Moderator Elections
If and when to contribute to this thread that was one question (or two if you want to be pedantic 
).
Unfortunately the thread snowballed over a couple of days when I was unable to spend any time to contribute.
So here is my tuppence worth (but by the time I'm finished, it might be more likely to be the amount you used to put in a 'Press Button B' box before they were obsolete!)
Generally speaking I'm totally with James(_G/H) on this, also a lot of what Thomas (Be3G) has said, but there've been a number of good points made by all in this thread, which I've read carefully. Where to start?
"If" - Would anyone be interested in my opinion? Although I qualify to become a moderator, I've only been registered on the forums since Aug.2007 and only started to post in Dec.2007 when I got involved with the Postini trial. That's a lot more recently than the majority of the posters here and one tends to feel not part of the club. I'm probably not known outside the boards in which I post.
I would imagine that being a moderator is not an easy job at times and comments from a number of former moderators confirm this. I can also understand exactly what Thomas and James_G have said about availability. I would not be able to guarantee when I would be available, as my time is not totally under my control in current circumstances.
"When" - Should I comment before the current deadline - well events have overtaken that.
The other question is "Would I be interested in being a moderator?". Well - yes, maybe, but conditionally.
There is no doubt a certain expectancy from other forum members (& PN) about the moderator role, but with so few moderators that would become a burden and I would not be happy for the time I might be able to spend in the forum being significantly taken over by moderating, but certain functions need to be carried out to keep these forums the exceptional community that they are. At this time I am happy to be a PN customer and thoroughly enjoy being a member of this community, I would not wish to see standards deteriorate, and so if I can contribute as a moderator I would like to do so.
Doing a variety of voluntary jobs can be a thankless task speaking from experience, except one can take pride in any achievements and enjoy the challenges, but their will be the periodic unfair criticism. I do think that "electing" to such roles is not appropriate (it often boils down to who knows your name or a popularity vote in some circles), and in terms of "moderating" I do not like the terms junior, senior etc. especially with an expectation that more of the mundane work would be taken on by juniors, it would make the role more unattractive and possibly imply that 'juniors' were less capable of moderating. Obviously the "mechanics" of moderating have to be learnt and new moderators could not be 'let loose' on the system until they had learnt the ropes.
There does need to be some distinction between those more experienced moderators that would deal with such matters as banning etc., so possibly from all the points made, Barry's recent suggestion about 'Administrating' moderators may be the answer, whether the term 'administrating' is the best might be debateable, but I also see no reasons why these individuals should not be carrying out all the same tasks as everyone else.
The term "assistant moderator" has been mentioned. I see no problem with this for those individuals who wish to take only a limited role - by which I mean carry out only certain tasks, this would be an individual's choice. I do not mean "only moderate certain boards". There would be an expectation that any "full" moderator would "step into the breach" on any board, should a dire situation arise. Other than that, there should be no expectation that individuals should be expected to cover minimum hours, days or boards. There might need to be a little bit of behind the scenes juggling to try and get the best coverage, but if there are gaps, as long as no dire matters remain unaddressed so be it.
I would also perhaps like to see a role of "mentoring" with those more experienced individuals taking others under their wing, but again no compulsion with minimum requirements.
I would hope that if things were run in such a way, that people like James_G/H, Be3G, Chilly, would be invited back, should they be willing, to contribute what they felt able.
Finally, I see no reason not to take on 8 or 12 volunteers immediately, but obviously you wouldn't release them all onto the system in one go, this would be done over a period to suit the 'team'.
Edit: to include comment about voting inadvertently omitted.
).Unfortunately the thread snowballed over a couple of days when I was unable to spend any time to contribute.
So here is my tuppence worth (but by the time I'm finished, it might be more likely to be the amount you used to put in a 'Press Button B' box before they were obsolete!)
Generally speaking I'm totally with James(_G/H) on this, also a lot of what Thomas (Be3G) has said, but there've been a number of good points made by all in this thread, which I've read carefully. Where to start?
"If" - Would anyone be interested in my opinion? Although I qualify to become a moderator, I've only been registered on the forums since Aug.2007 and only started to post in Dec.2007 when I got involved with the Postini trial. That's a lot more recently than the majority of the posters here and one tends to feel not part of the club. I'm probably not known outside the boards in which I post.
I would imagine that being a moderator is not an easy job at times and comments from a number of former moderators confirm this. I can also understand exactly what Thomas and James_G have said about availability. I would not be able to guarantee when I would be available, as my time is not totally under my control in current circumstances.
"When" - Should I comment before the current deadline - well events have overtaken that.
The other question is "Would I be interested in being a moderator?". Well - yes, maybe, but conditionally.
There is no doubt a certain expectancy from other forum members (& PN) about the moderator role, but with so few moderators that would become a burden and I would not be happy for the time I might be able to spend in the forum being significantly taken over by moderating, but certain functions need to be carried out to keep these forums the exceptional community that they are. At this time I am happy to be a PN customer and thoroughly enjoy being a member of this community, I would not wish to see standards deteriorate, and so if I can contribute as a moderator I would like to do so.
Doing a variety of voluntary jobs can be a thankless task speaking from experience, except one can take pride in any achievements and enjoy the challenges, but their will be the periodic unfair criticism. I do think that "electing" to such roles is not appropriate (it often boils down to who knows your name or a popularity vote in some circles), and in terms of "moderating" I do not like the terms junior, senior etc. especially with an expectation that more of the mundane work would be taken on by juniors, it would make the role more unattractive and possibly imply that 'juniors' were less capable of moderating. Obviously the "mechanics" of moderating have to be learnt and new moderators could not be 'let loose' on the system until they had learnt the ropes.
There does need to be some distinction between those more experienced moderators that would deal with such matters as banning etc., so possibly from all the points made, Barry's recent suggestion about 'Administrating' moderators may be the answer, whether the term 'administrating' is the best might be debateable, but I also see no reasons why these individuals should not be carrying out all the same tasks as everyone else.
The term "assistant moderator" has been mentioned. I see no problem with this for those individuals who wish to take only a limited role - by which I mean carry out only certain tasks, this would be an individual's choice. I do not mean "only moderate certain boards". There would be an expectation that any "full" moderator would "step into the breach" on any board, should a dire situation arise. Other than that, there should be no expectation that individuals should be expected to cover minimum hours, days or boards. There might need to be a little bit of behind the scenes juggling to try and get the best coverage, but if there are gaps, as long as no dire matters remain unaddressed so be it.
I would also perhaps like to see a role of "mentoring" with those more experienced individuals taking others under their wing, but again no compulsion with minimum requirements.
I would hope that if things were run in such a way, that people like James_G/H, Be3G, Chilly, would be invited back, should they be willing, to contribute what they felt able.
Finally, I see no reason not to take on 8 or 12 volunteers immediately, but obviously you wouldn't release them all onto the system in one go, this would be done over a period to suit the 'team'.
Edit: to include comment about voting inadvertently omitted.
Quote from: chillypenguin Your correct James, the "Step 2" text, must have gone missing during the Cut and Past operation.
It's little wonder that no one will volunteer as a moderator.
That is a total misrepresentation of the situation.My poll here has demonstrated that there are plenty of people who would step forward* if it was to be one of a larger team. It's just that it appears practically no-one will put their names forward if it is to be one of a small team.
* Current poll results 17 YES and 11 maybe.
I think you would get more takers if the "work" only involved reading the forums which the moderator would read anyway.
