A thank you & a request

[P. B. Walker]

All good questions, Blondgirl. I'm not exactly sure what the answers are. Hopefully Risia can provide them or maybe our own ex-mod WD.

Nice personal ad, btw.

PBW

 

[KillerMuffin]

Please quit doing that Artful, you have good posts, but they do not bear exact repetition. If you have a point to make, please make it. Otherwise it's background noise.


"How people CONTINUE to view (3) Moderators over (1) Moderator, as being MORE Moderated, or OVER Moderated, just blows my mind. If ANYTHING,...it would tend to REDUCE Moderation. "

This argument has been disproved. I know you didn't miss that particular brouhaha, you made a post and kept bumping it in that thread.

"I am very much SUPPORTIVE of (3) Moderators. I see NO reason, for Risia to take ALL the responsibility, for keeping OUR Forum on track. "

Why not two mods? It's not like they're governmental positions or that they represent the forum. They can either do the job or they can't. Three mods are fine, too. So is four and five. I believe that when there's a claim that there must be a sub, a Dom/me, and a switch moderating then you are putting this people up as representatives and not moderators. When you do that, you make them a government and not moderators. This is patently unfair to them, as we have seen. This is also unfair to a forum that doesn't need a government.

"Unlike some OTHER Forums, we have SEEN from our history, we DO need guidance, to "STAY" on track. Flaming posts, flaming threads, off TOPIC threads, and LEGAL issues ALL need to be addressed by responsible Moderators, without a BIAS to any who post. "

That's not guidance, that's cleaning house. They don't need to be addressed or posted to, simply moved and the thread-starter notified if necessary. This is not a guided discussion forum. This is an open discussion forum. If you did need guidance, you wouldn't have a moderator because that's heaping on a bunch of work. Mods do not represent the people and it's unfair of you to ask them to without compensation of some sort.

"With (3) Moderators,...*IF*,...there is a "borderline" situation, (post, thread, or content) that has been reported by a board MEMBER,...it would be a simple matter for the (3) Moderators to make a 2 out of 3 vote, (What should we do, if anything?). "

There's no tribunal in operation. Lit rules and the forum rules are very clear. The mods should feel free to take care of any problem without conferring. It's called having trust in their judgment. If it's that big of a problem, then it's probably one that's going to blow up in their face and should be taken to Laurel. You were here for that particular brouhaha, too.

"SOME will say this is UNWORKABLE,...mainly because they think it would take too much time. I submit that the TIME issue, will work for the BETTERMENT of us all, (better LATE than NEVER). "

Of course it's workable. Decision by committee happens all the time. Workable does not translate into best. I've dealt with situations where something happened and it wasn't clearly defined in the rules. I did it myself, too. The community was neither worsened nor bettered for me doing it.

"I am totally AGAINST anonymity. I think WE as board members NEED to know who is guiding this Forum, and I would hope that we ALL have an input as to it's direction. "

No one person is guiding the forum. That was one of the main problems is that this forum should be open rather than leashed. All BDSM should be topical, not just parts of it. A guided forum requires too much participation from the mod to move. Trust me on this one, I run a guided forum. It's the slowest one here.

I do fully agree with you on the anonymity part.

"Myself,...I see NO value in having ROLE playing threads posted in our Forum. I value FREE SPEECH as much as ANYONE,...but I also believe in the RIGHT for *US*,...as a SPECIFICALLY directed Forum to EMPOWER our Moderators to guide it. "

I agree. Except displacing threads to the appropriate forum isn't guiding it. It's housekeeping. You're according too much power to the mod position. You don't need a leader here because this is one of those nicely equitable forums where people think for themselves and get along together. You should trust in your fellow posters a little bit more. They're fully capable of doing unguided discussion.

"Also,...I would expect Risia to CHOOSE who she will, to fill the other two Moderator positions.
I think we all should submit TWO names to her for consideration, (via PM), and even if she CHOOSES two peoples names, who have NOT been submitted to her, to fill those positions, it's quite all right with me. "

Risia does the recommending, Laurel does the ultimate choosing. I'm certain that if Risia--if she ever went nutso--decided to recommend that someone like yayati become moderator, Laurel wouldn't do it.

 

[~Dream~]

lmfao

thats 3 times my Master's post got put in this thread and please take notice ,I was NOT responsible for ANY of them!!

