Chili, actually your reasoning, "I would rather have all postings, than have some schoolmarm editing or deleting threads that contain content that offends them for some personal reason. Just because you don't agree with a poster, doesn't mean they don't have a right to post here." can be interpreted either as red herring or you did not follow this thread. The content is not the point, "some personal reason" is far from it, we are talking about legal right, i.e. copyright laws (copyrights also apply to publishing large parts of a book without permission, even if not for financial profit, for all I know) and breaking tribe terms of use which include posting abuse.
Anyway, the essential part is, this tribe, may I repeat, is without a moderator at present, every tribe ought to have a moderator, and we have permission from tribe.net staff to hold an election. I don't know what all this paranoia about having a moderator is about, we are here to talk about books, and this tribe consists mainly of a bunch of perfectly harmless bookworms and literature lovers, right?

Yeah, that's a problem, who wants the job?

I think I've probably devoted more attention to all this than it's worth. While I personally may find presumptuousness offensive, I fully expect that most of this tribe is comprised of adults, and are fully capable of reaching their own conclusions without a lot of blather from me or anyone else. So I'll try to answer your questions succinctly, Nathan. And thanks for asking, as well as for noting that the original issue has yet to receive any followup whatsoever.

I think almost all of what you've written is quite sensible in my view, so I'll only address the couple of places where we may differ.

> One particular instance is whenever a thread or number of threads involve some sort of conflict or controversy -- particularly if it is growing.
> Then moderator responsiveness to members is crucial among these tasks of moderation in order for the tribe to continue to thrive.

Not really. As I suspect you're well aware, there are plenty of very active highly populated tribes which not only feature regular conflict and controversy, but even seem to thrive on it. I'm not suggesting that as an admirable model, just noting that controversy does not equal the death of a tribe. In fact, it's often conflict that fuels discussion and debate, and where it's stimulating, this can even benefit a tribe substantially. Again, not suggesting this as an intentional effort, just noting that it does not pose some existential threat to a rational group of humans. On the contrary, it can even strengthen cohesion when thoughtful people draw together to resist disruptive nonsense, trolling, spam, etc etc. None of this requires an active mod, though a mod could certainly be an asset. One thing to think about is that without someone in that position, a group is compelled to take more individual responsibility rather than leaving it all to someone else. Sort of a compulsory democracy, if you will. (Anyone know which country it is that fines you if you don't vote? I've always found that a delightfully whimsical take on "democratic freedom".)

> I personally do not find this particular step as a witch hunt, a trial, disrespectful or unfair.

Nor do I. Unless it's pushed by an disproportionately vocal minority, and foisted off upon the majority as "necessary just because", rather than being a thoughtful process welcoming of of other's opinions.

To clarify, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to whatever the majority (or better yet, consensus) opinion of this tribe emerges as. My issue is that the space should be created for discussion and input of all, rather than having one person dictate to others what the outcome "should" be.

And it seems only logical that any discussion should begin with defining the nature of the problem at hand, before attempting to decide on an appropriate solution. Solutions that are essentially in search of a problem to attach themselves to rarely turn out well. Particularly when championed by adolescents.

>Whether as a matter of principle or as a particular instance for this tribe, how active would a moderator have to be in
> your view for you to consider them to be "the moderator?"

Not sure what you're looking for here, but I'll do my best. The real answer is, I don't really care that much. The health of the tribe is my concern, not the health of the mod. If the tribe functions well, who cares who, what or where the mod is or isn't? As far as I'm concerned, IO is the mod, because.. well... there's his icon, right there in the moderator spot. End of story. Active or not is irrelevant to me. What the role of a mod "should" be is fodder for debate, but since it's typically the mod who starts the tribe, it's pretty much up to each individual mod to determine what's appropriate for their Tribe. When the tribe outgrows the initial charter, (as may well have happened here) and members decide collectively to direct things differently, then hopefully you begin anew with buy-in from all concerned. THIS is where I get very alarmed with any one person attempting to set the agenda for others. Make sense?

I'm much more concerned about the role of mod as potential censor. So when people start clamoring for a new mod because no one is around to delete something they are convinced is illegal (without so much as a shred of supporting evidence), I begin to bristle.

Mods can be golden, or mods can be a hellish curse for a tribe. So a mod who only exists in name only is not really such a bad problem to have, imho. My caveat is that if you don't like a lack of moderation, don't assume that a new moderator is going to be a panacea. Or in this case, maybe I should substitute "placebo". (Works for hypochondriacs only.)


> Can you foresee the instance of a moderator for whatever reasons going AWOL for the duration,
> an instance therefore eventually requiring a new moderator?

Sure. If and when a problem arises that the GROUP acknowledges as requiring the hand of an active mod.

