2nd and even 3rd mod limited tour of duty?

[rpaloalto]

I just wanted to add a suggestion here, since the other thread ''should we have a new mod'' was closed.

Since it very apparent. That their are some very personal likes and dislikes, in some of the candidates, for second mod poll.
I think it would be very wise, to implement a mandatory set time for tour of duty, on any second or third mod positions.

Other then 2007, any second or third mod would have a 4 to 6 month tour. Before he would have to step aside, for at least one term, regardless of performance or any pole.

This would allow any tension built up between members and mods, to settle down. It would also help to keep LPF fresh and any drama to a minimum.

It's not too much trouble to have a poll every 6 months.

Or we could have several mods voted in, the top two or three from the poll. Then they would rotate every few months. We then could go for a year before having to start the process all over again.

Any thoughts on this? I just want to see as many LPF members happy, with the overall health of LPF .

 

[daguin]

If they are having that kind of tension with more than one member, c0ld will remove them. He has done it before. Requiring someone who has started to get good at the job to "step aside" so someone "new" can go through same process of learning the job is counter-productive

Once a mod gets "good" at it, the moderation becomes mostly "behind the scenes."

Peace,
dave

 

[nikokapo]

While I believe your arguments are completely valid, I have to object the fact that if we choose a mod then we should trust him. If he ends up "screwing us over" in some way, then it is our fault for choosing him/her (lol, her, here?); but that's just the way I think.

 

[phoenix77]

I tend to agree with Dave. Removing a MOD, just when he's getting the hang of things seems counter-productive. We saw the same thing happen in Viet Nam. Our military personnel were sent to that hell-hole for a set "Tour of Duty", 365 days, (a bit longer if you were a MARINE). What it boiled down to was just when the "grunts" were FINALLY getting somewhat accustomed to life in "Nam, the indigenous population, the myriad of booby-traps, all the poisonous insects, flora & fauna, the ways the Viet Cong laid out their "KILL-ZONES", all of these things & more, so that they at LEAST had a half way decent chance of surviving that hell-hole, their "Tour" ended, they climbed aboard the "Freedom Bird", & for most were back in the USA in 48 Hrs, while a NEW batch of "CHERRIES" began their 365 day "TOUR". The gist of this being that the guys that finished their "Tours" went home, taking with them all the knowledge that they had acquired during THEIR "Tours" to get the job done correctly & as safely as possible, while the "Cherries" had to start from square one, not knowing much more than what they had hurriedly learned in AIT. The same thing would apply to switching MODS after a set time. Just when they get good at the position, they get yanked out & a "Cherry" is put in his/her place, with no experience in how to diplomatically handle being a MOD. Well, I guess I yakked enough (everyone say YAY) ! As I said, I agree with Dave..........rob

 

[rpaloalto]

Well you all can guess who gave the one, lone vote for limited time

You make a good point about removing a mod, soon after they get good at what their doing. I never thought about that aspect of it.

I was just going more on the lines of peoples personal feelings. In the mod candidate poll. You can plainly see that a few are not so happy with the way the poll is going. Thats when I thought that, even if someone is not happy with who might have the position. They could at least, tell themselves. That it will only be for a few months. I guess no mater who we have not every single member is going to be 100% happy

Not to mention the fact, the forum does a pretty good job of keeping it's self together. If a mod did fall out of favor, or created too much controversy. It would not be long before we have a remove xxxxxx as mod. Or c0ld would just get fed up with complaints, and ask them to step down.

 

[lasersbee]

the problem I have with Dave is the bull-headed way in which he argues a point. There's no balance, no give just take, no acceptance of other perspectives. That's obviously my personal opinion, but look at the poll to ban me and see for yourself. Notice how he argues, not what he's saying. notice how he inflames me and then complains that I have "anger management" issues. Of course I do ... with HIM! And Laasersbee, Mfo, and Tech Junkie (who likes to give me negative rep). Look at my rep and you'll see. Those three and Daguin are the ONLY people I have issues with here. And that's ONLY because THEY don't want me here.

It was said that a vote would not determine the new moderator. I hope one is chosen who doesn't hold such a grudge. Out of 10,000 members, why choose someone who is extremist? Go for quality, not quantity. Once they're in, they can do much damage before being removed.

You seem to be derailing this Thread...
This Thread discussion is about whether the additional Mods should
have a limited tour of duty

It has nothing to do with who should be or not be a Mod...
There is another thread to show your support or lack of...
for the nominated members...

I'll gladly discuss your Bashing of respected members on an
appropriate Thread...
I see you won't give it a rest and are still.....:horse:

Jerry

 

[Ears and Eggs]

I have closed this thread, the poll seems to have decisively gone one way and the thread is starting to wander.