Thank You Mods

Crack that whip.....:eek:

No seriously though...ST is one of the best run of all the forums I chime in on.
 
As a former moderator, I know firsthand that it's not an easy job moderating a forum as big and diverse as this one. Like others have said, good job guys.
 
Ok, so why are you guys sucking up? I'd blame your weird behaviors on the record cold across much of the country for July, but I know better. You're up to something. You guys are cooking up a flame war....I'm sure of it.:confused: j/k

Seriously, though. We appreciate the compliments.
 
I agree--you mods carry off a difficult job with evenhandedness and aplomb. Thanks for your excellent work--even you turkeys who cited me for infractions on the forecast/reports threads! :p

Well done, all. And thanks, Robert E., for starting the ball rolling here. It's nice to get a chance to express appreciation where it's due.
 
I'm a little late, but I too want to applaud the moderators. We rely on a system of delegated authority to make the board work, and these folks demonstrate great acuity and judgment every day. I'm really glad to have them helping out.

Our moderators have six-month terms, but I can't bring myself to rock the boat and make a "call for elections" -- in that respect I have failed! :) But I guess at some point we're going to have to figure out what to do, as that system was designed as a sort of escape valve to get rid of undesirable moderators who aren't good for the board but not technically doing anything wrong, and allow them some dignity and grace.

Tim
 
You should consider, rather than taking self-nominations and "electing", maybe having other members nominate the next mod or two and then electing. Sure, some nominees will not want to or not have enough time but I think you would be surprised at the number and type of people, if they know they have the support of the community going into it, who would be interested - and very good mods.

Just a thought.
 
I think it should be a hand picked, behind the scenes process with little or no member input. This keeps any "politics" out of the moderating process.
 
Well, this whole thing has come up before, I think in the archives somewhere from around 2005. I feel it's important to hand-pick because popularity is not necessarily congruent with doing a good job moderating. Some people will indeed vote for good administrator types, but most will just pick people they like a lot. Not only is popularity a questionable attribute but if the relationship between members and moderators is too cozy then this breeds favoritism and loose enforcement.

That said, I think the parliamentary system is good and there is merit in having perhaps one "popular" moderator to help represent members at large. But most moderators will be handpicked. Traditionally this has been with significant input from the outgoing moderators; in fact most of the recent moderator picks have been made by them.

There's no plans right now to replace the moderator team but before spring 2010 chase season we will probably have a new crew assembled.

Tim
 
Sounds right to me . I was smarting off to Jason. Sorry.
Melissa
 
Tim,
As a union VP in a large union, we have processes for selecting committee members in which allow for both appointments and elections. This balances out the appointments "Hand picked" and the elected members "popularity". This system seams to make both sides happy. I would suggest appointing a certain number of moderators and then hold elections (with formal nominations) for a couple.

Randy
 
Randy Denzer said:
Tim,
As a union VP in a large union, we have processes for selecting committee members in which allow for both appointments and elections. This balances out the appointments "Hand picked" and the elected members "popularity". This system seams to make both sides happy. I would suggest appointing a certain number of moderators and then hold elections (with formal nominations) for a couple.

Randy
Click to expand...

Seems like a bit much for just an internet forum.
 
Well, if anything is evident, it's that ST needs an injection of leadership very soon. Current mods are doing fine but as Tim mentioned in another thread, more are needed. All politics aside, I still like the idea of nominations and a poll-type election. Perhaps if the leadership here is voted in by popularity, consistency and knowledge of the subject matter, more people will be inclined to contribute and when hands get slapped, there will be a respect-factor involved and maybe these people chewing on the mods all the time will think twice. I could be wrong.
Life is a popularity contest and those who put forth the effort to excel will win. This is a fact. Hand picking moderation for a board with as many contributors as this is silly. Let the masses choose and lasting respect and support will accompany those selected.
 
The problem with elections is that it can easily lead to a changing of the focus of a forum. Like a business or organization with private leadership, private appointments keeps the ideas and mission of the site honest to the original idea. Let folks start campaigning for "change" and that focus goes away. ST has lots of people discussing (or fighting) as to what should be done to change it (like the Jerry Springer area/Flame War section). Privately picked management means that the owners and other leaders keep continuity of the original idea.
 
ST also has a long-standing issue with promoting younger, less seasoned "chasers" to mod (management) roles. I'm all about people having equal opportunity but it clearly has not been, and will not continue to be, the best direction for this forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve -- are you saying we do or we don't promote less seasoned chasers? I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding your take on the issue.

Tim
 
Re-read what I wrote and realize it was poorly stated.

I'm saying ST seemingly promotes whoever will take on the job, be it new or seasoned chaser (or enthusiast). Maybe there are fewer people interested in taking on the mod task than I think there are. That's why I believe a nomination system would be a good way to have some more seasoned chasers and users of this board perhaps consider this role.
 
I can certainly appreciate the logic and supporting arguments behind the thought process for having nominations and electing at least part of the mods. That might promote a spirit of cooperation for a while.

However, my bigger concern is that this forum is 'privately owned and operated' and a primary factor that Tim probably considers with his selections is the individual personalities that he feels most comfortable working with and who might best promote the standards he is looking for. Forgive me if I am putting the wrong words in his mouth.

I feel that if there are issues with a mod or even all of them, then it would be up to the contributors to the forum to present those issues to Tim privately for his consideration. Granted, if too many people leave, the forum will fold, but I don't seriously think that would happen. I'm open to rebuttal, but I really don't have a lot more to add on this one.
TANK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jesse Risley
  • Sticky
Passing of ST's Owner Mark Blue
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Gary Latimer
Gary Latimer
Michael Wilkinson
Chat GPT forecasting checklist
Replies
4
Views
154
Jeff Duda
Jeff Duda
Dan Robinson
404s on all external and internal links to forum threads
Replies
2
Views
313
Ben Holcomb
Ben Holcomb
Can not make a report
Replies
0
Views
371
Bobby Doc Pitman
Monopod for vehicles
Replies
0
Views
368
Shawn Camp
Back
Top