 

[boz]

1. Do you think the forum needs one or more new Moderators? (Why or why not, please.)

If Risia would like help/backup when she is busy, then yes, we need more Mods.

 

[Rubyfruit]

Muff for Moderator!

 

[Lancecastor]

...background noise...

 

[Pure]

Artful said (twice):
"Unlike some OTHER Forums, we have SEEN from our history, we DO need guidance, to "STAY" on track. Flaming posts, flaming threads, off TOPIC threads, and LEGAL issues ALL need to be addressed by responsible Moderators, without a BIAS to any who post. "

KM said (in part).
That's not guidance, that's cleaning house. They don't need to be addressed or posted to, simply moved and the thread-starter notified if necessary. This is not a guided discussion forum.

While I agree with KM's thrust--and she has a fine thrust-- regarding Artful's proposal, the issue of 'flames', personal attacks, nasty fits of temper, certainly is an issue for the moderator(s). Call it housecleaning, if you want; it might also be thought of a taking out [i.e. deleting, or sending back for re-wording] the trash.

I think KM is saying that other 'housekeeping' of threads--e.g. lots of moving, deleting of 'irrelevant' material' --would be a full time job, and one for which there is no apparent demand. There will always be 'drift' and a certain number of personal insertions.
Occasional movings, or 'reminders' to some of the diverting parties, would seem to be enough.

 

[Sandia]

I think it should be Killermuffin AND Lancecastor.

 

[zipman]

I think it should be Killermuffin AND Lancecastor.

Sorry Sandia, you must have made a mistake. This isn't the "which two Lit members would you like to see have sex" thread. That one is on the GB.

 

[Lancecastor]

Hmmm....so you're saying I could moderate the fuck out of the place and fuck the moderator out of this world at the same time...is that what you are suggesting?

Sandia, that's a highly practical suggestion in its elegance and simplicity.

And I'll bet the movie rights would be obscene.

Have your people call mine...let's do some numbers. And someone run KM up to my flagpole; let's see if she salutes it.

CaolineOh is back in town...perhaps I should get me a string of Modettes to work the corners of this place.

 

[P. B. Walker]

Hey you two... use condoms...

I can't deal with the possibility of mini-Muffettes and tiny-Lancelots running around.

It boggles my mind.

PBW

 

[Rubyfruit]

Hmmm....so you're saying I could moderate the fuck out of the place and fuck the moderator out of this world at the same time...is that what you are suggesting?

I would buy tickets to that.

Great idea, Sandia.

 

[~Dream~]

omg SANDIA

I think it should be Killermuffin AND Lancecastor.

_________________
Did someone spike your Margarita? lol

 

[P. B. Walker]

Re: omg SANDIA

_________________
Did someone spike your Margarita? lol

Someone *please* spike mine... dammit. Just please, put me outta my misery.

PBW "Yes, fucking me to death is acceptable"

 

[lovetoread]

Someone *please* spike mine... dammit. Just please, put me outta my misery.

Me too.

Shooting or bashing me over the head works as well.

I just would like to know whats happened when this is decided.

A short "the mod spot has been filled" would work.

 

[serijules]

1. Do you think the forum needs one or more new Moderators? (Why or why not, please.)

2. If you answered YES to #1, please nominate no more than two people who you think should be considered for the job. Please refrain from nominating yourself.

I have never been a huge supporter of moderation, likely because I've spent many years doing it on various boards and really do realize what a thankless and unnerving job it is. No matter what you do, someone's going to complain and moan and whine about the action taken (or not taken). You can never please everyone, and trying to do so is exhausting and stressful. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. However, in some issues, the moderation is needed. For most issues, I think the community as a whole needs to share the responsibility.

I never could understand what was so hard about ignoring that which you do not like or do not agree with. I am an easily annoyed person, and lots of posts here highly annoy me, but heck, oddly enough, ignoring them works wonders. We ALL have that power of moderation, and absolutly no excuse not to use it other than lack of willpower to do so.

I think two mods are enough to deal with the few rules that actually require 'stepping in' and being modified or removed, such as posting personal info and email addys, and dealing with actual personal threats or spam. Beyound that, this forum is allegedly an open discussion forum, and I feel the mod(s) should be able to enjoy that and participate in that without everyone thinking they are speaking as a moderator every time they join in, or using their past personal opinions and posts against them when they DO step in with their moderator hats on. The more that title is pushed out there, and the more 'stepping in' the mods do, the more people will focus on the title and not be able to see past it.

