Manager needed--apply within

[Tom Reedy]

I resign from managing Arden. If someone else wants to run the show
please post your intention and let the members give their opinions.
Otherwise I'll just delete the group.

TR

[hj]

Tom:

Would you tell the group exactly what being manager entails?

Thanks,

Hank

[Tom Reedy]

On Oct 31, 1:50 pm, hj <h_jekyll2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom:
>
> Would you tell the group exactly what being manager entails?

Admit members after researching their information; kick out members
who turn out to be spam; adjust the posting level of each member
(start everybody moderated, i.e. their posts must be approved by you
before becoming public; that has saved the group from tons of spam);
act like a nanny to members who insist on acting out their issues,
usually by warning and changing their posting status back to
"moderated".

That's about it.

TR

[Peter F.]

Tom, 
I would quite like to know just what your saying that you would "just
delete the group" means. Would the archive of past posts (many of
which I would certainly not want to have disappear) be deleted too?
Peter

[Tom Reedy]

Yes, that's my understanding, that everything would just disappear.
Alternatively, I could just set all the members' posting status to
unmoderated and let it run down to entropy.

TR

[hj]

Well, the lack of responses doesn't bode well.

It matches the general lethargy in Arden since we lost the bulk of our
Oxfordians, before which we could have sharp exchanges about hurting
one another's feelings with terms such as "Oxenford," and "Shaxberd,"
and "holocaust denier."

But we have to make a change. People get burned out running Internet
sites, and it's clear Tom wants to get out of Dodge.

We don't necessily need a single person. The tasks could be divided
among a cabal (I'm joking about the term -- call them a circle of
moderators, with the manager being the first among equals).

*If* the Forest is to keep going, as an alternative to the war of all
against all at HLAS and the rigid anti-Strat orthodoxy of some other
sites (not to be named) -- and I'm not prejudging that answer -- the
new manager(s) should possess certain characteristics, among them
being that s/he should be fairly well known and respected in these
circles - and be interesting. The person should also have a record of
civility. And though this is largely a *Strat* site, the person
wouldn't have to be Strat. Having run some other site would be a plus.

Several people immediately come to mind:

Peter Farey
John W. Kennedy
Lynn Kositsky
Melanie Sands

This is *not* a comprehensive list. Don't worry if your name is not
included. It's along the lines of stream-of-consciousness thinking
about "I wonder who could fit that bill?"

Just thinking,

hj

[Peter F.]

Well, thanks for the nomination, "hj", but I'm afraid that as things
are at the moment, I have very little personal interest in the
continued existence of Arden as a discussion group, and - other than
you - I see no evidence of anyone else being all that interested
either.
HLAS still suffers from the Webb & Neuendorffer double-act, of course,
but it's certainly no longer as unusable as it was becoming when Arden
was created, and if I do feel a sudden desire to use a non-partisan
Shakespeare discussion group for any reason I can just as easily go
back there. And should the need for such an alternative become
apparent once again in the future those who feel that need can always
set up a new group after all.
On the other hand, I would be sorry to see the Arden
archive disappear, since there have been some very
interesting discussions here in the past, which I may well like to
be able to access in the future. So, assuming that nobody is now
prepared to take over as a manager of this group, is
there no way in which its records at least can remain in
a sort of internet amber?
Peter

[hj]

On Nov 5, 5:02 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, thanks for the nomination, "hj", but I'm afraid that as things
> are at the moment, I have very little personal interest in the
> continued existence of Arden as a discussion group, and - other than
> you - I see no evidence of anyone else being all that interested
> either.

==> It certainly seems that way.

[hj]

"Turn out the lights, the party's over,
They say that all good things must end..."

(Willie Nelson--or the Earl of Oxford.
Whomever)

I *knew* we shouldn't have adopted a civility code!

Just over a year ago I wrote:
> I don't think we should load down the home-page introduction with a
> growing list of do's and don'ts. One may be tempted put in rule #
> 103.2.7a ("thou shalt not commit a holocaust denial argument") but
> that way ultimately brings bureaucratic death, legalism, and the end
> of true discussion. (yes, I believe in that slippery slope)

NOTE: this was after we'd already decided one couldn't refer to
Shaksper or Oxenford.

hj

[laraine]

If people aren't posting that much (and
I don't believe that more posts makes
a better group), isn't there only a
very little work for the moderator
to do...., so why end it...

Lynne is listed as a manager too.

C.

[Tom Reedy]

I'm gonna set every members' posting status to unmoderated.

Somebody else will have to handle member applications. We get 3-4 a
month, mostly from spammers.

TR