isn't allowed on this site, as if you are the direct site owner.
I have a feeling that maybe no one has told you you're doing a bad job, but here it is--you've literally pushed me to create this thread and suggestion:
a voting system to get rid of mods who aren't doing their job.
You need a reckoning and to be held accountable for doing a terrible "job".
I figure not everyone should have the ability to vote, much like the US voting system; there should be a certain post count (2K+), minimum length of time your account has been active (2 years), a threshold for how many warnings you've had (no more than 5), and the ability to voice your concerns (in full sentences) to be eligible to have your vote counted.
I can personally say, I have warning points that have come from @ raulpica, but I was given a reason, and because of that, I know what not to do. This is an example of a good, fair moderator.
Imagine you're sent to jail, for no reason or were given a fine, for well, you tell me, because @porkiewpyne doesn't and never has, for anyone. This is a problem and I have the solution: let "mods" know that they are not absolute--you need improvement in your flawed "justice" and if you continue "moderating" in such a flawed manner, you will lose your position and acquire the title "incompetent" below your name as a badge of shame.
@Costello, @BORTZ, @Issac, @raulpica, @Minox
You all have my respect and deepest gratitude for exercising due diligence and competence in every sense of the word of being an owner, supervisor, mod, but @porkiewpyne is a black eye on the face of GBATemp--you can't defend the actions by saying he's a "newbie", either. I believe no one has ever publicly expressed their feelings, but now you know.
In closing, I feel this system, should it be adopted, would reflect views of democracy, a system that may not be perfect, but a system far more fair than a dictatorship.
--H1B1Esquire.
I don't know about you, fellow tempers, but @porkiewpyne is a half-assed moderator. First, you can't pick and choose what is off-topic. If it is off-topic, it's off-topic, end of story. Your idea of "justice" (or whatever you operate by) is flawed. You pick and choose what to "censor" in a way that seems to lean toward favoritism rather than actual "moderating".
Literally, you never give a reason for your "moderating", you just censor. It is far more logical (albeit more work) to add a reason, if you choose to "moderate", yet you never do, and this is why @raulpica is leagues beyond you, and will always be. @Issac, half-asleep, is still a better choice for moderator than @porkiewpyne.
Since Day 1, you have been the bottom "mod" (can't even type that without quotes) and you seem to have no ambition on improving relations with members of this site; you pick and choose at your discretion what is or isn't allowed on this site, as if you are the direct site owner.
I have a feeling that maybe no one has told you you're doing a bad job, but here it is--you've literally pushed me to create this thread and suggestion:
a voting system to get rid of mods who aren't doing their job.
You need a reckoning and to be held accountable for doing a terrible "job".
I figure not everyone should have the ability to vote, much like the US voting system; there should be a certain post count (2K+), minimum length of time your account has been active (2 years), a threshold for how many warnings you've had (no more than 5), and the ability to voice your concerns (in full sentences) to be eligible to have your vote counted.
I can personally say, I have warning points that have come from @ raulpica, but I was given a reason, and because of that, I know what not to do. This is an example of a good, fair moderator.
Imagine you're sent to jail, for no reason or were given a fine, for well, you tell me, because @porkiewpyne doesn't and never has, for anyone. This is a problem and I have the solution: let "mods" know that they are not absolute--you need improvement in your flawed "justice" and if you continue "moderating" in such a flawed manner, you will lose your position and acquire the title "incompetent" below your name as a badge of shame.
@Costello, @BORTZ, @Issac, @raulpica, @Minox
You all have my respect and deepest gratitude for exercising due diligence and competence in every sense of the word of being an owner, supervisor, mod, but @porkiewpyne is a black eye on the face of GBATemp--you can't defend the actions by saying he's a "newbie", either. I believe no one has ever publicly expressed their feelings, but now you know.
In closing, I feel this system, should it be adopted, would reflect views of democracy, a system that may not be perfect, but a system far more fair than a dictatorship.
--H1B1Esquire.
Or others