Topic: What to do with the wall observer thread? - page 2. (Read 11024 times)

We have now a pretty nice set of candidates for new owner of WO. And theymos has already said that as soon as one is elected/designed he will unlock the thread.

I don't see any reason to extend the resolution farther than this week. We could give until wednesday to see if there are any more candidates or withdrawals (though it would be better there isn't more of the latter or we risk drying out of candidates and having to start from scratch) then ask Theymos to run the poll from wednesday to sunday... and we will all be happy hodlers of classic WO again before next week

TL;DR: Let's get back WO asap.

infofront has showed he can handle the task with mastery by what he's been doing in his HF thread.
I support a moderator who can analyze what's a offensive content and has no need to unleash the nervous finger on delete button.
infofront bro you have my support.

Yefi, you are a gentleman.

Respect.

I'm going to bow out and pledge my support for lightfoot, infofront, arklan, Erkallys and empowering.

 The updated list in no particular order:


lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

Erkallys- "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

infofront- "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread."

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one.

empowering - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."


edit: removed yefi (at yefi's request)

Great idea.  Let's get caught upon style versus substance.

I would imagine that if a thread owner is concerned about style or get's caught up in concerns about personality, that could become distracting and/or problematic - but some of that would be within the discretion of the owner, I suppose.. but could stifle participation, too.

For example, one of the rules of the Meuh6879 WO thread, there is an issue about length of posts and citing of posts, which I think members, besides myself, consider to be problematic.  But other posters, consider that rule to be reasonable.. go figure..  members think differently and express themselves differently.

I am all for going forward with the vote, but it seems that there were a few more names that had been on the possible candidates list at one time or another... so seems that at least we want to make sure that the list of candidates is complete -

In that regard, we may may want to take one or two days to solidify the list and then go forward with the vote - and maybe if Theymos or a Mod conducted the vote, like you suggested, then we would not have to suffer through any of the possible encumbrances of an election committee?

You mean someone who would be tolerant of verbose and overly long posts, JJG?

It seems that if we could just get through the process of electing a thread owner, then hopefully we would chose a thread owner who would be sufficiently in line with the thread culture and be able to decide the extent to which any of those kinds of rules would be practical in order to meet the laissez-faire history of the thread and/or whether a committee might be helpful.

You can take me out, too - I was hoping to be part of a team, I don't fancy the solo job.

I agree with BlindMayorBitcorn there is already a list with some great candidates, with Empowering added to it it looks like we have a few decent options.  

May the candidate with the least ego, the greatest love of dodgy memes, trains, rockets and alcohol as well as a devotion to the spirit of the WO thread win.

Can we have a vote please, Theymos?

Some pretty good ideas on this thread. Amazing ones in fact. Question: Can we lock a thread to no newbies, no post count, no sig campaigns, multiple moderators, must post a spaceman picture every 30 days, etc?

Latest version of potential mods


lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'"

Erkallys - "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

BlindMayorBitcorn - [No stated "style of moderation" AFAIK. Please update]

infofront - "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread. "

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one. edit: Proof in previous post.

empowering - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."

Boom. Done. There's my vote.

Edit: Please strike my name from the list. There are enough solid candidates now. Lightfoot and Yefi and Empowering are all excellent choices IMHO.

I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition , prone to erratic outbursts and have a proclivity for alcohol,  an obsession with BTC , and a completely bonkers life, I gots me a sense of humour- so I wouldn't be too heavy handed -  I don't give too much of a fuck - I can dedicate the time to it- as I am pretty immersed in Cryptocurrency already but also I don't care as long as its not he whose name we dare not mention "La......."

So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though.

Depends on if you want someone cranky or not tbh.

(Also I do kind of love this thread)

I propose we start with one framework. 

We set up an election committee with three or more persons who must be at least a full member and have at least 5 posts in the WO thread to be on the election committee and who are not running for the position, and then go from there. 

I don't mind being on such election committee because I am not interested in running for the position.  Anyone else who does not plan to run that would not mind being on the election committee?  or is there a better idea how to carry this whole thing out within the next couple of weeks?

Well we did have a bunch of people who came forward - I assume Theymos will pop up a poll and add names if they are quick enough to say they want to be on the list.

Since all the other WO threads (including rpietila's) were asked if anyone wanted it, the list of those who do is not so large and no one can say they didn't know.

Bring it on, pronto I say.

My vote goes to anyone who will offer a light touch and possesses more of a sense of humour than of self-importance.

A few guys have been posting potential candidates in this thread, who seem to be willing to run.  Some guys nominated themselves and some nominated others; however, of course it would seem to be a waste of energies if we were to include someone in the vote who has not confirmed that s/he is willing to run and carry out the duties and responsibilities.

There are some guys trying to structure this, such as Kurious, but I don't think that all of the questions have been answered yet in terms of who gets to vote.

Maybe there could be a requirement, that you have to have posted in the WO thread at least 5 times or something like that?  Or maybe that you have to be at least a member?  You are correct, Lauda, that some of that can be controversial, and in that regard, sometimes the election committee would not be the same ones who are running, or at least should not be.

I would not mind being on an election committee, and say that I am not running, but maybe the election committee would be three peeps, and then hopefully would just agree on rules in which others would run and then establish a thread owner for a year or something and then possibly revisit the matter a year later, if needed?  Or maybe the thread owner could become permanent and only subject to the removal of Theymos and/or global mods?

Anyone think that a three member election committee might work of folks who are not running?  Then we have to do a quickie vote on the election committee, possibly?  Then the election committee communicates the hopefully reasonable rules.. and maybe all of this is done in the open in another thread, at least the voting portion... the discussion could probably take place in this thread, no?

Appreciate all the work you're putting into reopening the WO thread, Theymos.  Glad you didn't take the easiest route and decide to leave it locked.

So, bumping it up, it looks like we have the following names for potential moderator:


lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

yefi - "I'll throw my hat into the ring if there's a shortage though"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

kurious - "'Happy to help any team on a part time basis if it will keep the WO going in a fashion as close to its original anarchic form as possible'"

Erkallys - "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

BlindMayorBitcorn - [No stated "style of moderation" AFAIK. Please update]

infofront - "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread. "

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one. Proof below.




 This looks about right - 5% leaders, 95% followers.  Do we need to wait longer for volunteers to come forward or can we open a voting thread now?  Maybe we need a voting thread on how long to wait?
Who's gonna jump the shark?

Has someone started keeping a list of potential candidates? Can people nominate themselves or do you have to necessarily nominate someone else or both? Who gets to vote? Why?

---

In other words: Easier said than done.

Based on what Theymos is saying, it seems most practical to attempt to finish nominations within a few days or a week at most, and thereafter create a thread to conduct a vote - maybe a 3-4 days voting period.  Someone who is not running could probably run the vote.

I'm sure any voting would end up picking a decent candidate that would be in touch with thread culture, and if that person believes s/he needs help in the thread, s/he can elicit such help - even though it seems that there may be some inability to give actual powers to anyone beyond the owner of the thread, unless the owner of the thread shared his/her log-in credentials or a administrative "fake" account was created for such persons and the password only known by the elected moderator(s).

I am not sure if there should be concerns about getting stuck with a tyrant, because we would be voting for the person, but if there is a feeling to allow for a continued quasi-democratic process, we may want to agree to 1 year terms or something reasonable like that.   It sounds like Theymos would agree to a variety of frameworks, as long as the thread is set up with one owner and is not taxing mod resources too heavily... and it seems that even if Theymos would allow some administrative account, some one person is going to have to end up taking responsibility for the whole way that the thread is administered - so one point person.