Maiguels: Added due to inactivity.
zergreenone: Added due to inactivity.
starcrytas: I might've forgotten to click a button. I think that's only the second time I've done that surprisingly.
btrim: I'll just delete Goofy's Fun House for now. Disney series doesn't have strong need for a moderator if you don't want it any more. You should be able to remove yourself. Most large disconnected series are fine without a series moderator. If you want to remove yourself from games and leave them with no moderators, could you give us a list of the empty games.
Sp00keh: Added due to inactivity.
Arctice: There aren't any runs on the page, so I'll remove them and add you.
Hello, I am requesting for mod on Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed. I understand there have been issues with the current mod RobotCrocodilz involving him creating leaderboards for games that he does not have any intention of running. There are no rules defined in the game, which needs rules and more categories than "Any %" due to the presence of collectibles and a password system. The leaderboard looks plain and shows no signs of improvement beyond making the game and a single category. Although I do not have any grounds to replace him as mod on the grounds of him not verifying my runs, I do not believe it is beneficial to have the leaderboards of the game in the hands of someone who has likely never played the game. Just as extra proof that he has not looked at the leaderboard since it was created, Scooby-Doo is spelled "Scooby Doo". That may be of minimal difference, but it shows RobotCrocodilz' lack of interest in the game.
Robot was on site an hour ago, he's streamed 2 days ago, last on twitter 5 days ago. However, when someone gets a leaderboard and doesn't do shit for the entirety of them having it, I think these time table "courtesy" should probably be ignored. That's just my opinion since there is no responsibility shown by Robot here for this game.
Also just a quick question, but what is the point of completely taking away series moderation power in individual games? Couldn't there be a better kind of checks and balance instead of blocking them out entirely?
For instance, if series mod power is not active in specific games, they should still have the ability to add and remove mods from that game (however, they should only be able to grant standard mod, not super mods).
That way, inactive mods who take away series power aren't leaving a board hung to dry, gives a bit more balance between series and game mods, and it encourages series mods to keep a watchful eye (and be active) on all games in the series instead of just being figure heads.
Just a recommendation, it just doesn't seem beneficial to completely lock out series mods and it takes away the non serious mod requests (cause in this scenario, the only reason to come to this thread is due to non series games, or there's a really bad series mod doing bad things).
@KirbyComment did you contact the moderators before posting here?
Requesting Moderation for Shooty Skies because the existing Moderator is inactive. http://www.speedrun.com/Shooty_Skies Thanks.
Vaan666: I think the most correct solution would be for the game's runners to come to a consensus on what the board should look like. Please don't use this thread just to bypass moderators.
GhostScit: In most cases I'm not going to batch add people to games they don't have runs of due to inactivity. A mod was added or logged in for Stray Cat Crossing.
Zewing:
[quote]Also just a quick question, but what is the point of completely taking away series moderation power in individual games? Couldn't there be a better kind of checks and balance instead of blocking them out entirely? [/quote]
The inheritance was very intensive on the database the way it was implemented. There may be better ways to implement something like that. Secondly the control of the board felt too ambiguous and this caused a fair share of conflict. The new/opposite lack of checks and balances also causes some conflict. The current system is either you share control it or you don't; leaving less of an ambiguous middle ground or hierarchy. There may be an implementation scheme that is a better medium. My personal opinion is that clearing up some of the ambiguous middle ground is closer to correct for now.
RobotCrocodilz: On a neutral note, site users seem to take issue with users creating blank boards for games they don't run. (At an extreme, a user could go request a ton of games they don't run and have control of the boards.) Ideally these would be caught by the game request form, but historically the form requested less information so a lot of games slipped through (and many of your games have very old creation dates).
XYX: I'm not exactly looking to give moderator to the loudest protestor or whatever. I'd suggest getting runners to come to a consensus on who they want running the boards. My concern is that the usual meme crew shows up and all run the same game and post a lot on the boards to gain a perceived "majority" when they're all just advocating for each other all the time. Subjectively: "Me and my friends all think I should be mod."
KirbyComment: There are plenty of mods for the game to discuss this with.
Cappan1: Added due to inactivity and you have a run.
I would request to made an mod for the Battlefield 4 page, as the current moderators are inactive. Multiple people have made attempts at submitting runs, but due to the lack of moderation they haven't been successful. Thank You.
dude brandon, shut the hell UP. You have no good reason to get mod on TS2, click that X button right now.
