A Day in the Life of the RF Mods

[Jayhawker Soule]

I much appreciate you folks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sounds like fun. When so i start?

Soon as I have the cameras set up.
Errr...ignore that.

 

[Sunstone]

I much appreciate you folks.

Thanks, Jay. That means a lot.

 

[Sunstone]

Soon as I have the cameras set up.

Camels? Camels this week? Last week it was Balinese donkeys in fishnet stockings. I'm getting to love these new "theme orgies". You were right, Dave. It really was a good idea to assign the new mods, @Left Coast and @The Hammer to head up the Social Committee. I call it "genius" on your part!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no firmly established limit on the number of mods, but mods are active to varying degrees. Currently, sbout six to nine mods and admins do most of the heavy lifting with the rest pitching in less often. But the job isn't as easy or as unstressful as it might sound and many mods burn out. Usually, they sooner or later retire afterwards. We try to keep even the inactive ones around for their advice.



Team players. Level-heads. Fair-mindedness. Compassion. Humility. Stuff like that. But we do not expect perfection (or the gods know I would never have gotten the job). That's why modding is very much a team sport. No one person is so perfect they can always be certain of issuing sound decisions. We work together as a team providing each other with reality-checks.

Thank you again for the information.

 

[columbus]

It's when future mods are decided, and you're poring over lists if you do, what do you think of having the community try to decide the future people from a list of all good candidates through polls, to give them a possible sense of accomplishment? And that if they end up not liking the actions of the person, you can always say, "You guys chose him."

I was once a member of another forum, similar in size and scope to RF.

Their thing was Talking Rationally, although I won't actually mention the name because referring to other forums is a rule violation.

One of the changes the staff made a few years back was electing the mods. Let the members choose who they thought made the best staff. Let members who considered themselves most qualified start threads explaining why. Hold elections on an ongoing basis. "Who wants member A to replace member B as a mod?"

Imagine a combination of RF with a permanent US presidential campaign built in to the subforums.

Yeah. That's what happened.

Unsurprisingly, the forum doesn't exist anymore.

Tom

 

[McBell]

I was once a member of another forum, similar in size and scope to RF.

Their thing was Talking Rationally, although I won't actually mention the name because referring to other forums is a rule violation.

One of the changes the staff made a few years back was electing the mods. Let the members choose who they thought made the best staff. Let members who considered themselves most qualified start threads explaining why. Hold elections on an ongoing basis. "Who wants member A to replace member B as a mod?"

Imagine a combination of RF with a permanent US presidential campaign built in to the subforums.

Yeah. That's what happened.

Unsurprisingly, the forum doesn't exist anymore.

Tom

As a former Mod on a couple of other forums, it is my opinion that this is a terrible idea.
Not only for the reasons you present, but also because if you want a good effective staff, they need to be able to work together to get things done.
Staff positions are busy enough without adding the concerns of ad campaigns...

Now I am not against letting member be in on the staff selection process...
I just think it needs to be set up in a much more productive manner.

 

[Sunstone]

...if you want a good effective staff, they need to be able to work together to get things done.

I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the idea, but you and @columbus raise some pretty serious concern. RF's staff is first and foremost a team. There are people on it from several different backgrounds and worldviews. Yet there is absolutely none of the bickering that you see too often on the open Forum -- especially in the political threads. The staff treats each other as family -- or actually better than many families. I would be concerned that elections might too easily produce a staff that did not get along well enough to do their jobs.

 

[columbus]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of staff discussions that start with
"Well, Columbus...."

Tom

 

[McBell]

Now I am not against letting member be in on the staff selection process...
I just think it needs to be set up in a much more productive manner.

The most successful way I have seen in allowing members input concerning new staff members is what I call the "Open Nominations".
Basically a thread is started that says there is {insert number here} staff positions available, a list of the specific positions, the job duties of said positions and then let members nominate who they think would be good choices for each position.

I have seen this technique (for lack of a better word) produce some great staff members that would have otherwise be overlooked.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The very best candidate on paper or the most popular, may not share the ethos of the Forum or be a team player.
We have all seen what popular voting achieves in politics.
I would not wish that sort of outcome on this forum.

The present system has proved it self over many years. I see no reason to put that all at risk, Just for political correctness sake. This has always been a private forum.