This is great information but what is sad is that all these obstacles, conditions and requirements are being explained now after weeks, after now 13 pages of discussions and AFTER the vote began so Gary's point is very very valuable. Plus, all the legitimate serious questions and valid points are being dismissed with "chill outs", "Relax", "stop beating on Vasco", as well as jokes, chick and cat photos (which as a candidate who is taking this thing seriously, I find a little insulting and inappropriate even more so coming from someone I consider a good friend, Sorry but that's how I feel). Not to mention that I have pmed mods who don't answer back and everything just feels soooooo shady. I suggested on page 2 that there could be more than 1 mod and was shot down. Now that I have the most votes, we're told there will be more than 1 ???.... I asked several times what the procedures, conditions, requirements are and the question has been left unanswered. Suddenly I'm ahead and all this information starts pouring in ???.... Until now, the word used to describe what we were doing was a "vote". Now that I'm ahead, it's being labelled as "its only just a poll..." ??? If Rob holds all the cards (which he can, it's his place) why the passive-aggressiveness of not answering? I don't get it....??? I had my suspicions in the beginning and suggested that "everything possible" would be done to keep me out because I had one disagreement a year ago and then became "persona non grata" and it's so sad. I really do love hanging out and contributing to this wonderful place. I smelled something fishy from the get-go and was reassured many times that everything was on the up-and-up and there wasn't anything going on and that everything would be done fairly and without shenanigans. Considering what is transpiring at the moment.....put yourself in my shoes (and Gary / Chris also) What would you be thinking? Really, can't we just shake hands, make-up and work together? I've been successful at everything I've ever done my entire life, surely I can handle being a moderator in a relatively low-key non-controversial section like Canada can't I? I also have no problem working with another mod as I've said and suggested all along. Why not? It's volunteer work anyway....At the very very least, If I do finish first, give me a chance, even a probation period, something??? If it doesn't work out or if I screw up after a set period of time then you can "can" me. Anyways, Rob, I know you're reading this and are aware of what's happening. Come Friday if I finish on top please give me a chance will ya? I'll do as I'm told and I will give you nothing but my absolute best and that's a promise!
It seems to me that you're too easily insulted. That would be me. And, your PM was one of 14 I received yesterday. In the interest of transparency, I'll respond here, so you and everyone else will understand that there's nothing 'shady' going on here. First, regarding the content of your PM, you said you were confused now, and didn't understand why the results of the poll wouldn't be respected. Rather than respond immediately to your query, I posted in the Moderator Forum, pointing out to Vasco, Rob, and the rest of the mods that it appeared to me that, at the least your expectation was that the poll would be the firm and final decision matrix on who would be selected as the next moderator for this section. As El Wayne explained earlier, that isn't and never has been the case. Rob withholds the exclusive right to make the decision on who he gives moderator permissions to. Period. Again, as El Wayne said, he may, or may not, consider the results of the poll in making his decision. And, as I told you in a previous PM, 'over-campaigning' is the wrong tact to take. There is, essentially, an unwritten rule that if someone 'wants' to be a mod, then they're probably not right for the job. As one of the other moderators put it ... "if you ask to be one, you tend to disqualify yourself." The procedure, conditions, and requirements are simple: it's entirely Rob's decision, based entirely on his personal criteria, perhaps subject to influence, but not subject to change. Passive-aggressive? Because you didn't get an immediate response to a PM. First, before we, as a group, take action, or very often, even comment on a developing or existing situation (such as this), we try to get a general and cohesive consensus. That allows us to ensure we are on the same page as Rob, and concurrently allows us to speak with one voice. After receiving your PM, and rather than further confuse you by either giving you an incomplete answer, or by giving you my personal opinion (which may or may not be the same as what Rob's opinion is), I thought it was a better idea to discuss it amongst and between the moderators. Also, and as an aside, I left the office, immediately loaded the band truck, and went to set up for a gig, played the gig, tore down the equipment, loaded the truck, went home, unloaded the truck, did some quick maintenance on one of my speakers that