Because only our two current moderators were nominated, there is no need for a moderator election. Congratulations!
One.
Two.
Wha-ha-ha.
Two Moderators!
what is the term of service?
no write-ins?
suspending elections is a dangerous precedent.
The term of service shall be one year. If we want to change the election term or schedule we have to discuss it
There is no need for write-ins in an open nomination system!
... suspending elections is a dangerous precedent.
Should we dispense with annual moderators elections ... they're not at all likely to change the status quo ...
Logical extrapolation of known precedent reveals even school children would have realized election was unnecessary. User with big dic, mission accomplished, childlike mentality foretold inevitable outcome. MBA type bean counting confirmed what everyone should have known.
Yeah, but if I've ever had enough, it's good to know that there's an end in sight. I was getting tired of it all earlier this year when the spammers were really bad, and I would have thrown in the towel if it had continued. I like the yearly elections.
Moderators should be able to resign at any time with or without giving a reason. If you follow my quote of myself, you'd see that provision.
Well yeah. It's a free country and I'm not a slave, and all that. It's more a mental thing, like reaching a goal before stopping.
Those who can honor their volunteer commitment for the duration are appreciated. Also appreciated are a proven track record for non-abuse of the moderators' positions in forums, confidentiality of personal information like names and locations; also, an awareness of the apprehension created by introducing new people into these positions however much they are liked.
That no one else was even nominated is a strong indicator of the importance the general community places on these factors. In this light, it may be appropriate to ask if annual elections give false hope to members who may want to fill the position for whatever reason. In particular, do we really need to put newer members of the community through disappointment (for themselves; or, their nominees) across several election cycles before they get the gist of the vast majority?
I'm really dumb, and don't understand... can you state your objection in fewer words?
Please elaborate on why you preceded a conjunction with a comma; so, I can better evaluate your needs.
Commas before conjunctions are like annual moderators elections ... superfluous.
Just sayin'.
A comma before a conjunction represents an exasperated sigh.
I'm really dumb, and don't understand... can you state your objection in fewer words?
What I took away from it was: 'people's feelings will be hurt if they're not nominated, so we should get rid of the whole nomination/election process.'
I say the system works fine as is.
A comma before a conjunction represents an exasperated sigh.
What a coincidence: so do annual elections.
Well yeah. It's a free country and I'm not a slave, and all that. It's more a mental thing, like reaching a goal before stopping.
No problem, just say you're tired and we'll get Barney Frank to fill in until we can hold an election. :haha:
I think glatt's defense of the current system is spot on. If a moderator is getting beat down by the spam work or by troll wrangling (s)he can leave the post without adding further drama by not seeking the office in the next cycle. The current system got us two quality mods, that alone would seem to recommend it.
The lack of nominations sort of proves that.