> 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
> <ornsmindseyespam@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