Nominations and hats in the ring for Moderatorship

Vegeta

bunny shooter wrote: »

we will end up with more political type fallout..........

we could definitely do with less infighting

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

we could definitely do with less infighting

Of course there's nothing like a good argument if it leads to better knowledge all round.

Always attracts a crowd too, which can only be good for boards

So it would seem:

Shooting: Rovi
--For/Sale: Rovi
--Target Shooting: Sparks / IRLConor
--Hunting: Nonameranger / Vegeta?

CivDef, JohnGalway, RRPC and foxshooter have ruled themselves out

Does this look ok? Have I missed someone?

It wasn't me!

The general shooting forum could perhaps use another mod, just to ensure proper coverage? Perhaps Sparks could do that as well?

Sparks

Well, Veg had offered to mod the general forum rather than the hunting forum.

Also it's a better idea for all the mods to take responsibility for forums through convention rather than configuration. There's more coverage that way - so if something goes sideways in ForSale, for example, NoNameRanger could wander in from Hunting and fix it, rather than the problem going unsolved until Rovi or whomever shows up.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Well, Veg had offered to mod the general forum rather than the hunting forum.

Also it's a better idea for all the mods to take responsibility for forums through convention rather than configuration. There's more coverage that way - so if something goes sideways in ForSale, for example, NoNameRanger could wander in from Hunting and fix it, rather than the problem going unsolved until Rovi or whomever shows up.

I wasn't implying that they be segregated.. more to just sum up the results of this thread so far!

It wasn't me!

ah, my thoughts were based on a segregated idea. I shouldn't think more than three mods, four at the outside, are needed if everyone's doing everything. So,

Sparks
Rovi
IRLConor
NoNameRanger

I think that'd be as good as you'd get. One could be removed if decided, but I couldn't really say which should be.

It wasn't me!

It wasn't me! wrote: »

ah, my thoughts were based on a segregated idea. I shouldn't think more than three mods, four at the outside, are needed if everyone's doing everything. So,

Sparks
Rovi
IRLConor
NoNameRanger

I think that'd be as good as you'd get. One could be removed if decided, but I couldn't really say which should be.

Would the point not be though, that each mod just focuses on his own forum? somewhat like the regional forums

It wasn't me!

Each can focus, but if all have powers of moderatorship over the whole forum, they can fix other things as necessary. I suppose it makes the most sense and involves the least number of mods as well.

worried shooter

This thread has turned into a right little masonic meeting akin to a measuring contest.

Sparks

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I shouldn't think more than three mods, four at the outside, are needed if everyone's doing everything.

Maybe you wouldn't need more, but even with four in the past, there's been more work than time.

I think that'd be as good as you'd get. One could be removed if decided, but I couldn't really say which should be.

Well, you just left out Vegeta

It wasn't me!

worried shooter wrote: »

This thread has turned into a right little masonic meeting akin to a measuring contest.

We're trying to best select the people to moderate the forum, I fail to see a problem. Got recommendations?

At Sparks, well, those four I think would cover it. Nothing against Vegeta personally, but the same way we make the decision to exclude others without malice, I decided on the other guys myself.

Rovi

worried shooter wrote: »

This thread has turned into a right little masonic meeting akin to a measuring contest.

Well, I'm only taking out enough to win.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Each can focus, but if all have powers of moderatorship over the whole forum, they can fix other things as necessary. I suppose it makes the most sense and involves the least number of mods as well.

I think that's the best way to structure things; there will be times when intervention will be needed and the mod who normally looks after that particular section isn't available.

NoNameRanger

Thanks for all the nominations, but i have decline the position, i simply don't have time with studies, work, family and a bit of shooting. I simply couldn't give the commitment that some of the other lads are willing to give. I will always be there to offer a hand if needed.

kowloon

I think I know how we can sort this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U

Terrier

maglite wrote: »

NoNameRanger or john griffin for hunting

+1

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

Well, Veg had offered to mod the general forum rather than the hunting forum.

Also it's a better idea for all the mods to take responsibility for forums through convention rather than configuration. There's more coverage that way - so if something goes sideways in ForSale, for example, NoNameRanger could wander in from Hunting and fix it, rather than the problem going unsolved until Rovi or whomever shows up.

I agree with those sentiments exactly.

Most of my knowledge is hunting based

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

Well, you just left out Vegeta

I don't mind if I don't get it Sparks nor if people don't want me as a mod, I am here all the time though so if it needs doing I have no problem doing it.

Its not like I'd impose my will or opinion on anyone, I'd just do logistical work. Merge posts, remove dodgey content, wave the old ban stick around when needed

ivanthehunter

With foxhunter243 out of the running i'd place a vote for Rovi

bunny shooter

Deleted User wrote: »

So it would seem:

Shooting: Rovi
--For/Sale: Rovi
--Target Shooting: Sparks / IRLConor
--Hunting: Nonameranger / Vegeta?

CivDef, JohnGalway, RRPC and foxshooter have ruled themselves out

Does this look ok? Have I missed someone?

