Joined
·
1,636 Posts
First off, this isn't intended to be inflammitory. Not at all. Just asking a rhetorical question really.
I think we gave a good moderator crew. Nothing against anyone either.
My question is in light of the fact (well, at least from where I'm sitting, maybe it's just a perception) that we have maybe 5-10, maybe 12 actually active posters. I'm certain that a LARGE majority of the membership simply lurks or logs on very infrequently.
The folks who ARE regular posters tend to self-regulate. Online forums are pretty simple; not exactly rocket science you know. Moderators should be around to move topics on occasions and maybe act as damage control during flame wars, which thankfully this place doesn't really have (an amazingly cool side effect of having the forum set up from the get-go as being a place to be cool to eachother instead of being a bunch of egotistical children. ).
So my question comes out as really...with a small number of actual live, real, posters, who largely self-regulate...do we need more than maybe two mods and a couple admins?
Two admins because having a backup is a big deal, especially when something like the database goes tits up, or the forum gets spammed, and something needs to be done...and the admin is on holiday.
Another point, mods should IMO be a duty, not a club really. Whoever is most mature, and active should do the duty, and should activity drop (due to RL or whatever gets in the way) ...or if maturity takes a dive
the mods should bow out for someone else able to do the job. Post count is a false positive in selection as we all know that post counts can be easily pumped up by silly inane, meaningless and worthless posts. Been there, done that, burned the T-Shirt.
No dishonor or anything. No bonus cookies. Just be available to do the job, and if you get busy, no problem, have someone else take over.
As much as I like all the mods we have, and as wonderful a job they've done and all...it seems like we have several times as many mods as needed.
Does it matter?
Not really.
Just a thought and a topic for conversation.
Gentlemen?
Your thoughts?
I think we gave a good moderator crew. Nothing against anyone either.
My question is in light of the fact (well, at least from where I'm sitting, maybe it's just a perception) that we have maybe 5-10, maybe 12 actually active posters. I'm certain that a LARGE majority of the membership simply lurks or logs on very infrequently.
The folks who ARE regular posters tend to self-regulate. Online forums are pretty simple; not exactly rocket science you know. Moderators should be around to move topics on occasions and maybe act as damage control during flame wars, which thankfully this place doesn't really have (an amazingly cool side effect of having the forum set up from the get-go as being a place to be cool to eachother instead of being a bunch of egotistical children. ).
So my question comes out as really...with a small number of actual live, real, posters, who largely self-regulate...do we need more than maybe two mods and a couple admins?
Two admins because having a backup is a big deal, especially when something like the database goes tits up, or the forum gets spammed, and something needs to be done...and the admin is on holiday.
Another point, mods should IMO be a duty, not a club really. Whoever is most mature, and active should do the duty, and should activity drop (due to RL or whatever gets in the way) ...or if maturity takes a dive
No dishonor or anything. No bonus cookies. Just be available to do the job, and if you get busy, no problem, have someone else take over.
As much as I like all the mods we have, and as wonderful a job they've done and all...it seems like we have several times as many mods as needed.
Does it matter?
Not really.
Just a thought and a topic for conversation.
Gentlemen?
Your thoughts?