It would be great to know you behind the desks, James! Sorry that I didn't respond any earlier, I thought this was obvious. Yes, we need you.
I am sorry to see that we seem to have lost the other volunteers at present, but it shouldn't be a problem to ask them again once they come back. Thank you for having been proposed for the moderator's role back then and just recently, and yes, I would try to keep on doing my share for the group. What about you RP, or rigsy and where has has Pol disappeared to? Others, maybe later? On Sep 18, 9:13 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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!