I feel if a mod posts an opinion, it should be simply that: their personal opinion. Any action they take as a moderator should be simply that: a technical response to a problem. I really haven't seen enough instances of such to justify more than two moderators, and I do agree that another mod in another time zone would cover the forum well.

I really don't agree with the "3 mods: one sub, one Dom/me and one switch" idea at all. Those are labels. A moderator's personal feelings on a subject should never seep over into any action they take on a matter. To seek out mods based on these lables or titles, and then at the same time require that they not let personal judgement affect their actions...is rather contradicting. I don't think it brings any sort of balance to the moderation efforts, it just gives the community at large ammunition to say "he/she only supports this issue because it matches their own opinion.", and encourages the use of pre-set lables and cliques rather than personal individuality.

I don't agree with annonymous moderation. I feel moderation does come with a certain amount of responsibility, and they should serve as someone that a newbie can feel comfortable coming to with questions and problems. That isn't possible if said mod is only 'seen' when a problem arises. There is no chance to develop a stance of trust and knowing there is someone newbies can go to that will treat them with respect and make an effort to help them with their problems. When I first joined here, I PMed Risia with an offer of something that I wasn't comfortable posting to the community because I wasn't yet sure of everyone. From her personal posts plus her given 'job', she was someone I knew I wasn't at risk of being flamed or rediculed by, regardless of what her personal opinion of me was. It comes with the 'job'. Do you really think the Wal-mart greeter WANTS to stick happy yellow stickers on every screaming kicking brat that walks in the doors?

I consider one of the moderators most important jobs to be to offer non-judegemental assistance to those that ask for it, and to keep the forum safe for everyone in regards to personal information, spam floods, etc.

Beyound that, I feel they should be able to post and enjoy the forum as much as anyone else, opinion, fluffs, topics, discussions, greetings, rants and all. The things in which they moderate and the actions they will take should be clearly defined to everyone, and any arguments or personal attacks against them be ignored. If someone is given a job and has a clear idea of how they should do that job, then I feel it is the communities' responsibility to trust that decision and respect them to do that job. If a real issue arises, then a complaint should be filed with the site's owner, and the issue left at that. If any particular person has a problem with it, well, they can always go somewhere else, or simply accept that they can't have everything their way.

Seemed to work fine for those that have already choosen to do so.

So who would I nominate? I have a few ideas, but they are based on *MY* opinion of moderation and *MY* personal feelings on what I would like to see done in regards to moderation. That is not enough for me to feel comfortable basing a nomination of what would be best for the forum at large on.

Besides, I don't vote.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Thanks for all your thoughts, everyone. I think y'all are right, that nominations by PM would be good. I also agree that one more moderator, in another time zone, should be sufficient. I just want to make sure that someone's checking in every day, and I don't (or shouldn't) have that luxury for the next couple of months. However, the forum HAS been running quite well, and it isn't a very pressing issue. And as many of you have undoubtedly noted, I'm not quick to rush to action. I'll likely be thinking on this for a while longer before *any* action is taken.

However, if you have nominations, please DO send them to me by PM, so I can hear the voice of the community without it becoming a popularity contest. Good call, MissT and others, suggesting a private nominations process. That way, I can get a sense of who people respect enough to trust their judgement, and I can factor that into my decision-making process, when it comes to that.

I also agree with Pure (I think, my apologies if I'm miscrediting) that moderator duties are far easier to perform if one doesn't participate very actively in the community. Since I've stepped back from participating in thread discussions, it's been a great deal easier to act as the rules person--it avoids confusion. Of course, the other side of that is that as a Moderator, you must be prepared to no longer have a voice in the community, not as an individual. So, factor that into your thinking about nominations as well, please.

Thanks again, & best to you all,
RisiaSkye
Forum Moderator

 

[RisiaSkye]

I think it should be Killermuffin AND Lancecastor.

That makes me tired just *thinking* about it. Nothing like a flame war between the Mods to keep a forum interesting!


RS
Human & Resident Cynic

 

[artful]

KillerMuffin

Please quit doing that Artful, you have good posts, but they do not bear exact repetition. If you have a point to make, please make it. Otherwise it's background noise.

I do have a point to make,...that's why I selfishly used MY quote to BUMP this thread up to the top of the page. So others might see and respond to it. BTW,...thanks for responding.


