Okay, I reread, and a)I was remembering Allyson's comments as worse than they were and b)I was around during that conversation, so I'm mistaken about reading it later.

This is why I should not comment on things that happened more than five minutes ago without finding the original posts.

Allyson was called on the post and apologized for it. Nobody here is saying Allyson was right to do it (even if some readers understood and agreed with her reason for doing it), and it clearly didn't resolve the situation anyway.

There's no reason to bring it up again, Paul.

Jesus! What is the angst about having moderators? We have rules. We have people empowered to enforce those rules. Guess what? That's moderation.

It's all very well and good to say that every person in the group is as empowered as every other person in the group in the decision-making process. But, (a) that's already clearly untrue, as certain people have been trusted with technical responsibilities and, yes, moderation roles, and (b) you can all be empowered and not sit around and nitpick through every decision, if you're channeling concerns/complaints/questions to the people you have already empowered to act on your behalf.

We have already recognized that a consensus approach to major community-development questions does not work with the growth of the board. Why are we struggling to keep a consensus method on the far trickier set of interpersonal/community relations questions for which, I might add, we already have rules??

Michelle, I'll just speak for myself. The problem with having moderators is that it requires, well, moderators and as far as I know, not many of us are interested in being unpaid moderators of a board as busy as this one. Last I heard, the stompies seem to NOT want the job. Couple that with the fact that many of us feel strongly about *who* among us would get to be moderators, so there's some chance that those who are willing to do it will be rejected by those who are going to be moderated. Seems kinda messy.

The existing system may count as moderation (I disagree), but as a putative moderator, all I can say is that what's described feels very different from what I feel expected to do currently, and that distinction is quantum.

Well, Michele, I have angst about formal moderators, which relates to the fact we've never had them before, and I don't know as how I can handle that much change in such a short period. Also I am foreseeing the voting wrangle in trying to implement such a notion and pre-emptively blowing my own brains out.

The real problem, I think, is that we have indicated our intentions with rules, but we have not defined them as formally and in as much detail as I (and I suspect others) would like. I mean, there is also a big part of me that would be pleased as punch to participate in a Buffista Law Caucus, to gather up what has been said and passed; assess the gaps and places where we see no consensus or clear indication; make proposals how to fill those gaps; and have everyone vote each part up or down.

I mean, it would make me feel like I had my back up against something firm and clear; and it would result in a document of precedents and rules we could all consult if we felt iffy. So I would want to tear out my own eyes with my toenails during, but afterwards I would be glad I had done it. Also, blind.

And in desperate need of a pedicure.

I think one thing that would help would be some boilerplate warning text.

Standardize it, yo.

Because drafting a warning? Pain in the ass.

Because drafting a warning? Pain in the ass.

No fucking kidding. It's my major reason for inertia.

I agree with having a standardized warning.