Moderator #3: call for nominations

[Prof.Wizard]

Note that I posted again instead of editing an existing post. Does that tell you anything?

Do you want me to thank you for this?
You MUST do it this way! Moderators should edit inappropriate content, not typos or intentions...

 

[Mercutio]

Tannin is not a moderator. Tannin has the ability to edit posts *specifically* to edit the forum FAQ. That's it. Flagreen and I are moderators. There will be a third very shortly.

I'm not suggesting that every moderator has a perfect record. Shortly after I got mod power I corrected a misspelled word in one of my posts, for instance (just to see how the process worked). It might be said that checking the giver's IP was wrong as well.

Deciding who got a job was a matter of who volunteered or was elected, depending on the job. Coug volunteered to be frontpage-guy. Tannin was elected chairman.

 

[flagreen]

What happens in case of Power abuse? So far as I know, there is no explicit mechanism in place for this, and it would be handled under the general catch-all proceedures, which (it seems to me) are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

Two examples...

the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.

This is when flagreen don't know what he edited exactly, but used his mod power to change a statement. Of course you "Mod Forum" guys know of it all, but what about us? Why shouldn't we laugh with the rest of the crew?

Wrong Prof - This not when I changed what I originally wrote to Jake. If you had bothered to read and post my explanation to Jake about this you will see that my editing of my own words was being done as Jake was replying to them unbeknownst to me. The least you could have done was to talk to me about it first if you had a problem with it.

 

[CougTek]

Am I considered an untrusty member that should be kept to a need-to-know basis?

Do you really want an answer?

Again, let me repeat I'M NOT interested for the time being.

And why not Handruin, Buck, Koggit, iGary,... [blah blah]..., and myself?

I'm really upset so many things in these forums are beyond my control without a real reason...

I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs.

We need to place another guy there ASAP. One is not enough.

Find the mistake between the first quote and the one below. Anyone still wonders why I don't want him on the admin team AND in my legs for the front page?

but why am I considered a "mortal" in a forum...

Read what you are writing and you should find the answer. Besides, there are no Gods here, just people with a little more responsablilities (and I mean responsabilites, not "powers").

Enough.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Wrong Prof - This not when I changed what I originally wrote to Jake. If you had bothered to read and post my explanation to Jake about this you will see that my editing of my own words was being done as Jake was replying to them unbeknownst to me.

So... editing of your own words?
And why should you edit your own words? What's said is said. Create another post if you want to restate something. As anyone else.

The least you could have done was to talk to me about it first if you had a problem with it.

Don't take it personal. I only brought you as an example to see if this kind of moderation is right.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Hey CouchTest, no worries. I DON'T want your job, this is the last time I repeat it.

But just to comment on what you said?
You don't want me in the admin team. YOU? Jeez, I hope your personal self-esteem is higher than your e-one cause as a future doctor I'm in position to say you run some serious psychological issues dude.

This isn't a game about power and authority which YOU crave and don't want to share with no one. I screw you and your frontpage-job man, work it alone. Better for me to yell on you if I ever don't see my submitted news posted on time.

As always, your zero-productivity commenting has taken the thread OT. Better don't respond in an ongoing coversation if you don't know how and what to say...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Deciding who got a job was a matter of who volunteered or was elected, depending on the job. Coug volunteered to be frontpage-guy. Tannin was elected chairman.

So it was (partly) a matter of who-comes-first-takes-first...

Anyway, as a regular member I call the oh-mighty Admin Team to consider the addition of another frontpage-guy as well (Couch is not enough) and consider elections for moderators/admin positions every 6 months.

Fair enough?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I'm not suggesting that every moderator has a perfect record. Shortly after I got mod power I corrected a misspelled word in one of my posts, for instance (just to see how the process worked).

OF COURSE this doesn't harm Mercutio. I would NEVER expect anyone complain about it. And this includes me.

It might be said that checking the giver's IP was wrong as well.

Yep. This was unfair IMHO. This is why no IPs should be visible for moderators as well.

----------------------------------
PS. If you're good in the command of English feel free to correct typos and/or grammatical errors to my posts too.

