New moderator

Any news on this front? We're still listed as officially having three moderators

 

Added the first poll

 

Two would probably be best, we have hardly any trouble here.

 

I'd agree with that, unless the 2 existing mods think they need a third?

Their call really, but if they are happy with 2, then I'll vote for 2.

 

Although I agree the 'trouble' has died down, it is partly because disparate personalities have taken a backward step, which actually reduces the quality of debate. This eventually suffocates a forum into becoming a small group of agreeable 'friends', who can share the reduced supply of oxygen that is left.

Therefore, for what it's worth, EMSC;I offer a polite disagreement with the idea that, "two would probably be best…".

One of the problems has been highlighted by Roadrunner's straightforward question (above). There is a perception that this site is very slow to react to matters of organisation, which sometimes leaves members in a daze, almost hoping that eventually things will sort themselves out. Or worse: tailing off their contribution to the forum in despair.

There is not enough participation by the moderation team. This thread itself serves as an example. The F1 forum would be enhanced and strengthened by having a third moderator who is keen and enthusiastic. This forum would benefit hugely from being revitalised. There are several members who have volunteered their services, any one of whom would reactivate what is in danger of becoming an (almost) exclusive Members' Club which does not encourage visitors to contribute. Far from it: there is a strong possibility that they feel it is not worth making the effort.

In my view, the present situation could be strengthened by introducing at least one more moderator – if for no other reason than the fact that it is good to have moderators on line as often as possible, and clearly this is an unfair work-load to thrust upon just two people who also have lives to live!

SgtBhaji made a very good point and someone shared the view that a moderator who operates to a different time-scale has some benefit. And there are others who would certainly improve the situation. Not taking up any of these offers would be a mistake.

 

Comment withdrawn due to confusion on my part.

No matter how I tried to say it, I found that I was not making myself any clearer! Apologies if I prompted people into forming the wrong conclusion.

 

I will keep my name in, maybe for the better.

 

I agree with Cosi, three mods would be ideal.

 

Having read cosi's very well reasoned argument, I am swapping votes to vote for a third. Also I would like to my name into the hat

 

Thanks guys.
As things stand, 30% of the vote is not good enough; but right now we need to be very much more active.

I have heard a rumour that one of the sites many British (and non-Brits) contributed to has withdrawn a significant part of its faculty. One can only presume there are a few 'homeless' types out there, even if this natural low in F1 activity is keeping it somewhat hidden. Let's activate this place and make it a lot more interesting to non-members.

However, prior to any 'think tank', we need to activate a new moderator who can help BLS and Bando monitor and regulate. In my view, this whole process is far too long-winded; and serves as an example of the very reason those long-standing pair who's work often goes unnoticed (including by me) need another pair of hands!

Come on guys. See the benefit. Ask yourselves seriously: could another moderator possibly be worse for the forum than just 66% of what we had before?

NO ± !
…We need to be at full strength if this place is not to stagnate.

- - -o0o- - -
​

P.S. Great to see EMSC's new perspective. Great to see that Westy might consider it. Great to see that Paco has taken a fresh look too.
As I said before, it seems there is no shortage of volunteers; and for the life of me, I cannot imagine that appointing any one of them would be worse than not having any one of them! To me, there is absolutely no argument to stick with only two! No reason whatever!

 

I think it's now 5-5 if EMSC and my votes are swapped over

 

With so many ins and outs I'm loosing track of who wants to be a mod

I guess I should also bring up the fact that us mods are answerable to you lot so if you're ever unhappy with my modding then please tell me. Even if that means that the majority want me to step down now or in the future, I can take it on the chin Being a mod doesn't make me immune to anything.

I'm happy to do the role as long as you lot are happy with me doing it!

 

Im really struggling to see what exactly would happen with a third mod that couldn't with two. Couldn't hurt of course. In terms of workload the two existing mods are probably the best voices to say if we need a third. Cosi im not really sure what you mean by "not enough participation". For my money the mods here have done a very good job.

I'll abstain for now since i don't feel strongly enough to want to influence things one way or the other. I doubt it will make a huge difference in the long run.

 

I don't see what a new mod could offer really, and they wouldn't be needed until march anyway.

 

Yes, the 'mods' here have done a very good job. I agree. It's just that there are now only two and that means the site is more likely to be unmoderated during their 'down time' when they are real life people with real lives to live.

You yourself acknowledge that a third "couldn't hurt of course". Furthermore, it buys the forum a little more insurance (for free), should one of them also – for whatever reason – decide to cease with their thankless task. Having another guy trained up and familiar with what is going on has to be a good thing if it is someone who can be trusted; and I am sure you'll agree there are a number of very good candidates.

Three good guys is better than two good guys. Surely that's a complete no-brainer? – Especially if the new moderator is elected by an active and responsible forum membership, as is clearly the case at present!

Seriously, there could be no better opportunity. Turning our backs on a free gift simply does not make any sense. I see no advantage at all in the forum collectively saying 'no' to such an open goal.

Do not misunderstand me: this is no reflection whatsoever on the supreme efforts of our present moderation team. It's just that we should seize the moment to offer them help and to improve the forum if possible. I'll repeat your words again Julius: it "couldn't hurt…"…

 

Why not turn the question around, Kyle? Just because one may not see something does not mean it does not exist.

Besides, if it is to happen; surely the sooner the better, since any new appointee will have time to get used to it before March!?

 

"it couldn't hurt" is more of a reason not to be opposed rather than to be in favour. We could have 5 or 6 and it probably wouldn't hurt, but it probably wouldn't do any good either. I just don't see the impact that a third makes. I think the forum will run pretty much the same as before regardless.

In your first post you made it sound more like there was something wrong that needed/could to be improved.

 

Look guys no point falling out over a mod, but like i can see both points of the story.

Whats the harm in having a 3rd mod, just to set up a sweepstakes when someones not around or just take control of the place if we have a nuclear meltdown ?

 

Well we've had no problems with 3, so I don't see the need to reduce it. As Cosi says, mods have lives too, and I wouldn't want them to have to increase the amount of time they spend online. It's 1am here, and if I choose to post something offensive then UK mods aren't going to pick it up for hours. 3 has worked until now, and having someone checking the forum in different time zones should hopefully mean things can be spotted more easily, so I'm all for a third mod. I've already put my name forward, but someone from overseas would be preferable in my opinion.

 

Julius:
All I am saying is that there is the real possibility of improvement without any real possibility of making things worse. So why not seize the opportunity? Once again, I agree with your own words that it could do no harm.

My pro-active stance on this is not a criticism. It is not easy to find the right words without the possibility of giving the wrong impression – which appears to have happened with your understanding of what I'm saying. After all, what is the antonym of 'improvement'? 'Declination' is not a familiar word and makes an imposition upon the reader; whilst what I am actually saying is very simple!

'It could do no harm' means there is no reason NOT to try it!
Not any!
At least, if there is, I have not seen anyone explain it, including yourself…

To put it another way, I will ask you this: what is there to lose? Whilst I have gone to some effort to explain my simple point, I have not seen one single word to explain an opposing view, since saying "I see no reason" concedes that there is no reason and is itself not a reason!

Perhaps I should put it another way: why give the impression (to me at least) that you are against it? Or am I getting this wrong?