Unfortunately, Sparks comes in under "political" AFAIK

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

Unfortunately, Sparks comes in under "political" AFAIK

It depends on how you define "political".

• If you define it as "a committee member of an NGB", then he's not. He resigned from the NTSA committee at the last AGM.
• If you define it as "a former committee member of an NGB" then he is political.
• If you define it as "has been involved in arguments of a political nature" or "holds strong views on political matters" then he is political. If you're ruling out people on these grounds though, we might have a hard time finding mods.

bunny shooter

IRLConor wrote: »

It depends on how you define "political".

• If you define it as "a committee member of an NGB", then he's not. He resigned from the NTSA committee at the last AGM.
• If you define it as "a former committee member of an NGB" then he is political.
• If you define it as "has been involved in arguments of a political nature" or "holds strong views on political matters" then he is political. If you're ruling out people on these grounds though, we might have a hard time finding mods.

I should have clarified my statement. I meant serving committe members and/or officers of shooting organisation.

I was under the impression he was a serving committee member and/or officer of a shooting organisation.

In that case I'd have no problem in proposing Sparks for moderatorship.

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

I should have clarified my statement. I meant serving committe members and/or officers of shooting organisations.

I was under the impression that he was a serving committee member and/or officer of a shooting organisation.

In that case I'd have no problem in proposing Sparks for moderatorship.

Grand so, I was just trying to clarify.

Rovi

bunny shooter wrote: »

Unfortunately, Sparks comes in under "political" AFAIK

Whether we like it or not (and of course, the vast majority of us don't), the 'politics' is out there, and we need to have someone here who has some insight into the issues and personalities involved.
There's always going to be something of a balancing act between facilitating discussion of issues that impact our sport and prohibiting personalised vendettas or the breaking of confidentiality; finding that balance can quite often be more difficult than it might appear at face value.
Short of enacting utterly draconian rules (which I contend would necessitate overly heavyhanded moderation and be both difficult to enforce in a manner acceptable to the community and would, I feel, ultimately lead to the strangulation and stagnation of the forum), I think we need to have the input of someone who 'knows the territory'; Sparks gets my nomination.

Vegeta

Rovi wrote: »

Whether we like it or not (and of course, the vast majority of us don't), the 'politics' is out there, and we need to have someone here who has some insight into the issues and personalities involved.
There's always going to be something of a balancing act between facilitating discussion of issues that impact our sport and prohibiting personalised vendettas or the breaking of confidentiality; finding that balance can quite often be more difficult than it might appear at face value.
Short of enacting utterly draconian rules (which I contend would necessitate overly heavyhanded moderation and be both difficult to enforce in a manner acceptable to the community and would, I feel, ultimately lead to the strangulation and stagnation of the forum), I think we need to have the input of someone who 'knows the territory'; Sparks gets my nomination.

I agree totally, at least DeV has laid down the law for us with regards the personal vendetta stuff.

Our man in Havana

Also we should have a declaration of any vested interests held by posters. Maybe a stuck thread containing a register of same?

Sparks

I was under the impression that he was a serving committee member and/or officer of a shooting organisation.

Nope. Was one before - did two stints as PRO and one as Secretary for the NTSA. Resigned last year to try and get back to shooting. I do still help run WTSC. Not going forward again for the NTSA next year, herself indoors likes to see me often enough to remember who I am. I do still lend a hand here and there when asked, usually because not that many of us have spent so much time with the legislative side of things and the more heads the better with that sort of thing.

But I don't really agree with this "be a mod or serve on a committee, but never the twain shall meet" thing. If a mod is abusing the position, yeah, that's a problem that has to be dealt with, but if not, well, face it - we have a dearth of volunteerism in our sport. Ever try to run a match? There's a large shortage of hands in the air when the call goes out for ROs or bodies to help lift and carry stuff. It's always the same 2% of people doing 98% of the work. Believe me, I wish it wasn't, but that's how it goes.

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

Also we should have a declaration of any vested interests held by posters. Maybe a stuck thread containing a register of same?

For all posters? That'd require a breaking of anonymity, which is really too valuable to be thrown away (trust me, I've seen the lack of anonymity in the real world so badly abused that it'd make you a lifelong cynic). For mods? Well, maybe, but I'd still be uncomfortable making it a mandatory rule. In some cases (:D) it's no real secret anyway - hell, you can't be anonymous and be the PRO of anywhere, so I'm pretty much an open book - but that's something I've learnt to live with and had a choice in accepting. I'm not so sure about forcing it on someone without a really good reason.

IRLConor

Bond-007 wrote: »

Also we should have a declaration of any vested interests held by posters. Maybe a stuck thread containing a register of same?

They have one of those over in Commuting and Transport.

It mightn't be a bad idea here. I would be against a mandatory one as it would probably discourage some people from contributing.

So are we in agreement...

Shooting: Rovi
Target Shooting: IRLConor / Sparks
Hunting: Vegeta

Does anyone have a problem with this? Speak now or forever take it feedback and all that! Anyone else want a go a modding these forums?