... insist on creating drama where there isn't any.
I was just forwarded a series of posts that an "ex" moderator of another board made. Apparently, he seems to think that anyone who moderates a given board is somehow joined at the hip with some nefarious "agenda" associated with whatever board s/he is moderating, and can't possibly have anything positive to contribute to another board. This has been said about me and about others who are moderating different boards.
Well... I'm a moderator on two boards, this one and the new Gaydemon board. I asked Lee in advance, and he agreed with me that as long as my contributions are similar on both boards that there are benefits to everyone involved. If the agenda of a moderator posting on a board where they don't moderate is nefarious, then who is the recipient of the bad will? If anything, I would think that the contribution to threads and traffic at a board one is *not* moderating would be seen as damaging to the board(s) one *is* moderating, not the reverse.
There are many people in the webmaster community who post on 3 or 4 or 5 different boards, and there are others who post on only one or maybe two boards. Each board "community" has a different feel to it, much in the same way different bars or clubs or restaurants all serve food or drinks, but have different atmosphere. People can contribute to one or many, but ultimately, I believe that "cross pollination" benefits all of the communities.
So why is it that some people feel it necessary to assume that everyone's agenda is negative and nefarious? And isn't it one of those situations where, by making that sort of claim, you end up alienating a lot of the people in your community?
Is there some positive benefit to this sort of attitude that I'm not seeing, or is it, as it appears to me, simply a destructive, separatist attitude that doesn't even serve the interests of the one community?
I'd be very interested in viewpoints in both directions.
Bookmarks