Board Thread:Wiki Discussions/@comment-25075055-20140410195636/@comment-25075055-20140419090419

TheUltimate3 wrote: Now my only egotistical question is: Who was it that told me no when I said they probably shouldn't in the first place? /flex From what I read above, that person was me, but only because Snapper2 told me no (so essentially, Snapper2 :P)

Quoting what I said in another thread: We shouldn't be leaving every little thing with the forums to sysops. That just adds an extra pressure to people who may have almost no interest in viewing the forums (plus, while people claim we have plenty, there's only really 7 active sysops [discount Suki and Dantman since the former has no intention of returning and Dantman isn't always here]) when that workload should, in theory, be handed down to a smaller band of users who have the task of moderating the forums.

The fact is, sysops need to be approached to solve a situation and it may take hours before someone appears: by which point, things may have escalated. If we had forum moderators who were around a majority of the time, then personally it would be easier on the sysops and they wouldn't feel a burden of needing to view the forums for rule violations.

While it might be a hassle, in the long run, an extra flag wouldn't go amiss and frankly, there are some people here who I think should have the ability to close / highlight threads, but why should those people be denied just because "only sysops should be allowed to do it" ? Having that forum mod flag, therefore, would allow those deserving people to have those additional powers in the forums, without needing to be a full sysop and have the burden of being a sysop on top of them.

There are positives to having an extra flag, despite what people are saying.

(I just realised this was all posted in the wrong thread -.-)