got dinged up during the loading, and finally got to bed about 2 am. I did spend about 30 minutes on the site at around midnight, but frankly, my priority was not answering your PM. That's why you didn't get an immediate response from me. I was busy. Really? Seriously? If you honestly believe that everything is NOT on the up-and-up, that there 'is' something going on, and that everything is not being done 'fairly and without shenanigans', then, in my opinion, and only in my opinion, it seems to me that you're far too sensitive to be a moderator on this site. I have no doubt that you would do your best, if selected. But there is far more to being selected than popularity. Again, it's Rob's ultimate decision, based on his personal opinion and individual criteria. Best of luck to everyone who is under consideration. Mike
by indicating out was out of the race was in fact a mistake . I was never really in a race. so my question is to all on Canada thread who are thinking of voting but have not . why bother? Gary Espada 8394 EtypeFHC 887465
Based on how long, complicated and difficult this process seems to be, it looks like Rob takes his site very seriously and so do I when it comes to doing a job. How that can be spinned negatively is something I just don't understand??? Would it make me look better if just clowned around on the thread instead of showing that I am a serious, intelligent, motivated person? This is a thread created by Vasco to choose a replacement mod for him and all this useless banter occuring smack in the middle of a vote is just not appropriate and disrespectful to the candidates who are taking this seriously, to Vasco himself and to Ferrarichat. That's fine.....thank you for taking the time to respond. However, it still doesn't answer the question as to why all this info/procedures/requirements is suddenly coming in now rather than weeks ago when we first asked. It looks shady even if it isn't.... Based on all the posts written prior to the poll, everyone it seems was under the impression we were going to have a vote to help choose the next mod, not just me. Sorry Mike, with all due respect this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard??? You'd have a negative impression of someone because they're motivated to take a position (and a volunteer one too)....I don't get that at all.... As for "over-campaigning" I asked what that is and still don't know. What's allowed, what's not allowed, etc..... I said I wanted to make sure I stay within the rules and do things the right way. I was looking for some guidance and indicating that I am a team player. If you're part of a "vote" you must convince people to vote for you no? Isn't that why politicians campaign? Get their name out there, spend millions and millions on advertising? How is a candidate to win a vote without campaigning? My "passive-agressive" comment was related to the fact that it would make sense that Rob come out and say all this in the beginning when we asked. If he is the sole decision maker why couldn't he post a reply or chime in this thread at least once? I find that a litte strange, sorry. I understand everyone is busy and I get that you guys want to discuss things so you have a common voice and all that but Mike this has been going on for weeks it hasn't just come up yesterday? Finally, your reply seems to put me in a negative light and spin everything negatively and I find it sad that you seem unwilling to see the good in me. Everything is being spun negatively it seems just because I'd like to do the job and because I ask questions. Just kind of makes it feel like I had zero chance from the beginning no matter what happens... Anyway, let's see how the voting ends and what Rob decides to do. Sorry again if I'm popular, motivated, ambitious and serious. If those are bad things, please tell me what needs to change to increase my chances and I will modify my attitude to better fit the role of mod. As I said, I'm willing to do it, just give me a chance. Thank you
Fab if you stop trying, stop talking and stop caring then somehow erase all your votes you will be a shoe in for the position . Gary Espada 8394 EtypeFHC 887465
Now that you're out of the running, can I hire you to be my campaign manager? You seem to make more sense than I do and I could use the help cause I'm totally lost at this point....
No offense guys, but you guys are being way too butthurt over this whole thing... coming across as very, VERY sensitive. I'm in last place. Not too many around here know me, I don't own an F-car, and I'm only 25. Yet I'm not sitting here whining and complaining about Rob. Frankly, it's his site. It's his choice what he does... this place isn't a democracy. If he wants us all out on our butts he's entitled to that. You want to play in the guy's kingdom, play by his rules.
But the problem is that certain rules were stated at the beginning of this thread and then they changed drastically as the "voting" went on. People point that out and get put down. That's not the way to do things in any system.