"How people CONTINUE to view (3) Moderators over (1) Moderator, as being MORE Moderated, or OVER Moderated, just blows my mind. If ANYTHING,...it would tend to REDUCE Moderation. "

This argument has been disproved.Just because YOU state that,...doesn't make it TRUE ! I know you didn't miss that particular brouhaha, you made a post and kept bumping it in that thread.

"I am very much SUPPORTIVE of (3) Moderators. I see NO reason, for Risia to take ALL the responsibility, for keeping OUR Forum on track. "

Why not two mods?Having ONLY (2) Moderators could result in a "Deadlock". If that happened,...then ONE Moderator *could* excercise their authority over the other. THEN,...where would we be? A Forum led by ONE person. (3) Moderators is, (IMO), an OPTIMUM number. It makes ALL the sense in the world to me. The second and third Moderators might NOT be needed at any given moment in time,...but what happens when Moderators get sick,...when they take vacations,...when they just do NOT, (because of REAL LIFE issues), have time to be online for a lengthy period? It's not like they're governmental positions or that they represent the forum. They can either do the job or they can't. Three mods are fine, too. So is four and five. I believe that when there's a claim that there must be a sub, a Dom/me, and a switch moderating then you are putting this people up as representatives and not moderators. When you do that, you make them a government and not moderators. This is patently unfair to them, as we have seen. This is also unfair to a forum that doesn't need a government.I have never subscribed to what you are stating,...MY only issue has been the NUMBER,...(3) makes ALL the sense in the world to ME.

"Unlike some OTHER Forums, we have SEEN from our history, we DO need guidance, to "STAY" on track. Flaming posts, flaming threads, off TOPIC threads, and LEGAL issues ALL need to be addressed by responsible Moderators, without a BIAS to any who post. "

That's not guidance, that's cleaning house. They don't need to be addressed or posted to, simply moved and the thread-starter notified if necessary. This is not a guided discussion forum. True ! This is an open discussion forum.It *IS* an open discussion BDSM Forum. NOT a "General Board" Forum, and that is WHY we DO need guidelines adhered to. This Forum is UNIQUE unto itself. It shouldn't *CATER* to YOUR specifics wants or MINE,...but for the Members that posts here REGULARLY. If you did need guidance, you wouldn't have a moderator because that's heaping on a bunch of work. Mods do not represent the people and it's unfair of you to ask them to without compensation of some sort.You have a RIGHT to express your opinion,...just as we all do. I simply disagree with THAT stated opinion.

"With (3) Moderators,...*IF*,...there is a "borderline" situation, (post, thread, or content) that has been reported by a board MEMBER,...it would be a simple matter for the (3) Moderators to make a 2 out of 3 vote, (What should we do, if anything?). "

There's no tribunal in operation. Lit rules and the forum rules are very clear. The mods should feel free to take care of any problem without conferring. It's called having trust in their judgment. If it's that big of a problem, then it's probably one that's going to blow up in their face and should be taken to Laurel. You were here for that particular brouhaha, too.Much LESS chance of it blowing up in their face if (3) Moderators are involved.

"SOME will say this is UNWORKABLE,...mainly because they think it would take too much time. I submit that the TIME issue, will work for the BETTERMENT of us all, (better LATE than NEVER). "

Of course it's workable. Decision by committee happens all the time. Workable does not translate into best.I have clearly stated why I think (3) Moderators are *BEST* for THIS Forum. Why do you want LESS? Could it be because THEN, you would be MORE enabled to come in here and post your VENOM laced posts at will? Just WHAT *IS* your agenda KillerMuffin? I've dealt with situations where something happened and it wasn't clearly defined in the rules. I did it myself, too. The community was neither worsened nor bettered for me doing it.

"I am totally AGAINST anonymity. I think WE as board members NEED to know who is guiding this Forum, and I would hope that we ALL have an input as to it's direction. "

No one person is guiding the forum. That was one of the main problems is that this forum should be open rather than leashed. All BDSM should be topical, not just parts of it. A guided forum requires too much participation from the mod to move. Trust me on this one, I run a guided forum. It's the slowest one here.I fail to see what bearing your Forum,...and how it is RUN,...compares to THIS one,...or HOW our regular contributors want to develope it.

I do fully agree with you on the anonymity part.

