@GraceNote Moderators do a great job already. Why mess with it?
@DanielLawson Best case scenario: nothing changes. Worst case scenario: new folks go on a power trip and kill the feel of the site. Everyone stops speaking to each other. The site has no users within 3 weeks. Crickets.
@GraceNote My biggest weakness is that I might log in once every few months. The ideal mod candidate would get elected and then never visit the site again ever.
@GraceNote I haven't messed anything up too badly. First do no harm.
@TimStone I promise to make no decisions if elected. Thus, meta would play no role whatsoever in my non-decision-making.
@Emil I wouldn't
@GraceNote Kyle Cronin. As far as I can tell, he's the ideal mooderator. Or better still, that Philip guy.
@DanielLawson It is my hope that my coontributions will be indistinguishable from those of /dev/null
@stuffe I doon't want to be mod. I do want to get elected.
@GraceNote Look, I know I haven't answered all the questioons, but I think I've gottten my point across here. I am for minimum change. Elect me and I promise to do nothing. Heck, I didn't even make it to the toown hall (although I did try to get there).
@Noneoftheabove or it will play 100% of a role. Or any number inbetween 0 and 100. Yoour call.
@Caleb Protest candidate, not soock puppet. There's a difference.
Or maybe social experiment is a better woord.
Sorry I missed the chat. And that the stupid o key on my kebyard keeps sticking intermittantly. And that I can't spell but doon't care enough to look it all up. Them's life.