 

[flagreen]

Wrong Prof - This not when I changed what I originally wrote to Jake. If you had bothered to read and post my explanation to Jake about this you will see that my editing of my own words was being done as Jake was replying to them unbeknownst to me.

So... editing of your own words?
And why should you edit your own words? What's said is said. Create another post if you want to restate something. As anyone else.

As I said in my response to Jake, I did so to avoid needless conflict with, and offence to, Jake based on my misunderstanding of that which I was originally responding to. It was my intention to edit it befiore he or anyone else saw it. In effect to use the editing function in a similar manner as one ordinarily uses the preview function. Unfortunately as I was editing it Jake was already responding to it. Had I known that he was I would not have edited it becasue to do so would not have been proper and would be an abuse of power. Had I saved the original content of the post I would have reposted it, but I didn't. So the note I placed in the post as to what happened was the best I could do. Go back and check the times listed for both my edit and his post if you doubt that. Anyway anyone who reads Jakes post can get an idea as to what was removed from my original post.

I also edit my posts for spelling and grammatical errors that I miss when previewing my posts.

The least you could have done was to talk to me about it first if you had a problem with it.

Don't take it personal. I only brought you as an example to see if this kind of moderation is right.

You're posting Jake's accusation without my response to it was not proper or fair. And you bet your life I take such things personal and make no apologies for the fact that I do.

BTW - You are dangerously close in your responses to CougTek to being edited yourself. So calm down and cool off before you post please. Peace-out Dude!

 

[P5-133XL]

Professor,

You seem to have many complaints of how we are handling the operations here ar SF. Lets see if I can help you understand some stuff.

First Question, are we trying to hide stuff from the normal user: Answer, yes.

The stuff in the moderators forum is deliberately hidden from everyone (including the administrators), but the moderators. When a post is edited or removed and placed there it is because people are not supposed to be seeing that stuff. The only people that should be seeing those posts are those that need to. Further, the discussions there may involve topics that may affect people reputations and shouldn't be discussed publicly at all, especially untill proven.

The stuff in the Administation forum involve creating policies. There many viewpoints are discussed that if made public would reflect poorly upon the people expressing them. However, they need to be discussed so that those issues can be considered with the policy being discussed. We don't want to limit our discussions to only that which is acceptable, publicly.

You are not currently part of the administration and thereby you do not have any duties and responsibilities beyond those of any normal user. You therefore have little control and no access to information that is not appropiate to your level of duty. If and when you gain some more responsibilities and duties then you will be granted access to the information and tools needed to satisfy those. Untill then, I suggest that you be satisfied with the amount of control you have.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there is good reason to prevent you (and others) from accessing and having control over stuff you have no responsibility for.

Question : "I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs."; answer, there is no current set procedure. When a job needs to be done, we have simply delt with the issue on a case by case basis.

Handruin got his task of webmaster, by creating the site. He did such a good job that there has never been any issue as to replacing him. Coug got the job as doing the frontpage by simply vollunteering and doing the job. He has do a fine job and no one is looking to replace him. Tannin was elected to the chairmanship by the admins. The moderators were elected by the Admins. The Admin group were created by ourselves.

If you are interested in one of the jobs, try proving yourself capable and responsible. Rather than taking someone elses job, you might find it easier to create your own. Start doing the work and become the defacto person in charge of it.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

As I said in my response to Jake, I did so to avoid needless conflict with, and offence to, Jake based on my misunderstanding of that which I was originally responding to. It was my intention to edit it befiore he or anyone else saw it. In effect to use the editing function in a similar manner as one ordinarily uses the preview function. Unfortunately as I was editing it Jake was already responding to it. Had I known that he was I would not have edited it becasue to do so would not have been proper and would be an abuse of power. Had I saved the original content of the post I would have reposted it, but I didn't. So the note I placed in the post as to what happened was the best I could do. Go back and check the times listed for both my edit and his post if you doubt that. Anyway anyone who reads Jakes post can get an idea as to what was removed from my original post.

I understood how it happened with Jake, you don't have to explain to me (again).

I also edit my posts for spelling and grammatical errors that I miss when previewing my posts.

