do we really need to vote?

Yeah, you gotta get the political theory right; in order for moderation to be a representational democracy, it's necessary to go through the process no matter what.

Of course if some nominated people want to back out officially, in a way that's clear to all, that is their choice. Nominations close in 12 hours.

Almost, they'd be in the parking lot with pistols, whereas Wolf and I would be in the Janitors closet ....with passion.:blush:

The New Moderators
 

Just go to the Members List, and sort by Posts. Then select the top two.

Jealous much? It's not about volume, it's about content, whelp.

UT - just in case it's not clear, I have no intention for being put forward for vote. Officially.

@wolf: reeeowr!

I also have no intention of being put forward.

Our loss, on both counts.

Fortunately, the remaining candidates are all excellent.

I re-nominate Bruce and Wolf as well. But I would like to add Elspode, if I can do that...

I'm happy to accept nomination, but except as a formality, there is little need to do this. As LJ has rightly said, a vote is somewhat superfluous. Wolf and Bruce have both said they'd do it, they excel at it...what more could we ask for, here?

Edit: whoops...missed the nifty democracy platform espoused by UT, there...

We need to vote, because one year it will NOT be "obvious."

I'll try not to crack any more jokes in 'serious' threads.

well, you can't be blamed. I mean, how can you tell the difference between serious and non-serious threads? that's like asking a blind man not to use the red phone.

of course we need to vote. i was just stating my affirmation of the fine job wolf has done.....oh, and that other guy, too.