Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:02:13 -0500
Reply-To: pickle vanagon <greenvanagon@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: pickle vanagon <greenvanagon@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Vanagon List Moderator
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Unfortunately, I think it is clear that this list does require a moderator.
Recently, some messages have been downright spam. I think if you were going
to be the moderator, you would need to be prepared to err on the side of
caution in your own posts for that period. It would not look good if the
moderator was responsible for some of the questionable emails on the
list---even if they are a little bit related to vanagons.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:41 AM, BenT . <email@example.com> wrote:
> Let clarify my point. I do not necessarily want THE job. However, I would
> like the job done. So far nobody has stepped up to the plate. Picking a
> moderator from a "show of hands" is not exactly my idea. That was Jim's.
> Though I think he is looking more for opinions on whether any moderating is
> even necessary. I moderate a few other groups now. So far we do not have the
> sort of issues we have here or even the type of constraint in more tightly
> controlled groups.
> For the record, you might notice that most of my jesting w/ Mike Miller is
> usually related to some Vanagon themed activity. For example, the recent
> postings about burning things at the beach is about activities for
> Burningvan this Saturday. We have found in the past that friendly banter on
> the List just before the event results in improved attendance.
> Thanks for your opinion. I hope this thread can start us back on the road
> of sanity or insanity as the case may be. At the rate that things were going
> last week, we were going everywhere w/o clear direction.
> ------Original Message------
> From: Robert Fisher
> Sender: Vanagon Mailing List
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> ReplyTo: Robert Fisher
> Sent: Jan 14, 2009 3:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Vanagon List Moderator
> Anyway, please share our thoughts about this. Pmail if necessary.
> Two thoughts came immediately to mind: The first was 'Jonas's First Law of
> electoral politics': What disqualifies a person for the leader's job is
> he or she wants it.
> The second was about those occasional but lengthy barrages of non-vanagon
> related inside jokes that you and Mike Miller indulge in, especially around
> this time of year. Talk about wearing out the delete key.
> I have nothing against you personally but I don't think that picking from a
> show of hands is the way to go about this.
> If we are going to have a moderator (and we should probably have a
> moderator) I'd be inclined to have a slightly more formalized structure in
> the form of an elected council or board (of say, nine people) who would
> appoint a moderator and an 'assistant moderator' (as a standby/fill-in)
> amongst themselves; those two individuals would then be disqualified from
> being the head of council or board chair (*). This council would also set
> policy (as in the charter) and perform various other administrative
> functions that you find in most large human organizations.
> The problem with even benevolent dictatorships, as was demonstrated so
> clearly with Jim, is that they inevitably generate resentment in both the
> governor and the governed. I think that recreating that situation is just
> begging for more of the same problems down the road. Having a small
> representative body should take a good deal of that pressure off of the
> individual moderating. On the other hand, if he or she screwed up they
> have the ability to can them if necessary, which isn't possible with person
> holding all the keys. (See * above.)
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T