Why should edit your post for typos/grammaticals and the rest of us not? This is darn unfair. Let them be as you originally posted them. Go check phpBB's FAQ for the jobs a moderator should do.

You're posting Jake's accusation without my response to it was not proper or fair. And you bet your life I take such things personal and make no apologies for the fact that I do.

Your response had absolutely no significance for the topic. The fact of the matter is that you used you mod powers to restate-rephrase something you had already written.

BTW - You are dangerously close in your responses to CougTek to being edited yourself. So calm down and cool off before you post please. Peace-out Dude!

IF YOU TOUCH ONE WORD OF MY POSTS BE SURE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND CONSIDER WHAT YOU'LL CUT FROM ME AND WHAT YOU'LL LEAVE TO COUCHTEST...

I'm not cooling off a single bit, dude, I'll defend myself to the best extent.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

First Question, are we trying to hide stuff from the normal user: Answer, yes.

Ah yeah? And why that? We're both coming from SR. We're both here to continue discussions that were supposed to be made at SR when SR would close. OF course, SF gots now its own character. But I didn't choose you to be in that admin team P5. And what do you have to hide from me regarding SF?

The stuff in the moderators forum is deliberately hidden from everyone (including the administrators), but the moderators. When a post is edited or removed and placed there it is because people are not supposed to be seeing that stuff. The only people that should be seeing those posts are those that need to. Further, the discussions there may involve topics that may affect people reputations and shouldn't be discussed publicly at all, especially untill proven.

So, is there a Jerry Springer show running behind the scenes? C'mon for Christ's sake, there are less than 120 registrated member in SF, most of them with multiple personas... do we really need this kind of "mysticism"?

The stuff in the Administation forum involve creating policies. There many viewpoints are discussed that if made public would reflect poorly upon the people expressing them. However, they need to be discussed so that those issues can be considered with the policy being discussed. We don't want to limit our discussions to only that which is acceptable, publicly.

idem

You are not currently part of the administration and thereby you do not have any duties and responsibilities beyond those of any normal user. You therefore have little control and no access to information that is not appropiate to your level of duty. If and when you gain some more responsibilities and duties then you will be granted access to the information and tools needed to satisfy those. Untill then, I suggest that you be satisfied with the amount of control you have.

No, I'm not satisfied as long as Mercutio can see IPs and as long as Flagreen corrects his own typos.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there is good reason to prevent you (and others) from accessing and having control over stuff you have no responsibility for.

Yeah right, I might turn crazy and from a regular member and start hacking your machines (knowing your IPs)...

Question : "I wanna know the procedures of getting that persons to the jobs."; answer, there is no current set procedure. When a job needs to be done, we have simply delt with the issue on a case by case basis.

Cool. So we can cut on formalities and admin/mod councils and stuff.

Handruin got his task of webmaster, by creating the site. He did such a good job that there has never been any issue as to replacing him.

He surely did. But when I joined this forum I thought it was the continuity of SR's legacy among the regular members there. It was supposed to be peer-to-peer forum between pals (lemme check Mercutio's invitation again) but it seems to be a Byzantime power game with master CouchTest NOT wanting to share a so important job with no one, producing unnecessary lag.

Coug got the job as doing the frontpage by simply vollunteering and doing the job. He has do a fine job and no one is looking to replace him. Tannin was elected to the chairmanship by the admins. The moderators were elected by the Admins. The Admin group were created by ourselves.

Yes I know the functions.

If you are interested in one of the jobs, try proving yourself capable and responsible. Rather than taking someone elses job, you might find it easier to create your own. Start doing the work and become the defacto person in charge of it.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE NOBODY'S JOB. I JUST DON'T WANT SECRETS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A SOOOO SMALL FORUM. ESPECIALLY INITIAL MEMBERS AS I CONSIDER MYSELF.

 

[flagreen]

I'm not cooling off a single bit, dude, I'll defend myself to the best extent.

You are free to defend yourself. However you are not free do be disrespectful to others. Shouting at others is disrespectful. No one has shouted at you in this thread and there is no reason for you to do so. Consider this your last warning Prof.

