Leaders v. Moderators

Hi,

I'm not surprised by the vociferous anti-Trapper-as-Moderator-ites, though I have a great deal of admiration and respect for, and trust in, Trapper and tend to follow his guidance above that of most peoples' when I have to fall back on hierarchy (over the collective conscience that is so powerful here, and in which Trapper is often an important leader in terms of developing, for that matter).

I do wonder whether I want some of the "early visionaries" (and more recent ones) of this forum in the Moderator position at all. I have seen this forum grow in leaps and bounds because of people like Trapper, Vulcanel, HOW, 07, Wombat, etc. (that list is by no means exhaustive or in order.) I've also seen this forum disintegrate into a place of real ego battle over differences of opinion, but mostly the "EV"'s keep things moving forward (if a little too fast for my tastes, often).

My strong feeling is that a Moderator has to be someone who will always consider the common welfare over the individual preference as a priority. That's just a requirement built in to the nature of any service position. This is not about electing a leader, in other words.

That said, I am not sure I want any of those aforementioned voices to have to set aside their own opinions, from which I have learned so much, in order to consider the greater good. This isn't about popularity, it's about service, and there is a large part of me who thinks that Trapper and others need to be saying and doing exactly what they have been saying and doing without having to moderate their own opinions and their voice when discussing experience -- in other words, continuing to serve through leadership, rather than moderate from a place of more distance and objectivity.

I hope this is not offensive to anyone, least of all Trapper!

Hope everyone has an iotastic weekend --

Laura

Tweet