Bink wrote:
"I don't recall any posts that would actually require deleting from the past couple of years I have read this tribe"

I think, this shows the lightness of Bink's touch. And I think, he has shown a wise, sensitive way of responding to controversy etc. before, so there would not be anything to worry about regarding heavy-handed moderation, Nathan. Having Bink as a moderator sounds good to me. = )

>>I assume you mean by "general discussion" here, <topics> started by someone without reference to a book/body of work?

Which would be different than if someone started a topic on some book, a discussion or two within that thread venturing off-topic, right?<<

I think we are talking about the same thing. If someone came in here and just started topic on say the sub-prime lending market fiasco, that would be encouraged to go elsewhere. If someone posted about a book on the same subject and there was a conversation that meandered off topic, that would be different.

>>I have seen various kinds of so-called "thread jacking," and I have seen various definitions, as well as ways and suggested ways for anyone -- member and/or moderator -- to respond to "thread-jacking." Care to elaborate -- any examples from this tribe you have in-mind?<<

For threadjacking, I will use the definition: "Taking over a conversation/thread by discussing something unrelated to the conversation previously taking place. For instance, if some people came into a topic discussing a book on the history of the ancient Levant region and started having a PC vs Mac debate. I know that is a pretty extreme difference, but that would be "obvious threadjacking" to me, with emphasis on the obvious. I have not seen a case of this here. Very few of the threads on here are active enough to even really be hijacked.

>>And therefore what would your response(s) be as a moderator of this tribe if "thread-jacking" should occur -- could you elaborate on just what you mean by "it would be discussed?" And by "I'd use judgment?"<<

Mostly, I would ask the posters to stay on topic, start a new thread for their conversation, or take it to PMs. If they think what they are posting is relative to the topic, then they are free to express that. If they make a good and reasonable argument, then I would probably do nothing else. If they are assholes and trolls, then I might delete their unrelated messages. Each situation is different, predicting how things are going to work in advance is difficult, especially when there is no history of it here to look at.


>>What then would your response be to someone saying "I'm going to kill you?"<<

It would again depend on the circumstances. If the person making the threat is normally not overly aggressive and just lost their cool in a heated debate, then I would probably say something to them and see what their response was. If the person was regullarly insulting people and threatening people, I would probably forward the offending messages to the tribe.net admins for them to deal with. If the person was some mentally distressed cyber stalker who was harassing a specific person, I would ask the object of their aggressions what they wanted to do.



>>Care to elaborate on what you mean exactly by "being told....?"<<

Yes, I would send them a message telling them personal attacks and insults are not welcome on this tribe. I would tailor the message in a way that I felt was best, considering the circumstances and context of the situation. For consistent offenders it might just be a straight up, "Stop the insults and personal attacks, next time I forward it to tribe.net and ask for you to be banned." If it is someone who just didn't give themselves to cool down before hitting 'submit', it would be much more tactful with no threat of involving the tribe.net admins.




>>Yes. I would simply appreciate a responsiveness on behalf of the moderator to the members of the tribe...relating to moderation of the tribe. "Moderation" in this latter sense being on the one hand not necessarily something residing in or with the moderator, and on the other hand, being a highlight of the difference between an overly active moderator and one that is basically responsive...to the members seeking them out. Of course, as with TOU or CofC violations, or with possible legal infractions or even personal attacks in a rather calm tribe, each their own learning curve...

As for a "promise" to be responsive to the members of the tribe with regard to moderation of the tribe, I would therefore elaborate that I look forward to someone looking to be a moderator of this tribe being up-front and honest about arguably the most basic task of moderator. Whether it's someone looking for help with relation to someone making personal attacks, or with someone having some technical issue, although there may be a wide range of responses with each person being a moderator being unique, I certainly am not comfortable with someone who is looking to be a moderator <for any other tasks> beyond this.<<

The ideal situation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the moderator will never have to do anything more then the very rare "please stay somewhat on topic" and "chill out, it's only an internet forum" message. Hopefully they wouldn't even have to do that. I think the function of the moderator is largely to help users with problems and protect against spam or deliberate trolling.* I don't like over active moderators either. The only reason being on-topic would be an issue is because this tribe has a specific purpose. If it were a general discussion forum, then that wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think this tribe really needs a moderator, but I've seen what can happen when you don't have a moderator and you get hit with a spammer, troll or forum raid. Moderators are good to have in case you need them, but otherwise they should be largely invisible in my opinion. I don't generally like moderation and the only reason I am willing to do it for this tribe is because it doesn't really need much moderation at all. If there were constant problems, I would have left a long time ago. I have no interest in spending my time on forum where people can't be civil and reasonable with each other and at that point, moderation is typically not going to solve the problem without a large number of bans and that is rarely productive either since the people who need to banned have probably already run off almost everyone else.

*By 'deliberate trolling' I mean someone joining just to make completely off-topic controversial, insulting or otherwise shit-stirring posts. Posts such as, "You guys are all <string of insults questioning everyone's parentage, sexuality and social status>." I have not seen anything on here I would consider trolling either.

ok I change my vote to voting for io, the current un-moderating moderator,
since we don't need anyone new to moderate this tribe.

Satan submits???!!!
lol