"Myself,...I see NO value in having ROLE playing threads posted in our Forum. I value FREE SPEECH as much as ANYONE,...but I also believe in the RIGHT for *US*,...as a SPECIFICALLY directed Forum to EMPOWER our Moderators to guide it. "

I agree. Except displacing threads to the appropriate forum isn't guiding it. It's housekeeping. (<----Purely semantics) You're according too much power to the mod position.I am NOT asking for the Moderators to have MORE power, and by having (3) Moderators,...it would NECESSARILY decrease the power of a Dictatorship by (1). You don't need a leader here because this is one of those nicely equitable forums where people think for themselves and get along together. You should trust in your fellow posters a little bit more. They're fully capable of doing unguided discussion.

"Also,...I would expect Risia to CHOOSE who she will, to fill the other two Moderator positions.
I think we all should submit TWO names to her for consideration, (via PM), and even if she CHOOSES two peoples names, who have NOT been submitted to her, to fill those positions, it's quite all right with me. "

Risia does the recommending, Laurel does the ultimate choosing. I'm certain that if Risia--if she ever went nutso--decided to recommend that someone like yayati become moderator, Laurel wouldn't do it. I was ill informed then,...I thought RisiaSkye had FULL authority to appoint Moderators.

 

[Lancecastor]

Art, I think it was only Cym that had full Mod appointment authority.

Or at least that's what she used to suggest.....

 

[MissTaken]

Art, I think it was only Cym that had full Mod appointment authority.

Or at least that's what she used to suggest.....

Actually, it is up to RS to chose a mod or chose how a mod is chosen here.

Frankly, all will be well.

I trust her judgment. She knows what she needs.

As she pointed out, I don't think a second mod is a pressing issue.

 

[Sandia]

That makes me tired just *thinking* about it. Nothing like a flame war between the Mods to keep a forum interesting!


RS
Human & Resident Cynic

{sigh}

Ah, for the good ole' days...!

***

I, for one, hope you feel free to participate as much as you like, Risia. I don't know why you'd want to keep coming around here if you couldn't -- or felt like you shouldn't -- add your voice to the discussion.

***

Serijules, I think I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially the part about "thankless and unnerving."

Hey, wanna moderate?

 

[serijules]

Serijules, I think I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially the part about "thankless and unnerving."

Hey, wanna moderate?

hey, I may be a masochist but I don't think I can handle that kind of pain. *wry grin*

 

[artful]

Re: KillerMuffin

A friend asked me to CLARIFY my prior post,...she said it was TOO confusing for her to READ,...to UNDERSTAND. So I will attempt to CLARIFY for all.

KillerMuffin had quoted my earlier post and responded to points she wished to address. My INITIAL post quotes will have ONE asterisk, (*) precede and end THOSE words. TWO ** will precede and end, HER response to my earlier post. THREE *** will precede and end my RESPONSE to HER response.

*=Me=original post

**=KillerMuffin's response

***=My response to KillerMuffin's response


*"How people CONTINUE to view (3) Moderators over (1) Moderator, as being MORE Moderated, or OVER Moderated, just blows my mind. If ANYTHING,...it would tend to REDUCE Moderation. "*

**This argument has been disproved.**/***Just because YOU state that,...doesn't make it TRUE !***/** I know you didn't miss that particular brouhaha, you made a post and kept bumping it in that thread.**

*"I am very much SUPPORTIVE of (3) Moderators. I see NO reason, for Risia to take ALL the responsibility, for keeping OUR Forum on track. "*

/**Why not two mods?**/***Having ONLY (2) Moderators could result in a "Deadlock". If that happened,...then ONE Moderator ~could~ excercise their authority over the other. THEN,...where would we be? A Forum led by ONE person. (3) Moderators is, (IMO), an OPTIMUM number. It makes ALL the sense in the world to me. The second and third Moderators might NOT be needed at any given moment in time,...but what happens when Moderators get sick,...when they take vacations,...when they just do NOT, (because of REAL LIFE issues), have time to be online for a lengthy period?*** /**It's not like they're governmental positions or that they represent the forum. They can either do the job or they can't. Three mods are fine, too. So is four and five. I believe that when there's a claim that there must be a sub, a Dom/me, and a switch moderating then you are putting this people up as representatives and not moderators. When you do that, you make them a government and not moderators. This is patently unfair to them, as we have seen. This is also unfair to a forum that doesn't need a government.**/***I have never subscribed to what you are stating,...MY only issue has been the NUMBER,...(3) makes ALL the sense in the world to ME.***