 

[Tannin]

There seem to be two possibiliies here:

(a) The level of disrespect shown is beyond the pale and should not be allowed to appear on the pages of Storage Forum.

(b) The level of disrespect shown, while distasetful, is part of healthy robust debate and should be tolerated, if not encouraged.

(b) is clearly the correct answer, in my view.

If, however, the mods in their widom, believe that (a) is correct, then they are obliged to act without regard to members' position in the hierarchy here. In other words, if they mod the Prof, they are also morally obliged to mod Cougtek. However, seeing as Coug started the name-calling, the reverse does not necessarily apply.

Also, we should note that we appear to be heading into a situation where both of the mods are personally involved with a potential issue, which makes it impossible under the rules for either of them to act in this thread. In time, that possibility will no longer be possible (once there are more mods), but at present it is a real possibility. If it becomes necessary, I will seek the Admin Team's permission to appoint a special mod, one who is not personally involved.

But it won't happen, because we are all gentlemen here. Aren't we.

 

[P5-133XL]

Professor,

you did not listen. You (like all other users here) are not accountable, you have no duties, you are not responsible for anything, therfore you do not have access to the information that others that do have those characteristics. To give you access to information without accountability, responsibility and duty would be irresponsible on our part. Merc and Flagreen are accountable for their actions. If and when they do something inappropiate then actions will be taken. To some extent, it is a matter of trust and there are degrees of trust.

If we gave you access to information such as unproven charges leveled against someone or a very unpopular viewpoint expressed, then you would have power to do harm without any form of recourse on our part. We can not allow that and it has absolutely no bearing on the size of the institutuion. When you have the duties, responsibilities, and accountability then you will have access to the information needed and the tools needed to do that job: Not before.

As an example, you have publicly challanged our right to keep secrets. If we gave you access to information that should not be availiable publicly, would you not revel it? If you did reveled it, what could we do to get it back from the public and what consequences can be allied to you? should we trust you not to revel it? What have you personally done that would indicate that we could trust you not to reveal the sensitive information especially since you are on record that you don't believe that anything should be secret?

Gimmie a break, I'm not so stupid that I will tell secrets to those that have publicly announced that there should not be such things as secrets. You really believe I would trust you with a secret now? You are doing a very good job of preventing any trust coming your way. You'll have to so alot of work creating trust and producing acountability before I'll trust you with secrets.

 

[flagreen]

Let me caution my fellow Admins against saying anything which would undermine the authority of the Moderators here. Any concerns a fellow Admin might have with a Moderator should be taken to the Admin or Moderators forum. To do otherwise is undermine his authority which hinders his ability to effectively do his job.

 

[Tannin]

On the front page matter, it is my policy to identify an area of responsibility and appoint a member to take sole charge of that area. The front page is Cougtek's responsibility, and it would not be proper for me, or anyone else, to interfere with his running of it. If Coug wants help, it's up to him to chose who and how. The only appropriate way for me to intervene in a member's designated area of responsibility (be it Coug's front page, Mercutio's Conduct and Moderation Committee, or anything else) is when that responsibility is clearly not being discharged.

At present, that question does not even arise. What it comes down to, Prof, is that if you want to be involved on the front page, then you have to work out how to get along with Cougtek.

If you want to have an influence on policy-making around here, step one is to discuss matters in a reasonable and rational manner. (As you have done with me in this thread.) Name calling won't get you anywhere. People just stop paying any attention to you.

 

[Mercutio]

Prof, even if none of the rest of us are making sense, I think you need to go back and read everything P5 has said.

Tannin, I don't feel at this point so personally involved (AFAIK I'm not being personally attacked, here) that I don't think I could make a decision in moderation. I also don't think a line has been crossed, yet.

 

[Tannin]

I take your point, Flagreen. Note, however, that my post (if that was indeed the one you were referring to) actually increases the authority of the moderators: it shows that no matter what the circumstances may be, action will only be taken by an independant, unbiased judge. It shows, in other words, that the moderation policy is well-planned and working effectively.

In reality, I believe that our current mods are well-chosen enough not to need the added safety layer of the "no personal involvement rule". But there is rarely any harm in having belt and braces.

