nine and sixty rules and moderation

[zeborah]

birdsedge wrote:
Who rules?

And who rules the rulers?

And there were a couple of replies there but this may be something we need to discuss more.

[Or should we just create the community already and make it up as we go along?]

Do we want to moderate?

What do we want to moderate?

• Do we want to ever be able, for whatever reasons and under whatever restrictions, to exclude entire people; or do we want to only ever exclude particular topics, or styles, or posts?
• Should it be defined or will we know it when we see it?

Who do we want to do the moderating?

• One supreme dictator, a supreme triumvirate, a group of representatives polling the mood of the tyranny of the mob?

I know what I want but it may well not be what's best for the group so I need to think some more before I actually say anything.

Comments

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Hamm - not that I think restricting membership is a good idea, but I should perhaps not have defined 'active writers' as 'those with a WIP' as there are plenty of active, experienced writers who are between books or - as you say - stalled. 'Those with a WIP' was shorthand for 'those who generally write with a view to (eventual) publication'. (Bearing in mind there are some people who inhabit rasfc who don't write at all.)

Even so, some of those who don't write can and do often contribute constructively. One of them is likely following this discussion with interest and she was very helpful in giving me some insight into a particular character motivation in a now completed WIS.