Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="roguerouge" data-source="post: 4158743" data-attributes="member: 13855">With all due respect, it's not about you. It's not about how you or the other moderators do your jobs. It's not about whether this is a benign (a.k.a. responsive and competent) or malign (selfish and/or unjust) oligarchy. For all this proposal cares, you could have the omniscience of the divine right of kings. This proposal didn't spring from discontent.Your opinion or my opinion or Hong's opinion as to whether the virtual trains run on time is not the point. What matters is whether the addition of a very limited form of virtual enfranchisement would make this virtual community better. I've argued that it might do so by fostering more involvement, bringing in more money, gaining a competitive market advantage, sparking more discussion, and decreasing work loads and stress.Whether more enfranchisement than this proposal offers would make the site even better is definitely something I'd be willing to discuss.Or are you arguing that having one democratically elected moderator would undermine community confidence in the others?</blockquote>