Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
It was brought up at IVS and a poll was created. While it was done in fun it was pretty interesting. If you're curious about the results click here.

And I believe the keyword here is "fun". I honestly don't believe Skip would have gotten half the votes he did if we actually had to pick a moderator!

I too stem back to the "golden age" of FidoNet, and was myself a moderator. One group I got "by default", as the users (myself included) was VERY annoyed with the current moderator of the group - all in his first month of being a moderator! He came close to destroying the group completely, and after severe pressure from other moderators, he stepped down, leaving me in charge.

For those unfamiliar with FidoNet, it was common practise that a moderator who left - be it when his/her "term" (which I think was two years) was up or they wanted to leave before that - to either handle the process of electing a new moderator themselves, or leave somebody else in charge of that. That somebody else would also be the groups moderator unitil the election was completed and the new moderator stepped in. Usually this took about a month.

Well, I was elected, but the group never really became the same again...

My point is, as some people have already pointed out, choosing who should be moderators should be done with great care. It only takes ONE person to completely destroy a group.

For myself, I know that as far as the chit-chatting General group goes, where it's really most about having fun, I would probably never post anything in that again if it was moderated by Skip. I simply couldn't stop thinking about the fact that if he had a tool to get rid of anyone not agreeing with him, he would use it - mostly because in the groups he did not moderate, he probably wouldn't get away with the language he's currently using when somebody disagrees with him...

But, then again... I'm not sure we even not moderators except for those we already have (Ken and Gerri). Most people here a behaving, discussing in a civilized manner. One can't help that people are sometimes carried away by their feelings (and I'm not afraid to admit it has happened to me too), but most people here are capable of differentiating, taking it for what it is. If all of a sudden we had moderators, passing out warnings (or worse) when that happened, I'm afraid we'll be killing a lot of good discussions. To me, the "social life" in these group are half the charm about the program. We already tried loosing the program for a month - let's not loose these groups forever...

whoopsie.

   

I think Skip just put himself out of the running. Hopefully a moderator would be able to use the basic functions of the forum, including how to unquote something that is mistakenly quoted   

(not picking on the whoopsie part. most all of us have quoted instead of editing  )

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Take notice that Skip is not weighing in any form on this topic. I could offer thoughts on what I too think of various users in the role of moderator, which in most cases would not be very high and the majority would probably abuse the responsibility. For myself, fankly, i could care less, for the simple reason that I already have enough to do for this program and that includes attempts to help users.

Having spent numerous years in retail sales in addition to my programming careerr, I see many of the same problems here that I used to see in sales. Users want the answer that they WANT to hear, they don't care if what they want to hear is logcal or correct, if it is not the answer that they want to hear they get there nose severely twisted and go hostile, seen it way too many times. That is all I have to say on this, there are a few that I think might make good mods, just as there are a few users whose work I have learned over the years to trust.

BTW, Touti there is adifference between a moderator and a user, and if you think that I don't understand that wel...... What can I say.

Skip

c'mon... it's funny 

Post deleted.......I am moderating myself.

deleted

I think moderators are a good idea as long as they are here to keep the peace and not dictate policy.  What I mean is they should keep the personal attacks under control but stay out of the 'this is what the rule means' discussions.

JMHO

I don't really agree with that. As long as the moderators maintain a balanced approach to everything, there's no reason they can't participate in discussions.

I hope you are joking, because if you're not, that means that whomever are the moderators, they will not be able to participate at all.

After my recent stoush with Skip, the number of emails I received in support indicate that there are a significant number of people who would contribute to this forum if they would be treated with respect, and that people like Skip would be kept under control. Moderation seems the only way to do this.

Becoming a moderator on these forums should also require the undertaking that the person does not participate in active threads except in their moderator function. I know this sounds hard, but it is the only way that at least some degree of impartiality can be ensured.

Anyone who nominates themselves should not be considered. Personal experience indicates that these people are ones who see the role as a way to wield power over others.

Moderators should be anonymous.

Selection of moderators should be a private process, not one conducted in the forum. It's a pity that the process was advertised here at all. It would have been better if it was set up and running before anything was said.