At 8/27/10 08:05 PM, WadeFulp wrote:
Don't vote for yourself, or vote for someone who obviously does not deserve the position, or can be trusted with it. I may ban you.
You do realise half of the people who respond to this aren't going to read this far down the thread, right?
Meh. More ban points for you. :P
OK, back on topic.
...Umm... I really don't know. If I had to nominate one person, it'd have to be reverend, since he and Auz were more or less indistinguishable on the forums as far as post quality went, and still largely are (if you cover up the golden aura... :P).
Then again, I really don't know if he'd actually want to be a forum mod in the first place. That's kind of the paradox with forum mod standards: You need to be able to regularly deal with the General forum, since it's the biggest headache for the mod team, but because it's such a shit-fest most of the time, hardly any of the users who have post qualities showing forum mod characteristics want to come here on a regular basis anyway. All the ones I can think of (that aren't already modded) are mostly active in the Wi/Ht and C&C forums, hardly ever coming in here.
It's also impossible to tell if their own site enjoyment would be ruined by the resultant unending stream of butthurt and anti-authority raging most mods get on a daily basis, regardless of how well they try to explain themselves and the rules here. I know at least 3 or 4 that have changed their attitudes to the forums completely as a direct result of being modded (mostly for the worse, too). I suppose there's only one way to find out about that, though.
Damn... I never actually sat down and thought about how hard picking a new mod would be before. Guess it's not as easy as everyone thinks...