Originally Posted by
ClueByFour
You can't possibly open the can of worms, imply that skofarrell is incorrect, and then shut it again.
Candidly, without knowing what Randy's criteria are for "moderator," or having asked him if you (or these other members) meet them, did not meet them, or why in either event, it's pretty poor form to say "well, there are plenty of good volunteer moderators."
I can't read Randy's mind. Neither can anyone else. Again, I'd consider asking him before assuming that because someone did not have their moderation app handled with the outcome they'd like that the process is broken in the mind of the guy that really matters.
Talkboard members, FT members, and mods don't get to decide who becomes a mod. That's Randy's purview. People running around going "I have 10k posts and years of experience, ergo sum I'd make a good mod, ergo sum it's wrong that I was not chosen" are exactly why this process should not be in the hands of an elected body.
I'm relying on information that would be considered hearsay in a court of law and should therefore be given all the consideration hearsay deserves (since we're not in a court of law).
Why would he suggest someone apply and then they get rejected if he's the one making the ultimate decision? Makes no sense to me.
Again, I'm at a disadvantage here. In more ways than one. I can't really go into details and you call me on that (probably rightly so) and yet you have no problems with the credibility of skofarrell's assertion even though he also has provided no details.
Show me there's a shortage, then. Show me how many applied, how long they were here and why they were rejected.
That's not going to happen cause there's no transparency in the process. None whatsoever. Just like the TB discussion area.
I will say this: If I am elected to TB, I will not agree to any policy that removes any transparency between the TB and the general membership. That I can promise.