 

[CougTek]

Note, however, that my post (if that was indeed the one you were referring to) actually increases the authority of the moderators:

I disagree. You took position on the matter and made a judgement. However, you aren't a moderator. In the event that the two persons in charge of the moderation would see things in a different way that you do, they would have to either challenge your judgement (possibly creating a conflict) or bend off to not go against you (something they might not have done otherwise). By taking a position and somehow telling the mods what to do, you hinder their power in the current case.

This is what I'm refering to :

In other words, if they mod the Prof, they are also morally obliged to mod Cougtek. However, seeing as Coug started the name-calling, the reverse does not necessarily apply.

The above could be argued (I would, obviously), but it would be better if it wouldn't be discussed here. It should simply not have been written here IMO.

 

[Jake the Dog]

in regards to editing, if the average user isn't allowed to edit their own posts then i don't believe admin or mods shuold have the right to either. note that i said own posts, of course admin and mods need to be able to edit unsuitable post made by others.

 

[Clocker]

PW-
I can see you have several concerns. It is good that you express them but please do it with a bit more respect. Sure, others may have come across toward you with a tone that seems a but harsh, but, you aren't doing yourself any favors by your retaliation and making fun of other member's Nicks. (Don't even think about calling me Cocker!)

Also, I maintain that moderators *need* to see IPs and other info. to avoid major problems and abuses by potential idiots. Don't worry about your little games that you want to play with other forum members. Moderators are not to use otherwise unviewable information except for issues when it is absolutely required. If you're really worried about playing games with others or those on the moderation team, there's always SR...

With all due respect...if someone gives you what you consider a low-blow, don't drop to their level and retaliate. You'll look better and gain more respect by taking the high road rather than sinking to the low road..

C

 

[timwhit]

I don't come here for 36 hours and the whole place falls apart...

Prof & Coug - you should both cool off. I don't even think that there are any issues here that are so damn important that you guys need to get worked up about (That sentence is horrible, but I don't feel like fixing it). It's not like we are debating IDE vs. SCSI or anything here...

 

[Bartender]

I suppose that my initial questions and suggestions initiated this debate.

The authority placed on Moderators is great indeed. However, such control should be required in order to keep peace in this forum, or any other forum. The job of a Moderator boils down to mature and experienced judgment along with complete responsibility and accountability – hence, the position should be taken seriously, and given with great trust and confidence. It is true, that this forum does not see huge amounts of traffic or an overwhelming amount of users, nevertheless, the same type of roles need to be filled.

I believe that the policies in place along with the assigned roles of Moderators and Administrators, has been reasonable and acceptable to this point. As traffic increases, there is always the possibility of a more conservative approach, thus requiring more assistance in the prescribed roles.

Confidence and trust are required in any form of relationship where one party has authority over another. Those without authority should be convinced that their superiors will be able to keep secrets in confidence, and should trust them, that their personal powers of authority will not be abused. To gain this type of respect we personally must be able to prove this by example. Although Administrators discuss appointments, it is our own actions that recommend us for the job.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Professor,

you did not listen. You (like all other users here) are not accountable, you have no duties, you are not responsible for anything, therfore you do not have access to the information that others that do have those characteristics. To give you access to information without accountability, responsibility and duty would be irresponsible on our part. Merc and Flagreen are accountable for their actions. If and when they do something inappropiate then actions will be taken. To some extent, it is a matter of trust and there are degrees of trust.

If we gave you access to information such as unproven charges leveled against someone or a very unpopular viewpoint expressed, then you would have power to do harm without any form of recourse on our part. We can not allow that and it has absolutely no bearing on the size of the institutuion. When you have the duties, responsibilities, and accountability then you will have access to the information needed and the tools needed to do that job: Not before.

As an example, you have publicly challanged our right to keep secrets. If we gave you access to information that should not be availiable publicly, would you not revel it? If you did reveled it, what could we do to get it back from the public and what consequences can be allied to you? should we trust you not to revel it? What have you personally done that would indicate that we could trust you not to reveal the sensitive information especially since you are on record that you don't believe that anything should be secret?

