Quote from: yefi on July 02, 2017, 01:41:45 PM

Quote from: kurious on July 02, 2017, 11:03:49 AM

If you add yourself, bitserve, then that is six volunteers.

Maybe this group could share the job.

If a vote is needed (and it looks like option 1 is winning) then maybe the group stand as one entity and the vote can be opened up to anyone else who wants to stand against it, or anyone within the group who would rather stand alone, of course?

We can have a chat about some essential agreement on how we would moderate collectively - which we could publish (and then how we organise any rota, so there would not be too many moderating at the same time).

Also a loose system for sorting out any disagreements on collective policy / replacing a mod with a new one if needs be over time (majority vote of existing mods?).

If option one allows for a group to moderate the thread, I'd be happy to be a part as long as the permissive spirit of the thread is upheld.

If option one doesn't allow for a group, then I was thinking the OP could employ a mod bot. Select members could pm the bot with a #postid to report or remove content. The OP could limit or revoke this right for a user if they were abusing it.

Quote from: kurious on July 02, 2017, 07:18:42 AM

Ironically I am sort of suspicious of anyone who would want to be 'The Candidate' as I have a distrust of anyone who seeks power, because they are usually just the sort of person who I don't want to have it.

That's part of the problem. Those best able to moderate may not wish to seek approval. I'd put forward a number of people like Elwar, Gentlemand, etc...

I agree wholeheartedly with 'keeping the spirit' and I would be happy with a party I trusted to do just that. You, Elwar and Gentlemand would be the sorts that I reckon would be fine (no particular agenda, clear thinkers and a sense of humour), and I would happily offer to help / dep to any of you. I think it IS a lot for one person, so if it has to be one, but he can appoint deps - it would help.

I think a loose group would ensure a wider range of views approaching a rough consensus with the thread itself and (importantly) it would curb any tendency towards megalomania - the binding ethos should be to simply keep the spirit of the old thread. Which means we would necessarily have to tolerate any Stolfi or Lambchop types even if they did piss us off.

Either that or we just vote for a random crazy pot-smoking drunk to ensure chaos rules and see what happens.