So far, I haven't seen anything approaching this. Only ten people have weighed in out of some two thousand. My guess is that most of those don't really care all that much, the reason for which can likely be neatly encapsulated by one handy old adage:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."



So what .... EXACTLY... is it that's broken ? Hmm ?



Lastly, thanks to all who've spoken up thoughtfully. I'm glad you're making your ideas known, whether they happen to align with mine or not.


Jesus, glad I was trying to keep it short. Egad.

I think I've probably devoted more attention to all this than it's worth. While I personally may find presumptuousness offensive, I fully expect that most of this tribe is comprised of adults, and are fully capable of reaching their own conclusions without a lot of blather from me or anyone else. So I'll try to answer your questions succinctly, Nathan. And thanks for asking, as well as for noting that the original issue has yet to receive any followup whatsoever.

I think almost all of what you've written is quite sensible in my view, so I'll only address the couple of places where we may differ.

> One particular instance is whenever a thread or number of threads involve some sort of conflict or controversy -- particularly if it is growing.
> Then moderator responsiveness to members is crucial among these tasks of moderation in order for the tribe to continue to thrive.

Not really. As I suspect you're well aware, there are plenty of very active highly populated tribes which not only feature regular conflict and controversy, but even seem to thrive on it. I'm not suggesting that as an admirable model, just noting that controversy does not equal the death of a tribe. In fact, it's often conflict that fuels discussion and debate, and where it's stimulating, this can even benefit a tribe substantially. Again, not suggesting this as an intentional effort, just noting that it does not pose some existential threat to a rational group of humans. On the contrary, it can even strengthen cohesion when thoughtful people draw together to resist disruptive nonsense, trolling, spam, etc etc. None of this requires an active mod, though a mod could certainly be an asset. One thing to think about is that without someone in that position, a group is compelled to take more individual responsibility rather than leaving it all to someone else. Sort of a compulsory democracy, if you will. (Anyone know which country it is that fines you if you don't vote? I've always found that a delightfully whimsical take on "democratic freedom".)

> I personally do not find this particular step as a witch hunt, a trial, disrespectful or unfair.

Nor do I. Unless it's pushed by an disproportionately vocal minority, and foisted off upon the majority as "necessary just because", rather than being a thoughtful process welcoming of of other's opinions.

To clarify, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to whatever the majority (or better yet, consensus) opinion of this tribe emerges as. My issue is that the space should be created for discussion and input of all, rather than having one person dictate to others what the outcome "should" be.

And it seems only logical that any discussion should begin with defining the nature of the problem at hand, before attempting to decide on an appropriate solution. Solutions that are essentially in search of a problem to attach themselves to rarely turn out well. Particularly when championed by myopic adolescents.

>Whether as a matter of principle or as a particular instance for this tribe, how active would a moderator have to be in
> your view for you to consider them to be "the moderator?"

Not sure what you're looking for here, but I'll do my best. The real answer is, I don't really care that much. The health of the tribe is my concern, not the health of the mod. If the tribe functions well, who cares who, what or where the mod is or isn't? As far as I'm concerned, IO is the mod, because.. well... there's his icon, right there in the moderator spot. End of story. Active or not is irrelevant to me. What the role of a mod "should" be is fodder for debate, but since it's typically the mod who starts the tribe, it's pretty much up to each individual mod to determine what's appropriate for their Tribe. When the tribe outgrows the initial charter, (as may well have happened here) and members decide collectively to direct things differently, then hopefully you begin anew with buy-in from all concerned. THIS is where I get very alarmed with any one person attempting to set the agenda for others. Make sense?

I'm much more concerned about the role of mod as potential censor. So when people start clamoring for a new mod because no one is around to delete something they are convinced is illegal (without so much as a shred of supporting evidence), I begin to bristle.

Mods can be golden, or mods can be a hellish curse for a tribe. So a mod who only exists in name only is not really such a bad problem to have, imho. My caveat is that if you don't like a lack of moderation, don't assume that a new moderator is going to be a panacea. Or in this case, maybe I should substitute "placebo". (Works for hypochondriacs only.)


> Can you foresee the instance of a moderator for whatever reasons going AWOL for the duration,
> an instance therefore eventually requiring a new moderator?

Sure. If and when a problem arises that the GROUP acknowledges as requiring the hand of an active mod.

So far, I haven't seen anything approaching this. Only ten people have weighed in out of some two thousand. My guess is that most of those don't really care all that much, the reason for which can likely be neatly encapsulated by one handy old adage:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."



So what .... EXACTLY... is it that's broken ? Hmm ?



Lastly, thanks to all who've spoken up thoughtfully. I'm glad you're making your ideas known, whether they happen to align with mine or not.


Jesus, glad I was trying to keep it short. Egad.

Yes we need a new thread because we have to ask the staff at tribe.net to read it. They won't want to read this long thread.