Gimmie a break, I'm not so stupid that I will tell secrets to those that have publicly announced that there should not be such things as secrets. You really believe I would trust you with a secret now? You are doing a very good job of preventing any trust coming your way. You'll have to so alot of work creating trust and producing acountability before I'll trust you with secrets.

You know it's funny cause although I trust you, P5, I never had the possibility to choose YOU. You say some things about trust and accountability and respect, but then again you seem to talk as I've been in these forums for a couple of days.

If you have serious evidence to counter/disqualify a post of mine, next time PLEASE DO IT. Till that day you don't have the right to accuse me of limited trustworthiness, nor to challenge my efforts and dedication to these forums, both in terms of post number and in S/N ratio and quality of posts.

CouchTest attacked me first on the UNSC thread. It's clear and you can see it with your own eyes. If he had been able to control his bad-ass attititude in that instance I would have never brought up his name in any post, nor lose time responding to a personal level. Apart this, I really believe we should find a second volunteer for the frontpage cause Coug can't cover the whole day spectrum.

--------------------------------

After reading all of your posts (especially the posts of members in the "Admin Team") I saw again how valid is the initial hypothesis: The "United Nations Security Council with its vetoing permanent-members." To state it with political terms: I wasn't expecting a change in the status-quo, especially by those who are already "in power". And this can be seen in almost anyone's response...

Last but not least, let me stress again that I find it totally unacceptable to have secrets in a forum of some 100 persons who almost all come from the same background, SR. Still you haven't persuaded me in what basis you stabilize the need-to-know-basis or "security level" of members around. I guess it has been a came-first-got-it-first procedure. Actually, I have no doubt about it.

But I think I know it's time to back off and stop appending this thread, for the best interest of everyone.
Thanks everyone for your input, especially those who tried to keep a neutral stance.

-----------------------

PS. BTW, regarding accountability. Don't you ever expect ME to accept Mercutio's/CougTek's whining regarding Microsoft Windows just for the sake of agreeing with them and becoming "more popular". I am what I am and I believe what I believe. I will continue agreeing and disagreeing with the issues as I qualify them...

 

[P5-133XL]

PW,

This trust issue is not related to the amount of time you have been here, where you came from, whether you were elected, appointed, volunteered, or anything like that. Fact - you do not have any form of responsibility here beyond that of a normal user. You have not accepted any, nor has any been thrust upon you. Therefore you are at the same level of trust as every other normal user. When that responsibility level increases then you will have duties and there will be acountability and the access level to information that you crave will increase. That is the way it works.

Trust is not something that grows out of time or exists untill destroyed via some poor act. Trust starts at zero and stays at zero untill it is proven via responsibility and actions that it should be higher. You are correct that I speak as if you are a new user of 3-4 days. Your trust level increases via responsibility not length of stay and your responsibilitys here are at the same level as someone who has only been here for 3-4 days. The real question is what actions have you taken to increase that trust level. What responsibilities have you accepted. I do note that while trust starts at zero and stays there until earned breaking that trust in words or deed can instantly destroy (or even produce negative trust levels) trust built up over years

You state that there should be no secrets in our organization. If you had access to secrets then you would, by keeping them, be breaking your own statement of beliefs. If you were to promise that you would not reveal anything regardless, which should we believe: your promise or your stated belief. How can we trust you not to revel that which should not be revealed, with a conflict like that? How can we ethicly force that conflict upon you. Before you will ever have access to privleged information, you will need to renounce that belief and then we, as the trustees of that information, would need to believe. That is going to take a signifigent amount of work on your part.

In actuallity, for me, you had built up some trust over the time I've known you. Unfortunately, with the belief you have expressed it has dropped signifigently too. In the end, I trust that you will act according to your own basic beliefs. I really would have voted in favor of you being part of the admin team. But how can I now, knowing this basic conflict with your beliefs? I actually like, and respect you. I care that you are here participating. I think you are good for us. I think you are pasionate and you care about SF and that is very important to an administrator. But can I trust you not to reveal confidential information that you would have access to as an administrator? I don't know anymore?

