It doesn't have to be, but it can be. It's up to the member. Probability of success meant your chance of having an expanded role later. If you don't want an expanded role later, that's OK.

I thought this had been voted down previously? Is this the ONLY thing that TB has on its mind because there are two people on the TB who want it? I don't understand why it's being brought up again. Honestly. . .as SkiAdcock mentioned there are already people on this board/community who do this as a matter of course.

Why is this such a "big" issue? What am I missing? :confused:

You want input/suggestions? Why don't we just move off this topic and move onto something that might be productive?

Because it was Randy's initiative and because the earlier proposal was not a concensus proposal. This discussion has an excellent chance to show whether or not a concensus is possible.

So why didn't Randy propose it then in here? And since it's his board he could just implement it. If you look at the previous 10 pages of input from folks it didn't seem like this was a big "yes!" in terms of people seeing a need for this.

Maybe as he created a Talkboard to do exactly such things?

Koko clearly has taken many hours on this alone reading post #1. I feel sure Randy would rather have that kind of input than doing it himself.

You are entitled to say you do not feel it is needed (on that I agree with you as I've posted earlier) but to belittle and denigrate those TB members (below) who have taken a lot of time on this looks pretty churlish - to me.

Glen

I see a lot of moderators in place without such a program or position.

The Human Nature Argument cuts both ways, oz -- TB members can be just as capable of Selection Vendetta.

That is true, but there are several differences:

1. A TB member can not decide anything on his own. All TB decisions require a 2/3rds majority so a member with a prejudice is going to have to explain his reasons to the others if he hopes to convince them.

2. TB decisions are publicized -- meaning that you would be able to see who voted in your favor and who did not.

3. TB members are elected for a two year term. Those who engage in vendettas are liable to find themselvs voted out.

Generally speaking, yes of course. However, the OP's proposal is silent on points 1 and 2. Point 3 applies to mods as well.

Mods are elected for a two-year period? That certainly comes as a very big surprise to me.

Don't be obtuse, Dov. Bad mods are voted off the proverbial island as sure as night follows day.

The general membership does not vote on mods, good or bad. If it did, I think you would see nights coming much more often.

You know, the point scoring going on in this thread is really not helping with this proposal. When you've stopped doing that, perhaps someone could send me a PM to let me know when the thread has turned back into something a little more constructive?

Thanks.

Let me be one of the few moderators here to speak up in favour of this proposal, although I must admit that I preferred the original one that clearly placed the responsibility for selection of the Ambassadors with the ELECTED TalkBoard rather than with APPOINTED moderators.

It is obvious that some Moderators view the Ambassador program as a threat to their authority. Is it really right to have these people sitting in judgement over it in that case? It is neither fair to the Moderator nor the Ambassador applicant in question.

Really?