Moderator Elections (Comments)

[hgm]

What about the case when the moderator is an intolerant, ignorant bully?

Just asking.

Don't vote for him?

And if a majority nevertheless elect him... Adapt your behavior to make it tolerable?

[hgm]

The forum back in 1997 was founded on democratic principles, (1) the forum is owned by its members and the members decide who is going to rule over them by majority vote and likewise (2) all actions of the moderators by majority vote. It's how democracy works and has been practiced since 1997. Your words gives me the impression you want to let go on (2), I hope not.

The question has been raised who is allowed to vote, can you answer that?

And related, normally TCADMIN (Sam Hull) is in charge with the organization of the election, is Sam no longer around?

It appears that Sam has left us. As for who can vote, I would have to look back as to what the custom is; there doesn't seem any reason to break with time-proven tradition.

As to the principles: good you bring this up. I looked at the charter, and could not find much about it. It mentions the board will be moderated. But it is completely silent about how the moderators should be instated. No mention of elections, let alone how frequently or how these should be conducted. No mention of how many moderators there should be, and whether there should be multiple teams with separate jurisdictions. No mention of how disagreement between the moderators should be solved, or how a disfunctioning moderator can be impeached.

I don't want to 'let go' of anything; I don't see how I could. If new moderators are chosen, it is obvious that they and they alone will decide on how to behave.

[Henk]

What about the case when the moderator is an intolerant, ignorant bully?

Just asking.

Don't vote for him?

And if a majority nevertheless elect him... Adapt your behavior to make it tolerable?

Don't understand why this site is not sponsored by private mental health clinics looking for new patients.

[Enzo]

-DELETE IMPERTINENCE-

Don't understand why this site is not sponsored by private mental health clinics looking for new patients.

But, he is not mentally ill.
He enjoys it for other reasons, making it less forgivable.

[Rebel]

The forum back in 1997 was founded on democratic principles, (1) the forum is owned by its members and the members decide who is going to rule over them by majority vote and likewise (2) all actions of the moderators by majority vote. It's how democracy works and has been practiced since 1997. Your words gives me the impression you want to let go on (2), I hope not.

The question has been raised who is allowed to vote, can you answer that?

And related, normally TCADMIN (Sam Hull) is in charge with the organization of the election, is Sam no longer around?

It appears that Sam has left us. As for who can vote, I would have to look back as to what the custom is; there doesn't seem any reason to break with time-proven tradition.

As to the principles: good you bring this up. I looked at the charter, and could not find much about it. It mentions the board will be moderated. But it is completely silent about how the moderators should be instated. No mention of elections, let alone how frequently or how these should be conducted. No mention of how many moderators there should be, and whether there should be multiple teams with separate jurisdictions. No mention of how disagreement between the moderators should be solved, or how a disfunctioning moderator can be impeached.

I don't want to 'let go' of anything; I don't see how I could. If new moderators are chosen, it is obvious that they and they alone will decide on how to behave.

If Sam is no longer among us (too bad) then who is in charge allowing new subscribers to enter the forum?

[hgm]

I am. That is actually a lot more work than being a moderator. There are new registrations every day.

[hgm]

-DELETE IMPERTINENCE-

Don't understand why this site is not sponsored by private mental health clinics looking for new patients.

But, he is not mentally ill.
He enjoys it for other reasons, making it less forgivable.

Some guys never learn...

[Rebel]

I am. That is actually a lot more work than being a moderator. There are new registrations every day.

Indeed.

[j.t.]

I am. That is actually a lot more work than being a moderator. There are new registrations every day.

A bit off-topic, but maybe it could help to shift the work a moderator has to do to verify a new user to when this new user submits(/wants to submit) his/her first comment/post.

[smatovic]

I am. That is actually a lot more work than being a moderator. There are new registrations every day.

Another suggestion, on other forums there is a time-span after your registration until you are allowed to post first, this might solve some spam issues, trolls, and impetuous comments for the moderators, but could dampen things like problem-solving-requests and alike.

--
Srdja