The only way that I know out of this pickle is to accept some form of responsibility and from there prove that you can protect confidenciality and thereby are trustworthy of others secrets. You won't get what you want by asking, craving, whining, even logic will fail. The only valid proof that I know is via actions because actions show much more about character than words. Unfortunately you repeatedly state that you are not currently interested in accepting responsibility, at this time: Too bad.

Please note that I seriously agonized over whether this post should be public or simply a PM, This is because I have gone beyond merely reciting policy and explanations of that policy into how I feel about you. In the end I decided upon a public posting because of your basic belief that there should not be secrets. I'm sorry if I am wrong. Feel free to correct me and tell me that I should have PM'ed you. I will listen and modify my actions in the future.

 

[James]

http://www.storageforum.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=177

... last line, in bold.

 

[Cliptin]

Good grief. I'm away for two days and ....

I am still wondering why all policies and procedures are not posted for common access. I have no problem with administrative activities happening behind the scenes, quite the contrary.

But, it is quite disconcerting to not know what rules those who are in power (I use the term loosely) are supposed to abide by. We are already well aware of what is expected of general members.

Accountability should be available from the general populace.

 

[flagreen]

So anyway, who has been nominated so far?

The Bartender (removed himself from consideration)

Jake the dog

time

Pradeep

Rocco (removed himself from consideration)

Prof.Wizard

Have I missed anyone? Or does anyone have someone to add?

 

[CNN Sport]

"Dave, do we have a winner?"

"No Ed, they are still messing about calling for nominations."

"Bloody bureaucrats. I don't know what the game is coming to these days. Would never have happened back when I was playing. You know, I think that if they used both hands, they couldn't even find their ar...."

"Ed! We are on air you know."

"Oh. Sorry Dave."

"Well, I guess that's the field then."

"No wait! We can nominate someone, can't we? We are season-ticket holders after all."

"I guess you are right, Ed. You had someone in mind?"

"Yes. I nominate Cliptin."

"Fair enough. In that case, I nominate Buck."

 

[flagreen]

Thanks CNN, an updated list then would include -

Jake the dog

time

pradeep

Prof.Wizard

Buck

Cliptin

Anymore? I'm out of there at the end of the month guys so speak up if you want to nominate anyone else. Time is short.

 

[Clocker]

I think the list looks good. Let's get on with it!

 

[Will Rickards WT]

The nomination list looks good.

My opinions on the administrative/policy issues:
(sorry for dragging the thread more off-topic... but I felt my opinion needed to be expressed... even if we aren't considering changes to the existing policies)

-- three moderators is plenty
until such time as the ratio of users/moderators becomes more than 500/1

-- moderators should be able to view IP addresses.
I'll just leave it to their discretion to use it only when necessary.

-- 12 month term
18 months seems too long and 6 months too short.
Shorter durations should be allowed to occur due to forseen or unforseen life situations which hinder ability to perform in good faith as a moderator.

-- Edits should be indicated in the public forum and post in question
I think this is a moot point since it appears that this is already policy

-- Locking threads is preferred over deletion of posts
And deletion is used very sparingly if necessary at all.

-- abuses are handled by other admin/moderators
I think there are already too many hands in the pot...
but what do I know? I've never tried to run a bbs/website.

-- private forums for moderators and admins are necessary

Policies are never perfect and should adapt to handle situations as they arise.

Will Rickards

 

[P5-133XL]

The nomination list looks good.

My opinions on the administrative/policy issues:
(sorry for dragging the thread more off-topic... but I felt my opinion needed to be expressed... even if we aren't considering changes to the existing policies)

-- three moderators is plenty
until such time as the ratio of users/moderators becomes more than 500/1

-- moderators should be able to view IP addresses.
I'll just leave it to their discretion to use it only when necessary.

-- 12 month term
18 months seems too long and 6 months too short.
Shorter durations should be allowed to occur due to forseen or unforseen life situations which hinder ability to perform in good faith as a moderator.

-- Edits should be indicated in the public forum and post in question
I think this is a moot point since it appears that this is already policy

-- Locking threads is preferred over deletion of posts
And deletion is used very sparingly if necessary at all.