*"Unlike some OTHER Forums, we have SEEN from our history, we DO need guidance, to "STAY" on track. Flaming posts, flaming threads, off TOPIC threads, and LEGAL issues ALL need to be addressed by responsible Moderators, without a BIAS to any who post."*

**That's not guidance, that's cleaning house. They don't need to be addressed or posted to, simply moved and the thread-starter notified if necessary. This is not a guided discussion forum.** /***True !*** /**This is an open discussion forum.**/***It ~IS~ an open discussion BDSM Forum. NOT a "General Board" Forum, and that is WHY we DO need guidelines adhered to. This Forum is UNIQUE unto itself. It shouldn't ~CATER~ to YOUR specifics wants or MINE,...but for the Members that posts here REGULARLY.*** /**If you did need guidance, you wouldn't have a moderator because that's heaping on a bunch of work. Mods do not represent the people and it's unfair of you to ask them to without compensation of some sort.**/***You have a RIGHT to express your opinion,...just as we all do. I simply disagree with THAT stated opinion.***

*"With (3) Moderators,...~IF~,...there is a ~borderline~ situation, (post, thread, or content) that has been reported by a board MEMBER,...it would be a simple matter for the (3) Moderators to make a 2 out of 3 vote, (What should we do, if anything?)."*

**There's no tribunal in operation. Lit rules and the forum rules are very clear. The mods should feel free to take care of any problem without conferring. It's called having trust in their judgment. If it's that big of a problem, then it's probably one that's going to blow up in their face and should be taken to Laurel. You were here for that particular brouhaha, too.**/***Much LESS chance of it blowing up in their face if (3) Moderators are involved.***

*"SOME will say this is UNWORKABLE,...mainly because they think it would take too much time. I submit that the TIME issue, will work for the BETTERMENT of us all, (better LATE than NEVER)."*

**Of course it's workable. Decision by committee happens all the time. Workable does not translate into best.**/***I have clearly stated why I think (3) Moderators are ~BEST~ for THIS Forum. Why do you want LESS? Could it be because THEN, you would be MORE enabled to come in here and post your VENOM laced posts at will? Just WHAT ~IS~ your agenda KillerMuffin?*** /**I've dealt with situations where something happened and it wasn't clearly defined in the rules. I did it myself, too. The community was neither worsened nor bettered for me doing it.**

*"I am totally AGAINST anonymity. I think WE as board members NEED to know who is guiding this Forum, and I would hope that we ALL have an input as to it's direction."*

**No one person is guiding the forum. That was one of the main problems is that this forum should be open rather than leashed. All BDSM should be topical, not just parts of it. A guided forum requires too much participation from the mod to move. Trust me on this one, I run a guided forum. It's the slowest one here.**/***I fail to see what bearing your Forum,...and how it is RUN,...compares to THIS one,...or HOW our regular contributors want to develope it.***

**I do fully agree with you on the anonymity part.**

*"Myself,...I see NO value in having ROLE playing threads posted in our Forum. I value FREE SPEECH as much as ANYONE,...but I also believe in the RIGHT for ~US~,...as a SPECIFICALLY directed Forum to EMPOWER our Moderators to guide it."*

**I agree. Except displacing threads to the appropriate forum isn't guiding it. It's housekeeping.** /***(<----Purely semantics)*** /**You're according too much power to the mod position.**/***I am NOT asking for the Moderators to have MORE power, and by having (3) Moderators,...it would NECESSARILY decrease the power of a Dictatorship by (1).*** /**You don't need a leader here because this is one of those nicely equitable forums where people think for themselves and get along together. You should trust in your fellow posters a little bit more. They're fully capable of doing unguided discussion.**

*"Also,...I would expect Risia to CHOOSE who she will, to fill the other two Moderator positions.
I think we all should submit TWO names to her for consideration, (via PM), and even if she CHOOSES two peoples names, who have NOT been submitted to her, to fill those positions, it's quite all right with me."*

**Risia does the recommending, Laurel does the ultimate choosing. I'm certain that if Risia--if she ever went nutso--decided to recommend that someone like yayati become moderator, Laurel wouldn't do it.** /***I was ill informed then,...I thought RisiaSkye had FULL authority to appoint Moderators.***

~My apologies to ALL,...sorry,...I just don't know how to make it any clearer than that. If someone wants to QUOTE this post,...and do a better job of CLARIFYING,...PLEASE,...do so.~