Guys? We need to talk.

[Chris Jenkins]

I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that I've had little to no time for all things Minds Eye. I did what I could to help grow the group, and expand it into other venues, but honestly, I think it's time someone else took over the top reins. I know that will be a contentious conversation given some of the conversations and conflicts around here regarding moderation, but I think it's fair to put the top level of control in the hands of someone who is actually currently working to make the list better. 

I don't know any better way to do it than to be democratic. I'll take suggestions, via this thread or personal message, and the name I get the most of will get the spot. I don't care if you want it or not...if the majority of folks here find you to be fair minded, then they'll trust you to hand it over to someone else. Who knows, perhaps there will come elections, an official Minds Eye president or some such thing...ok, well, probably not, but you get the idea. 

This list has never been about hierarchies, but the fact is, someone at some points in time has to make difficult decisions, with the good of the group in mind. It's an utterly thankless job, and no matter what you choose, there will always be folks who find you to be a fascist prick for making that decision. 

As an aside, for those of you who remember when DubiousProfundity.com was the dedicated website for this list, you might be interested to know that I've revived the new concept here: http://obnoxi.us. Feel free to participate, if you like. 

Enough with the formalities. I'll start. My vote's for Francis Hunt.

[allan deheretic]

Francis is my vote also

Allan

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

[frantheman]

Thanks for the flowers, Chris and Allan, but ... no thanks!

Apart from any other issues, people, I simply don't have the time at
the moment. Most of the time and energy I spend in the virtual world
is taken up by the blog project I started around a year ago. This
entails me producing around two posts per week (each with 1.500 words
+ of original content) and it uses up most of the personal resources I
have available. I have to earn a living too, and I have a good life
beyond cyberspace which I'm not prepared to condense more.

Sometimes I wonder if ME hasn't outlived its attraction for many of us
who were involved at various stages in the past years. I know that
some of the reasons for me beginning my blog project and significantly
disengaging here had to do with personal dissatisfaction at the format
of Google Groups and Minds Eye. This is not meant as a criticism - it
is rather a statement about my own personal development and journey.

I've always thought that ME got most of its energy from a continual
influx of new, beautiful minds coming into the mix - this provides the
stimulus necessary for those here to remain engaged. In the past two
years or so, I've observed this as becoming less and less, which has
also led to many of those who contributed extensively moving on. I
think much of this probably has to do with the development of social
networking on the web in recent years - new people just aren't surfing
around on "Groups" and getting involved the way they used to. For many
potential new participants, the "Groups" format simply isn't sexy
enough.

In retrospect, I think ME took a major hit from the "Gravity" thing -
even if Gravity/Convo didn't turn out to be what many of us had hoped
it would. But it enticed many regular contributors out of this pond
into another ... and then they moved on further.

A completely normal development in my view. ME has already shown an
extraordinarily long half-life in virtual terms.

I still get all ME posts through e-mail. I even read some of them,
though I confess to reading less in recent months.

I think Chris's new "obnoxi.us" project may have a better chance of
becoming something like what ME was two or three years ago, but with
all the whistles and bells the current technology offers (which isn't
there in the Groups format).

So - as the Saduccee (John Cleese) said in "The Life of Brian," "...
and I want this to be perfectly clear... " I am not prepared to devote
any more time and energy than the minimum I give at the moment to ME.
And I don't care if I get stoned as a result ... :-)

Francis

[gabbydott]

I vote for a natural death.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Chris Jenkins <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rigsy03]

On who's time line? Or are you thinking of a mercy killing?

On Apr 26, 5:27 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I vote for a natural death.
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Chris Jenkins

> <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > Enough with the formalities. I'll start. My vote's for Francis Hunt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rigsy03]

I would vote for several but maybe they should nominate themselves for
the office. I am happy with ornamental mind but let a lot of the
debate/conflict roll off my back. I do not feel qualified. I am not
trained in philosophy or math and have quirky ideas/insights.

And here, I must pause and apologize directly to franktheman for my
theory of depression which runs counter to his and the world at large-
it seems. I am sorry, franktheman, and will think of you each spring
as the trees begin to spin their lacey green. Maybe I wish I had been
a monk at Athos (sp?) but no- not really! :-)

[gabbydott]

Actually I was thinking what a slap in the face for orn this must be. But then this is if I was orn and orn doesn't want my empathy. And he doesn't want an open word at the time he is asked for it either. That's how I came up with the answer.

[Chris Jenkins]

It's not a slap in the face for anyone. Minds Eye is not a fiefdom with some line of succession; it's a community, made up of many diverse ideologies and personality types. Care for the community should be determined by the community, not by any sense of authoritative seniority. Rigsy has already put in one vote for Orn, and if the majority consensus is that he's best suited to take final say on the list, then I'll gladly hand the reins to him. If there's a consensus that someone else might be better suited for negotiating the various conflicts which arise, it would go to that person. It doesn't matter to me; this is your community.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Thoughts of cat's and pidgeons enter my head right now and I think
that with the ongoing to-ing and fro-in between OM and Gabs at the mo
I'll simply have to put my vote in favour of the pair of them.

Not that I mind to-in and fro-ing, history will show there has been
plenty of that between myself and others here over the years.

Besides they both hold a place in my heart.

On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a slap in the face for anyone. Minds Eye is not a fiefdom with some
> line of succession; it's a community, made up of many diverse ideologies and
> personality types. Care for the community should be determined by the
> community, not by any sense of authoritative seniority. Rigsy has already
> put in one vote for Orn, and if the majority consensus is that he's best
> suited to take final say on the list, then I'll gladly hand the reins to
> him. If there's a consensus that someone else might be better suited for
> negotiating the various conflicts which arise, it would go to that person.
> It doesn't matter to me; this is your community.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:54 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually I was thinking what a slap in the face for orn this must be. But
> > then this is if I was orn and orn doesn't want my empathy. And he doesn't
> > want an open word at the time he is asked for it either. That's how I came
> > up with the answer.
>

> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

I agree fully, Lee. I enjoy and appreciate both Orn's daunting intellect, and Gabby's seemingly free form approach to language. 

[allan deheretic]

I have never been offended by either Orn or Gabby  ,,   Gabby is just Gabby.

Allan

[Chuck Bowling]

I hereby nominate myself. But only under the following conditions:

• I am henceforth referred to as Excellency, King of the Universe, or on more formal occasions God.
• My opinions are ALWAYS right and immediately become rules built into the fabric of above mentioned universe.
• A nubile young virgin who is both female and human, is left at my doorstep as a sacrificial offering at least once a week.
  

[DarkwaterBlight]

I vote for Chuck!

[DarkwaterBlight]

Just one thing... I can't be responsible for any virgins to His
Excellency, King of the Universe or God, they find me irresistable!

[Chuck Bowling]

Sorry. I can't say that I find you irresistible.

Oh wait. You meant the virgins find you irresistible. That shouldn't be a problem. I'll give 'em back when I'm done. :D

[Ash]

I vote for a ruling board, unanimous -1 voting. Selection based on seniority, or by unanimous (-1) by senior members of board.

[Ash]

Second sentence should begin: [Candidate] selection based on seniority, or by unanimous (-1) by senior members of board.

[Ash]

Sorry, that would require more than three, if I had to cast a vote please add mine as the best pick by and/or between the moderators. By the way, who are the moderators? O.o

[the taoist shaman]

i may be new and young , but it seems to me that if u see falt in
anonther u should try to help that person see themselves more
clearly , or that person is aware and happy w/ who they are , and
therefore the fault lies in u for judgment and lack of acceptance , if
there is a solid sound minded simple non conveluted re butt el in
argument of this statment i would be very intrested to hear it

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

A little bit of a hijack here but nevermind.

If a man is happy with his life and with all aspects of his self, then
he sees no fault in himself. How would he then react to being
'helped' by those who see fault in him?

If you are largly locked into viewing the world as you view it then
what you are talking about is subjective morality.

You see a fault in another human, and proclaim it as such due to your
moral stance. There is no objectivity in this, if you are striving
for an objective faultless life, then sorry my freind you will not
find it.

Let us take an example. Let it be personal to me.

I abhour bigotry, of any kind, be that bias on grounds of gender, skin
colour, age, sexuality, intelect or what have you.

So according to my morality a racist is a piece of shit, and personaly
I'll have nowt to do with any of them. However would I say that a
racist is a faulted person? Nope, they have ultimate freedom over
their own life, and their own desicions, I don't like it, I wont like
them, but I see no fault.

Bottom line is a liberal application of the 'Golden Rule'. I like it
that I get to life my own life as I will, I must therefore apply
exactly the same standard to each and every other human, or face being
a hypocrit. The human condition is a strange one, now if you belive
in a creative diety then you must belive that you are exaclty how God
intend you to be, hence no fault. If you do not belive in such then
you must belive that you have evolved into who you are and as such
there is no objective standard by which to measure you agianst others.

In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective
morality. I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
morality.

> > are the moderators? O.o- Hide quoted text -

[DarkwaterBlight]

OK I'm changing my vote... I vote for Lee and keep the virgins.

On Apr 27, 7:14 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Chuck Bowling]

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
   1. some other group, such as a religion, or
   2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify behavioral expectations within the group or society.

[gabbydott]

Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really under discussion here? 

[Don Johnson]

If there's a list of those willing I'd cast a vote. I thought of Francis first of course but sense he is unwilling, how about DarkwaterBlight?

dj

[Chris Jenkins]

Well, so far it seems that Orn, DWB, Chuck, and Lee have all been suggested. Any others, or your thoughts?

[Ash]

Bill Maher might need a job. :D

[Ash]

Sorry for the joke, but really though no votes for Pat, Molly, or RP??

[Chuck Bowling]

What is a prescriptive moral?

[Chuck Bowling]

Uh, I need to bow out.

I can barely moderate myself. If I tried to moderate anybody else this group would fall apart in no time.

[the taoist shaman]

lee , in order to have honesty / humilaty u must admit to hipacracy ,
hypocrisy is part of humanity , not all flaws should be accepted _
bigetry for example _ also these notions of if u believe ''this''
about god the u must belive ''this'' about self is absurd , if
we should accept all flaws then why do we have prison , if u see
someones actions are harmful , to self or others , u should try to
open there eyes to there destructive behavior ,

[allan deheretic]

I think Lee would be the best..

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Yes I think this is true Chuck, however due to the nature of personal
subjective morality has it any hope of happening?

Think of only the Christian faith and see how it has spintered under
differances over dogma.

Even like minded individuals will not share exactly the smae moral
code. Nope there is no objective morality and I don't think there
every will be.

On Apr 27, 8:22 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The term “morality” can be used either
>

>    1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a
>    society or,
>       1. some other group, such as a religion, or
>       2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified

>    conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
>
> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford Encyclopedia
> of Philosophy.
>
> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be
> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify behavioral
> expectations within the group or society.
>

> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <

>
>
>
> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective
> > morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective

> > morality.- Hide quoted text -

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Hahaha sorry Doug, I have already refused the post once, like Fran I'm
simply too busy. Have you not noticed how you never hear anything
from me if I'm not at work?

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

This is true, but what you call a flaw I call a normal part of the
human pshyce.

We as a speices are far too disperate for everyone to agree with each
other, and rest assured when you talk about this flaw or that flaw you
are really talking about morality. How then do you judge your moral
stance as being supeior than others, by what objective measure?

Taking my example of racial bigotry further, I can understand why it
exist, even if I do not like it. It is part of the quiet human mode
of thought bassed around families, extented familes, tribes,
countries. Tell me would you say that patriotism is moraly correct or
incorrect?

As to if you belive this about Godthn you ust belive this about self.
You may find it absurd, but when you give it soem real deep thought,
perhaps you'll not find it so?

> > >> Enough with the formalities. I'll start. My vote's for Francis Hunt.- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in that area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role in this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of it - only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your community -  is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was Austrian (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you Austrians are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to viewing the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has established structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the grammar of the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a language is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the dark shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over what the world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and Orn and Molly cowards. 

[Chuck Bowling]

I agree that any interpretation of a moral code of conduct is subjective. However, it still provides a framework of commonality on which to build a consensus of understanding.

For instance, the idea of not killing someone without a very good reason lays the groundwork for determining if an action adhered to a set of moral standards. If you knock over a liquor store and kill the owner because "da fool wouldn't gi me da money" you may have fulfilled your own personal criteria of having a very good reason but I'd tend to think twelve other people sitting on a jury would disagree - unless your name is OJ Simpson.

[Chuck Bowling]

It sounds like there are the seeds of an interesting discussion in this but I don't really care to be drawn into an ongoing feud.

[Chuck Bowling]

It appears that this is a thankless job that nobody wants. If and only if it appears that the group is going to go under due to a lack of administration I will volunteer.

However, I'll say outright that I have no desire to referee disputes or keep people on topic. My sole function would be to filter spam and (by majority consensus) block trolls.

Also, if there is anyone else who wants the job please place me at the bottom of the list as I am a character of low moral fiber and seedy disposition. I will most likely use my position of power to curry favor from the womenfolk and squelch opposition to my opinions.

[gabbydott]

*lol* Yes, my American friend (are you not?), you can be happy that feudal times never took place on your soil.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Yes mate on the whole I agree.

The killing of a human by another human is great example.

My morality says that there is never 'a very good reason' for this to
happen. You are right though it does seem that shared cultural
morality can appear to be objecitive, but we know it is not really.

On Apr 28, 1:55 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree that any interpretation of a moral code of conduct is subjective.
> However, it still provides a framework of commonality on which to build a
> consensus of understanding.
>
> For instance, the idea of not killing someone without a very good reason
> lays the groundwork for determining if an action adhered to a set of moral
> standards. If you knock over a liquor store and kill the owner because "da
> fool wouldn't gi me da money" you may have fulfilled your own personal
> criteria of having a very good reason but I'd tend to think twelve other
> people sitting on a jury would disagree - unless your name is OJ Simpson.
>

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:45 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

:-) You would have gotten my vote - if only, if only this thing here was not only an appearance, which as a matter of fact it is. Just the other day I asked Orn whether he needed help with the administration job here and he rejected my offer. He said he was very well able to handle the job alone.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Thats not quite the job Chuck, go and have a read through the groups
guidelines to glean what is. We are rather open here and moderation
has historicly been rarely used. Hahah although the oldies here will
remember a case or two of strong moderation.

But yeah you get my vote, if you want it.

On Apr 28, 2:14 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It appears that this is a thankless job that nobody wants. If *and only if *it

> appears that the group is going to go under due to a lack of administration
> I will volunteer.
>
> However, I'll say outright that I have no desire to referee disputes or keep
> people on topic. My sole function would be to filter spam and (by majority
> consensus) block trolls.
>
> Also, if there is anyone else who wants the job please place me at the
> bottom of the list as I am a character of low moral fiber and seedy
> disposition. I will most likely use my position of power to curry favor from
> the womenfolk and squelch opposition to my opinions.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Chuck Bowling <
>
>
>
> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Uh, I need to bow out.
>
> > I can barely moderate myself. If I tried to moderate anybody else this
> > group would fall apart in no time.
>

> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com

> >>>> Enough with the formalities. I'll start. My vote's for Francis Hunt.- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

It sounds like Chuck is currently holding the lead. :)

[Chuck Bowling]

I believe that I made it clear that I don't really want your vote. ;)

I'm more or less throwing myself on the sword for the good of the group.

[Chris Jenkins]

Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me. ;)

It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the reins has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist authoritarianism, I bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned. 

I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante, Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have contributed the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great. 

I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that goes into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other places to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep the pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in all the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new ideas and conversations being explored.

I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more manageable, I hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to be at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and new ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among those who have had the same conversation a thousand times.

And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold a higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation. It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of language is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you can un-ironically call me a grammar nazi. 

I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly as much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely agree on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years, although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed on something. :^D

Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason; they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally poorly suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him as the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude, and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

We like that that in our moderatiors.

On Apr 28, 2:49 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I believe that I made it clear that I don't really want your vote. ;)
>
> I'm more or less throwing myself on the sword for the good of the group.
>

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:39 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

Hear hear.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim
back his crown.

Kierkecraig, keikercraig!

> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really under
> >>> discussion here?
>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <
> >>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The term “morality” can be used either
>

> >>>>    1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a
> >>>>    society or,
> >>>>       1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> >>>>       2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> >>>>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified

> >>>>    conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
>
> >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford
> >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
>
> >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be
> >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify behavioral
> >>>> expectations within the group or society.
>

> >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <

> >>>> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective
> >>>>> morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective

> >>>>> morality.- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his new law practice, and legal blog. 

[DarkwaterBlight]

I think most of us are in the same boat where time is a consideration.
I do most of my posting from work also but do, at times, post from
home. It takes a bit of dedication to moderate and though I would not
refuse the spot, I don't know that I would be the best for it. I have
a tendancy to let emails pile up and often just do a mass deletion of
my inbox. Currently I don't recieve emails from groups and I rarely
reply by email. I'm only vaguely familiar with the group guidlines and
don't take very much too seriously unless it costs or makes me money.

On Apr 28, 6:46 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

Chris, did you ever get your finances back in order?

On Apr 28, 7:31 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his
> new law practice, and legal blog.
>

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <

[ornamentalmind]

Oh, and as for the group, I think that gabby had the best idea of all.

[Chris Jenkins]

They're slowly but surely moving that way. Thanks for asking! :)

[pol.science kid]

i didnt go through the entire post...but i vote for gabbs

--
\--/ Peace

[gabbydott]

Chris, I would like to keep knowing you behind the ban and moderation buttons of this list. I understand that you want to make a clear cut for yourself about the responsibility you haven taken up for this group. Thanks btw for this strong engagement. Yet I feel it would be far more democratic to give the real control to the people who are actually contributing to make the group existent. And to have administrators who push the buttons in accordance with the contributors as the result of an open and transparent talking. Make it an extra thread with an extra pin to satisfy your grammar nazi, but trust the people to be able to make the right choice. The promotion could be done by the contributors themselves by doing external linking to topics here or linking your google profile to your activities here. You wouldn't have to do anything, just be there for the power relations. As I said, I would like to keep knowing you behind the buttons to feel cool about the most obnoxious truth promoters. ;)

[allan deheretic]

agreeded

Allan

[paradox]

Hello Chris,

been a while :)

this group has been intriguing, stimulating, and enlightening; so much
so that i returned years later to check on progress. Sad to hear that
things have moved on. I think there is a great deal to be gained from
keeping the forum alive; we can marvel at great intellect and
creativity, be impressed by great insight and scholarly discourse, and
be entertained and enlightened by alternative perspectives :) It would
be a great shame to let it go.

Have we settled on a successor moderator?

On Apr 26, 4:56 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that I've had little to no
> time for all things Minds Eye. I did what I could to help grow the group,
> and expand it into other venues, but honestly, I think it's time someone
> else took over the top reins. I know that will be a contentious conversation
> given some of the conversations and conflicts around here regarding
> moderation, but I think it's fair to put the top level of control in the
> hands of someone who is actually currently working to make the list better.
>
> I don't know any better way to do it than to be democratic. I'll take
> suggestions, via this thread or personal message, and the name I get the
> most of will get the spot. I don't care if you want it or not...if the

> majority of folks here find you to be fair minded, then they'll trust you to

> hand it over to someone else. Who knows, perhaps there will come elections,
> an official Minds Eye president or some such thing...ok, well, probably not,
> but you get the idea.
>
> This list has never been about hierarchies, but the fact is, someone at some
> points in time has to make difficult decisions, with the good of the group
> in mind. It's an utterly thankless job, and no matter what you choose, there
> will always be folks who find you to be a fascist prick for making that
> decision.
>
> As an aside, for those of you who remember when DubiousProfundity.com was
> the dedicated website for this list, you might be interested to know that
> I've revived the new concept here:http://obnoxi.us. Feel free to
> participate, if you like.
>

> Enough with the formalities. I'll start. My vote's for Francis Hunt.