-- abuses are handled by other admin/moderators
I think there are already too many hands in the pot...
but what do I know? I've never tried to run a bbs/website.

-- private forums for moderators and admins are necessary

Policies are never perfect and should adapt to handle situations as they arise.

Will Rickards

Mr Richards,

I don't believe that the Admins are considering rebuilding the moderation policies at this time. There was a signifigent effort to produce the current set of policies and while undoubtably not perfect, they were the best that could be done at the time. So far, what we have seems to work and we are much more likely to deal with such issues where there is a failing that needs to be corrected.

 

[P5-133XL]

Hey everyone,

The admin group is considering these choices and will choose someone by July 1st. With that in mind, could those nominated (or others) submit any information that may help us decide. I'm sure that it would also be good if those nominated actually accepted the nomination to show you are willing to serve and a little self promotion wouldn't hurt.

 

[Cliptin]

I accept the nomination and also volunteer to help get the FAQ out the door whether I am voted in or not.

 

[Buck]

I decline the nomination and recommend Cliptin.

 

[Jake the Dog]

Clipton = bribery I tell you!!!



Seriously, I too accept the nomination and thank those that nominated me.

Things for which I will stand for:
- Free speech above most things. An exception would b when one seriously offends another's strong ethical or religious beliefs.
- Respect and consideration for others and their opinions.
- Minimal moderation. I am of the opinion that it should only occur when absolutely necessary.

Self-promotion:
Well er, I’m not completely comfortable with this but I guess a can mention my experience in running other forums.

- I'm the admin of a moderately popular EzBoard which I run as part of my main website (www.GMH-Torana.com). it currently has 431 registered members and receives an average of 2403 page views per day. In 13 the months it has been going it received 344729 hits and 12629 posts and not once has anyone been a problem. The type of people that frequent that board are not the cerebral type we get here but they are the same in that just like 99% of the people in this forum, they are respectful and considerate of others. Except for the editing posts that inappropriately use of a new post icon set I’ve implemented recently, very little moderation has is necessary. I attribute this in part to the consideration, free speech and respectful attitude I try to foster in all, especially in the mods I’ve chosen.
- I was also a mod on a group of forums run by an Oz gaming league. This had over 500 members and 30,000 odd posts in the 12 months it was going. This forum group recently went down as the league has disbanded. At this stage it looks as if it won’t get back up and running, giving lots of time to spend here . Many of the members on that forum were young guys full of "PC testosterone" so as you can imagine, a lot of crap got flung about and it required a fair amount of moderation. I suggested we create a forum that was a free for all and call it the “Boiler Room”. Only posts with illegal or immoral content were to be edited and/or removed by the lead mods (we were the more mature members). We implemented my suggestion and this ended up very working well as it kept the other forums free of rubbish. Eventually the Boiler Room calmed down and it became like the the fun pub-style forum as we have here. It was just a matter of giving people the space in which vent and work out their differences.

Not much else I fell comfortable adding. Most happy to help if you’re comfortable with me doing so. I think 12 months is a good term too.

Good luck to the other nominees too!

Cheers,

Tim

 

[P5-133XL]

The current term for a moderator is 18 months. We are adding one moderator every 3 months till we have our quota. If I remember correctly the quota is 5 moderators? Currently we have two elected and two appointed moderators and as the number of moderators increase to the quota the appoined ones will be relieved.

When the rules were created, there was extensive discussion on how long the term would be. It was felt at the time that moderation consistancy was the very important and thus the length of the term was extended beyond 12 months to 18.

Again, I don't believe that the admin group is currently considering a change in moderation policy. If there is a need, then obviously we will but the current procedures have been working so far. If people really believe that it must be revised then communicate what you want and why, to an administrator (perhaps in another thread in the feedback section).

Note, the Administrators are simultanously electing a new chaiman that will take office July 1st. When Tannin first took office he decided that his term of office would expire then. I think it would be appropiate to delay such reorganization changes untill after the new chairman is in place.

 

[Tannin]

Now that the nominations are all in, I just unstickied the thread*. One thing that we can be sure of: with a field of this quality, we will certainly get a good man.

(* Disclosure of personal bias: I hate stickies!)