|
Post by Trusty on Oct 14, 2006 1:29:35 GMT -5
I am happy to report that, in its short existence, prairieCHATTER has been determined to be a success. We are a healthy and growing community with members who are purposed to keep it strong and free. We have also exhibited the ability to govern ourselves well because our care for each other far exceeds our opinions of each other. It is in such an atmosphere that points of view can be more freely expressed and received. I appreciate the job that slb2 has done in keeping us together and serving as Moderator of this Forum. I also appreciate all of you for such positive participation. In light of all this, I present to you a problem – a GOOD problem. We are growing in membership, threads and posts which require more Moderators to read them with the purpose of helping out whenever possible. They will read the posts on their boards when they can and offer help if they can. They will not solve your problems for you, but will work together with you to find solutions. In other words, they will really not be doing anything different than what they are doing now; they just have the responsibility in an “official” capacity. I am pleased to announce that joew, dand, booklady and Mike have accepted the invitation to help slb2 and me moderate this forum. These are people who have shown extreme care for us all and have the time and desire to assist in this capacity. This does NOT mean that anyone here is less “qualified” or that I’m playing “favorites”. I’m sure that we will need more Moderators as we grow and believe that this selection is a good start. (You will find the moderator's names and the threads that they moderate on the front page. I moderate all the "Tools & Links" threads and help with the "Website" threads - even though I can't get the administrator's name to show up .) As always, YOU are the foundation and backbone of prairieCHATTER, and your participation is highly valued and appreciated. Thank you! Trusty
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Oct 14, 2006 4:50:26 GMT -5
Good choices for mods, Trusty!!! They'll do yuh proud!!! ~B~
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Oct 14, 2006 9:31:12 GMT -5
Oh Dear! With so many trusty and faithful friends of this site, I'd better be careful in what I say now with all these moderators around!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 14, 2006 9:33:55 GMT -5
Dang! There goes my chance to reach the Dopey level of membership! Heck, I won't even get to Sneezy, and I was closing in.
(But seriously, folks, Trusty asked before he took me out of the status seeking.)
And now — Hi, Ho! Hi, Ho! It's off to check the threads I go.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 14, 2006 9:43:38 GMT -5
Check that! I just noticed that Trusty has managed to keep me Sleepy. Bless you, Trusty!
Sneezy, here I come!
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Oct 14, 2006 14:42:53 GMT -5
Gesundheit!
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 14, 2006 22:21:55 GMT -5
I'm very pleased. Good work all around.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 15, 2006 0:59:18 GMT -5
Oh Dear! With so many trusty and faithful friends of this site, I'd better be careful in what I say now with all these moderators around! C'mon, Brit. With me as one of the moderators, you've got nothing to worry about. Between Brutus and me (or is it I?), we'll be sure to say the wikked-est tidbits. Well, if Bruskie isn't up to it, maybe I can convince mike to get down and dirty?
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Oct 15, 2006 4:26:08 GMT -5
Far be it for me, a Glesca Keeley, to correct a writer, but should this have been:
Brutus and myself? I also think the "between" is superfluous.
"With Brutus and myself" would have been more appropriate methinks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Oct 15, 2006 5:34:07 GMT -5
Uhhh, Brit? "Brutus and yourself" ain't-a gonna be doin' no nasty stuff. I like ya, man, but Slb's a leeeeedle more my style. If I do any "switcheroos"though, I'll ring your bell!!! ~B~
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Oct 15, 2006 6:55:45 GMT -5
I was not suggesting you and I get together Brutus, I was offering an alternative to wot SLB said.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Oct 15, 2006 7:34:17 GMT -5
(Whew!) ~B~
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 15, 2006 12:33:00 GMT -5
When I was in high school, the use of the reflexive pronoun in contexts like the one under discussion was discouraged.
Going to place an order at the ice cream counter — Right: "I'm having vanilla. And you?" Not so right: "I'm having vanilla. And yourself?"
Comparable to the discussion — Right: "With Jim and me involved, the project will surely succeed." Not so right: "With Jim and myself involved, the project will surely succeed."
On the other hand — Right: "I'm doing this for myself." Wrong: "I'm doing this for me."
I'm sorry to say, I don't recall the rule which makes the reflexive necessary in some contexts and undesirable in others. Too bad OS isn't around to explain it to us (not "ourselves").
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 15, 2006 12:40:33 GMT -5
Maybe it has to do with the subject of the sentence or clause.
"He will have to do it for himself, unless you or I (never "myself) can do it for him."
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 15, 2006 16:09:45 GMT -5
where's an English major when you need 'im?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 15, 2006 17:11:24 GMT -5
Gesundheit! Thanks, brit. It seems to have worked: as you see, I am no longer Sneezy.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 18, 2006 20:34:41 GMT -5
On the "My friend" thread, brit raised the issue of his having to slog through a lot of unrelated posts to look for responses to what he had posted, and dwarnold wondered if the moderators shouldn't be keeping the threads on topic and putting new topics on new threads. I gave a reply off the top of my head and suggested we take the conversation here.
I see Trusty simply says moderators are to read posts when we can and offer help if we can — not to solve problems but to work with other members to help find solutions. In the light of brit's observation and dwarnold's questions, is there anything to add to that?
Also, do brit and dw point out a problem that might be solved or at least alleviated, or is it just how things are?
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Oct 18, 2006 20:40:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry about it, Joe. Sometimes the topic of a thread wanders because it's worn out its welcome and the asides become more interesting than the original topic itself. You're doin' fine ~B~
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Oct 18, 2006 20:54:03 GMT -5
I may prove to be too tired or too undisciplined to be a good moderator. Half the time I'm the one taking the dang thread down the wrong alley. It seems so easy to do, if one is not sensitive and careful.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 18, 2006 21:03:00 GMT -5
I just thought of those beer commercials where the characters are sitting around a table discussing an issue relating to drinking beer. Eventually they reach a consensus. Somebody summarizes it, and asks, "Manlaw?" and they agree , and the old guy with the book records it. At this point it is probably too soon to come to a "chatlaw," but maybe we'll get there.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Oct 18, 2006 21:39:57 GMT -5
We're all in this together, and - ya know - that's a good thing. (There are a couple of more posts at the "My Friend" thread that address the issue. I'd like to see some really cool ideas from this creative bunch.) Anyway, some may have the perception that a Moderator here should take more of a leader role than a servant role. Maybe it's in the name itself; "Moderator" implies "title", and "title" implies "job" (Heaven forbid! ). Some may be offended by the "title" that others hold and wonder how the others "achieved" the "position". (Well, to put it simply, nobody "achieved" anything. To be blunt, I didn't want this forum to go sour, and needed insurance that it wouldn't. I picked some people that I felt would fill the role nicely, and they graciously accepted. I KNOW I missed picking some very fine people who would also be great at moderating; I pray no one is taking it personally because it isn't.) So, does anyone have a word to replace "moderator" (I think I can change the name; everything else here is programmable.) The first thing I thought of was "prairie guard" (Thanks, Tillie - kind of a play on "palace guard".), but I'm very tired and not thinking straight right now. Or maybe I'm just making a bigger deal of it than I should.... Suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Gracie on Oct 18, 2006 21:42:02 GMT -5
Playground Supervisor??
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 18, 2006 22:42:11 GMT -5
Before I read all those responses, I'd best say what I think. I think Trusty made me a moderator because I'd set up the SOS boat between APHC and ProBoards. Sort of to appease my whiney voice. ;D Now I am more formally a part of the moderating crew. I expect that to mean I will help when someone has a question about the functions of this site or about legalities or ethical concerns. i.e.-- Is it okay to post GK's monologue? I found his notes in the street outside the Fitz? Um, probably not. How do I get rid of a post I just made? Delete it with your delete button. Would it be okay to cut-n-paste the portion of juliastar's novel that she just shared? Er, not on this planet. But ask her privately and get permission. That said, I didn't realize that I was to steer topics back on track. I'm happy with the natural ebb and flow of conversation. Although some of you might have noticed when I pensively said that I wanted the My Friend thread to stay on track, I wasn't acting as a moderator when I said it, nor did I intend for people to stick to the stated topic. If folks wanted to quit the mental health topic and drift into Bobby Dylan, I'm not going to manipulate that, unless sharing my opinion on that drift is considered manipulation. I'm a laissez faire kinda-gal. I really am. There's no better teacher than the one who teaches in the School of Reality. If I get in the way, I'm denying someone an important lesson.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 18, 2006 22:47:13 GMT -5
Trusty — I really don't think there is a problem with the title. Whatever the title, we moderators are learning on-the-job, and everybody is learning as we go along what we can expect from one another. Whatever the moderators are called, people can wonder what we can and can't do, as well as what we should and shouldn't try to do. In other words, the question is not what you call them. It is what the members can expect from them.
Perhaps what we can expect is occasional gentle and friendly suggestions. (To answer an OS-type question about punctuation, I left out the commas because I mean occasional suggestions that are gentle and friendly, and somehow commas seemed to mess up that reading.)
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 18, 2006 22:48:30 GMT -5
In my Carleton writers' group, we take turns leading the meeting. We call ourselves facilitators[/i].
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 18, 2006 22:49:24 GMT -5
so, coming off of that idea. maybe Potato Head would be appropriate?
facilitators get it???
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 18, 2006 23:05:28 GMT -5
Well, the moderators certainly aren't expected to lead the discussion here.
Let me suggest this as a bit of common courtesy for everybody. Several of us have noted that it is natural for conversations to veer off into tangential topics, and responses to posts can take various directions. So in general it should be okay for people to go where they feel like with a thread. OTOH, if a thread goes off topic and there are people who want to keep to the original topic, they should be able to invite others to start a new thread for the new topic, and the people who want to continue with the new topic should start a new thread without feeling in any way that they did something wrong in responding with what came to mind.
What do all of you think of that as a general guideline?
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Oct 18, 2006 23:26:30 GMT -5
Sounds good, joew, but I won't want to make a rule of it. I'm pretty anarchist. In a pacifistist sort of way. Besides, if we have a rule, someone has to police it. Although I graduated with a major in Criminal Justice, it's not something I care to revive. Oh, but you said guideline. Okay. Oui.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 18, 2006 23:36:01 GMT -5
Perhaps it would be better to call it simply a suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Oct 18, 2006 23:38:56 GMT -5
I'm pretty darn easy. Conversations go where they go. I'm also good with people announcing new threads upon the old ones.
But I haven't been very good at moderating...on the job training. I was out of town for several days, since being promoted, and came home in order to suffer a horrible head cold. I'm going to be outta it for a few days. But I'm happy to sing Broadway tunes with you all.
|
|