On 6 May 2012 20:46, Kevin Gorman
<kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:
@Risker: Sorry for not making it more clear in my initial post.
Although Sue is a moderator, she chooses not to be active in most
moderation decisions. Sarah and I talked about this, and she looked
over, edited, (and agreed with) my initial email in this thread. I
signed it personally instead of both of us doing so in part because,
as Kaldari mentioned, she's frequently been the focus of situations
where moderation might be a good idea, and she doesn't want to use a
modhat against behavior directed towards her. Since a lot of the
issues in the past have been directed towards her, she's asked me to
be the primary handler of active moderation stuff for now. (If there
ends up being a situation where problematic behavior is targeted
towards me instead of her, I'll step back and ask her to handle it.)
:There's no recent incident that has made me go 'oh, hey, I want to
+moderate this person right this minute' - but there has been some
recent stuff that has reminded us that this is something we've talked
about before, and that it would be good to state publicly before there
is a situation where we want to actually +moderate anyone. No one
will be +moderated without getting an email from Sarah or myself first
asking them to shift their behavior, and even then, we'll be
moderating on a post by post basis and not completely removing anyone
from the list. I'm hopeful that we won't actually need to moderate
anyone ever, but wanted to publicly state that we will be doing so if
we feel it's needed in the future before it came up.
Re: the idea of additional moderators - although I haven't talked
about it explicitly with Sue and Sarah, I like the idea, and I'm
pretty sure they would too. If anyone would like to volunteer, please
drop an email to Sarah or me offlist.
----
Kevin Gorman