Subject: Super-Moderator

only supermoderators should be able to close topics :D

E. Answer B
F. Probably C, if not A.

“Those who speak from the heart are often told to shut their mouths.”
Pierre Perret

So you go with D then?

I am confused... it looks like D includes A, B and C but then if B is the answer to E and C or A the answer to F, shouldn't E and F be included in D as well ?
Please answer.

Well, E and F were proposed after the poll was made, but I can conclude that if not for A, B, C or D, that E and F are still legit options. Just go with any of those! or maybe you have other valid options?
Anyways, I think that a supermoderator would be a bit like a dictator, overruling every other moderator, and thus make multiple moderators unnecessary. At this point, it's admins and devs who decide who becomes and stays moderator. I think the system works fine as it is.

When I finally complete the purchase of Sokker, in few months, I will appoint you as Super-Moderator.
That will be a full time job, be ready !

At this point, it's admins and devs who decide who becomes and stays moderator. I think the system works fine as it is.

You say that because you know that administrators or developers don't interfere with the work of moderators. They don't want to know.

And it suits you for things to stay that way. With absolute power in the forum, and no one the users can turn to for help.

No, I say that because I know they WILL interfere if a moderator is misusing his power as a mod, for sure! If they agree with a mod's decision, then they have no reason for interfering, right?

That's not true. The responses I received... weren't about whether you were doing the right thing or the wrong thing. The responses I received were exactly that they didn't care what happened on the forum, that they had other things to do. This is the truth. No administrator or DEV has validated what you do here (nor rejected it). They're just not interested, and that's why we users need a Super Moderator to protect us from Moderators who don't follow the rules.

I'm curious. You've stated that you're not pleased with how moderators work. But what makes you think you'd like the Super-Moderator's work? Unless, of course, you'd like the Super-Moderator to be you?

It is very obvious that if supermoderator does a bad job, there will be a ultrasupermoderator to monitor his work
(edited)

I think you don't know exactly how it goes about moderation ...
The super moderator already exist!

When a moderator's decision is debatable (or contested), moderators discuss it on a dedicated international internal forum, open only to moderators (but readable by admins).
Decisions are made collectively there.
This "college" is therefore the Supermoderator you're hoping for.
(edited)

So what makes a moderator's decision debatable? They can delete any message they want, say whatever they want... and most of the time the user didn't save a screenshot of the original message. And for the decision to be debatable, it's important for users to know who to complain to.

Firstly, it is not expected that a Super-Moderator would be walking around the forums doing the work of a Moderator.

Therefore, it is expected that if someone initially does a poor job, it will always be done by a regular moderator.

After experiencing this poor performance from the Moderator, the user complains to the Super-Moderator.

For an unfair decision to be made against a user, it would already be necessary for 2 people to be wrong. It is less likely that 2 people would be wrong than just 1. Therefore, this already increases user safety.

So, as I said above, I think there should be 3 Super-Moderators. Maybe one from each of the 3 main continents of Sokker. A reduced number of Super-Moderators facilitates coordination between the 3, having 3 instead of 1 prevents the existence of a dictator, and the fact that there is an odd number allows for an internal vote if there is no agreement among everyone.

There are dozens of moderators who have fallen from the sky. There is no verification or any criteria to guarantee the quality of the moderators. With only 3 Super-Moderators, they can be chosen more carefully, selecting those who are truly good.

And finally, the mere existence of Super-Moderators puts pressure on moderators who act like dictators. Regular moderators will feel more obligated to act according to the rules, as they know they could lose their jobs.

There are moderators whose work everyone complains about, who shouldn't be moderators on Sokker anymore because they invent whatever they want to punish people whenever they feel like it. But who should we report? Should we report someone only to then say that what happens on the forum doesn't matter? And if everyone reports a different person, nobody will have the complete set of complaints to understand what's really going on. Having a small group that centralizes the reception of complaints will allow that person to realize that dozens of people are complaining about the same thing, and remove the moderator from their position.

I see no problem whatsoever with having a new role to protect users from moderators who don't follow the rules.