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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:50 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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
> > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Molly, I agree...an odd number and discussion.
>
> >> On Sep 17, 10:50 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> 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 <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> >>> 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!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário