It's felt like it's been coming for some time, and conversation to that end in one of Bens threads got me thinking. It's quite likely that Dave would fair as well in his decision with or with out our input, but I doubt that he would fail to appreciate the collected thoughts of his "flock".
There's potentially a ton of questions and possibilities.
What kind of responsibility (power) would they have?
What kind of access would they have to user accounts?
How many should there be?
Should a combined effort from the Moderators be required to enforce their will, thus providing some measure of "majority rule", and thus restricting human error?
WHO SHOULD BE MODERATORS?????
Would they provide content?
Could they be anonymous?
Should they have a consistent "presence" hear on the BEdge?
I watched a game of chess played yesterday. The moves were alternatingly brilliant to thoughtless. Only one move made in the game, from open to mate, was one I myself had decided was the best move. That leads me to believe it's quite possible this community might have other thoughts on the subject.
Of course, the goal of this post will be to give Dave a quick if not focused reading of the "pulse" of the community he's fostered. I'm aware of how quickly this could degenerate, and might suggest that the focus be on attributes of potential candidates rather then perceived short comings if discussing the "WHO" part of the equation.
Hear is the previous conversation that inspired this post. I'm slightly reluctant to post the link as I myself fell short of only addressing positive characteristics, but felt proper credit should go to L-TrainFTW! for initiation and also a rather clever idea.