On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 PM, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > You may call on me to give my best assessment at any time. I warn that > you probably cannot count on me to push _the_ button, hoping that does > not mean lack of character but that I have some complications seated > firmly within my psyche. > > You all know me as part of my chosen name/pseudonym, the first part of > my email, in case you're wondering who this stranger is. This is a > coming out of a sort, trying to face down some behaviors to better > reflect what I believe in despite my personal knowledge/history/truths > related to trust.
The preceding paragraph was related to the choice of name usage only, I just realized it could be misinterpreted as related to the question of moderatorship. And now it sounds too personal but there it is. > > For your consideration, I volunteer if needed. > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Molly, I agree...an odd number and discussion. >> >> On Sep 17, 10:50 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Just to clarify, Orn, I do read most, just not responding much. I >>> stopped intervening at Chris' suggestion as it fit his model for the >>> group. I suggest an odd number of moderators, and a discussion before >>> banning. >>> >>> On Sep 17, 12:52 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > For far too long ME has had in effect only one active moderator. While >>> > I’m acquainted with and accept being the lightening rod to help keep >>> > ME from being A vs C, gabby points out something that is missing. >>> >>> > For quite a while there we had 5 moderators. This kept a fairly good >>> > balance of views going and made it easy to discuss posts and vote on >>> > issues. For much of the time, we were all active. Then, a couple mods >>> > started having to focus elsewhere and left decisions to us and >>> > eventually removed themselves from ME. >>> >>> > Not long thereafter, Chris abandoned ME for other pursuits and I >>> > continue to wish him well. He has posted less than 70 times in the >>> > last 18 months and only 13 times this entire year with no posts for >>> > more than a third of a year. >>> >>> > Molly drops in on occasion with less than 40 posts since the end of >>> > last year. (10 months) >>> >>> > Now I know that posting alone doesn’t mean how ‘active’ a group member >>> > is. However, part of a moderator’s job is to daily check moderated >>> > messages…most of which are spam of one type or another…the senders of >>> > which are banned. >>> >>> > On occasion, as a check to see who was ‘here’, I would let these >>> > moderated messages pile up in the queue. I would read them to see how >>> > important they were and then not delete those that were junk. A couple >>> > of times they would stay in the queue for well over a week with no >>> > deletion. Eventually, I would get rid of them seeing that no one else >>> > was doing it. >>> >>> > Since Chris is out of the picture (and has said he wants to stay out >>> > of the picture), I think it is past time to add new moderators to ME. >>> >>> > Normally I would nominate some and see what happened; however, the top >>> > two in my book, Neil (Archytas) and Francis have declined so many >>> > times in the past I hesitate to bring up the responsibility to them >>> > again. >>> >>> > Instead, I will ask for volunteers. Those who are willing to follow >>> > the threads here, step in where needed and determine the appropriate >>> > action for filtered (moderated) posts are asked to step forward now. >>> >>> > As is obvious, it is not all fun but is a necessary function. Any >>> > takers? >> > > > > -- > Please do not put me on forwarding lists or submit my address to cute > online greetings or anything else for that matter. If you must, please > forward me in BCC and send me a link to cute greetings. Many thanks! >
