Moderator elections?

I am quite familiar with some of the Mods but others I have seen very little of it would be nice to get to "know" all of them.

I am a bit hesitant to pass an opinion regarding elections. I have only been here since June and I do not know what process was used to appoint them in the first place.

 

If you select the View Forum Leaders link in the bottom right corner of each page, you can view the list of Moderators and even see which are online at any given time.

Keep in mind that online simply means "logged into the site in an internet window or tab"--not necessarily that anyone is actively reading the board.


Also--the board onwer Rob_E selected the Moderator Team. IIRC, he solicited some member recommendations beforehand.

 

Thanks for the info Lex

 

All legitimacy springs from the board owner. And his legitimacy lies in paying the hosting bills and having the passwords.

Welcome to the Tyranny of the Internet.

But I still think this board would be trendier were there some mechanism for throwing members Off the Island. Not moderators, in particular, but anybody who deserves it.

 

Perhaps the current system is preferable. Elections would tend to become popularity contests, rather than administratively expedient.

 

Since I have been at this site, I have observed that the mods do an excellent job of moderating this place. I suspect that they were chosen based on the history of their insightful postings, their willingness to spend countless hours "patrolling" the board, and a knowledge of computers sufficient to perform the required tasks. IMO, they couldn't have come up with a better group. If others want to join them, I doubt they will have to campaign. Some mods will inevitably step down (e.g., MZ, who prefers to be an active member to being a mod), at which time, someone will fill the void without much fanfare. I wish our government worked that effectively and smoothly.

 

I don't think it's revealing too much to say that he also listened carefully to several posters who had issues with some of his proposed candidates, and that several of those whom he proposed as mods refused the position, meaning that those who did ultimately become mods both wanted the position and met with no general resistance. It's clear they have done a good job subsequently, although one might indeed argue (as I have done) that some tendencies towards the occasional draconian pronouncement needed to be called into question. If that's the biggest woe to date, however, then the mod team is clearly still preferable to most any government one could name.

Inevitably, the attendance of a couple of mods has tapered off over time, though, as happens at any site, and one could well argue that they might need to be replaced at some point. But that is entirely Rob E's decision.

 

Yes, but what if he bans himself?

 

That's a bit existential for Spladle.

 

Ooooooy vey! Mark of the n00b. T'wasn't like that at all.

And I'll vote Spadle Off the Island. As long as it's in a good cause.

 

Wrong assumption, BG? Fill me in, then. I am a newbie.

 

Ok ok, I'm guilty. I'm hoping that once my bf moves for grad school I'll have more time to devote to being on here again, or else I would have resigned long before now.

As things stand, I regret not being here as often as I would like, but we currently have a great moderating team from what I've been able to see lately, so props to them and their leadership here.

 

Cool and dandy, sexy.

That does still leave two mods who haven't logged on in over one month and over three months respectively. Which is not to say that anyone has a problem with either of them, merely that for the sake of being able to reach 'consensus decisions', there are clearly a few issues - outwardly, at least - when the mod team is depleted (also by the departure of Madame Z) to essentially the same 4 or 5 decision-makers at all times.

 

then we hold new nominations.:biggrin1:

 

Maybe that's what is so amusing about him. I miss his posts.