Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Magi_Trelian" data-source="post: 3561617" data-attributes="member: 36591">*quirks an eyebrow* My goodness. I'll try to avoid ambiguity in my reply (which just got edited some, since Siani posted while I was typing ;-)).It is not a lie.&nbsp; &quot;We&quot; (meaning me and my interpretation of discussions with other magi, since I'm neither an editor nor do I think I have a tapeworm) do &quot;hope&quot; (that is, would like, would think it a good thing, will try to move in that direction) to get more Magi.&nbsp; There hadn't been an open call for applications because the ones who would do the interviews and training were too busy to go through a slew of applications.&nbsp; As Siani says, it will happen again. I&quot;m sure she'll post what sort of information should be sent.Is the application process selective? Yes, it is. The last time there was an open call, there were many more applicants than those trained.&nbsp; If you were turned down, I'm sorry, but providing new Magi to fill roles such as new setting coordinators isn't as important as having people that seem likely to be good moderators.Is every magi required to have specific duties such as being a setting coordinator? No. This is a VOLUNTEER position, guys.&nbsp; The extra work of running a setting is something for them to volunteer to do. Why haven't you seen particular Magi?&nbsp; They aren't always on as Magi.&nbsp; Most Magi play under regular screennames.&nbsp; They only come out as Magi if there's a problem.Does a setting coordinator have to be technically up on the background of the setting?&nbsp; Sure helps, as Siani noted, because people will argue points about what should or shouldn't be allowed regardless of whatever setting restrictions were originally agreed upon.&nbsp; And starting with a lack of information about the setting means they may not be interested in volunteering to run it.Was I &quot;swift&quot; in quashing JeaJea's offer?&nbsp; Yes, but mostly so that others would understand that it simply wasn't an option.&nbsp;&nbsp; It may have come out too personally harsh, and if so, I deeply apologize, and in any case I apologize for not adding more appreciation of his enthusiasm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magi_Trelian, post: 3561617, member: 36591"] *quirks an eyebrow* My goodness. I'll try to avoid ambiguity in my reply (which just got edited some, since Siani posted while I was typing ;-)). It is not a lie. "We" (meaning me and my interpretation of discussions with other magi, since I'm neither an editor nor do I think I have a tapeworm) do "hope" (that is, would like, would think it a good thing, will try to move in that direction) to get more Magi. There hadn't been an open call for applications because the ones who would do the interviews and training were too busy to go through a slew of applications. As Siani says, it will happen again. I"m sure she'll post what sort of information should be sent. Is the application process selective? Yes, it is. The last time there was an open call, there were many more applicants than those trained. If you were turned down, I'm sorry, but providing new Magi to fill roles such as new setting coordinators isn't as important as having people that seem likely to be good moderators. Is every magi required to have specific duties such as being a setting coordinator? No. This is a VOLUNTEER position, guys. The extra work of running a setting is something for them to volunteer to do. Why haven't you seen particular Magi? They aren't always on as Magi. Most Magi play under regular screennames. They only come out as Magi if there's a problem. Does a setting coordinator have to be technically up on the background of the setting? Sure helps, as Siani noted, because people will argue points about what should or shouldn't be allowed regardless of whatever setting restrictions were originally agreed upon. And starting with a lack of information about the setting means they may not be interested in volunteering to run it. Was I "swift" in quashing JeaJea's offer? Yes, but mostly so that others would understand that it simply wasn't an option. It may have come out too personally harsh, and if so, I deeply apologize, and in any case I apologize for not adding more appreciation of his enthusiasm. [/QUOTE]

Verification