Exactly!!! No one is whining about the rules or procedures but it's a shame that things seem to change on a daily basis, questions are unanswered and every legitimate point that is brought up gets shot down with the same replies over and over again (you're too sensitive, you're too ambitious, you're too popular, relax, take it easy, It's Rob's site, stop hating on Vasco, you need thicker skin....to name a few) Every point is constantly deflected with the same replies over and over again...
You're correct that there has been a lot of confusion about what normally happens, what is expected of both the process of mod selection and the candidate mod, and how it was explained on this thread, which was incomplete. Let me try and explain it outside the context of this thread, before I return to the context of this thread. It's normally a mystery how mods are selected, not because we're being deliberately secretive, but because it's rarely discussed outside the mod forum. Early on, say 10 years ago when Vasco first signed up, the mods were usually directly selected by Rob, based on his perceptions of what the site or specific forums needed. But in a few instances, Canada and Australia comes to mind, there was a public discussion about who might be interested in taking on the job and a polling process took place. I don't recall how explicitly it was stated in those cases, but it was always understood that Rob had the final decision. In essence, any vote or poll for a mod is primarily a pre-selection process for candidates for consideration and not a final vote or poll. A lot of factors would be considered, even the discussions on the vote itself might have a bearing on the decision. This kind of public process has not happened again for a while, as Rob had mixed results going with a public process. It worked fine 10 years ago in Canada, but didn't work so well elsewhere. I think this is because users generally don't have a good idea of what a mod does, so tend to vote on popularity or congeniality, rather than the factors that Rob tends to weigh. Since those few public examples, Rob has generally selected mods himself or asks for recommendations from his existing mod team. Any candidates are then privately discussed and then invited to take the job if there is a consensus of approval. Generally Rob or the mods have an idea of a short list of who they would like to see as a future mod, but Rob also has a preference for mods who are active in a forum. And sometimes those don't always coincide. Returning to this thread, that is why Vasco went public on this particular selection. He had candidates already, but they weren't ready to take on the job at the time. Not having a strong idea of who might be additional choices, Vasco used this thread to ask for candidates. Unfortunately, he didn't clearly explain how the process would work; i.e. Rob would make the final decision. If that appears to be a flip-flop, I can understand the confusion, but every mod would tell you that we would have fully expected it was subject to Rob's approval as a condition and that would not be a rubber stamp. Regarding another flip-flop accusation, whether there would be one or two mods. The proposal that prompted Vasco's response was this: When Vasco said "Having multiple mods is not gonna happen", I read it as in reference to the idea that there would be a mod for East and West Canada, respectively, and essentially splitting the regional forum up de facto. I think that was a wise decision, but didn't preclude multiple mods that did so in a united fashion versus piecemeal. The issue I see with multiple mods is getting approval for another mod position from Rob. You seem to be an interesting, active, popular user and a good contributor to the board, all points in your favor under consideration. Normally, there's nothing terribly wrong with wanting to "win" in public discourse, but since you're asking for guidance, the error you're making is seeing this vote or poll as something to "win". A mod that wants to "win" a discussion with a user tends to make a bad mod; a mod has to be willing to stand firm at the same time they're always open to legitimate discussion and argument. This is a tough line to walk and not always consistent with a "what does it take to win" personality. Regarding the "overcampaigning" aspect, there is a difference between a mod candidate that is willing to do the job and one that wants badly to get the job. "Willing to do the job" generally means they appreciate the demands on their time and the stress of the occasional contretemps, but are still willing to do the job, usually because they appreciate what the site has contributed to their enjoyment and they want to help maintain the site as a way of returning to the community. "Wants badly to get the job" generally means they see job as glamorous or powerful somehow, which generally means they may be less discriminate in the exercise of mod privileges or don't ever get into the job when they find it really isn't terribly glamorous, making more work for other mods or Rob. This is also an important characteristic. A mod sometimes gets a huge amount of sarcasm and abuse thrown at them and they better not get "butthurt" too easily. To summarize, the votes weren't wasted, they told us who Canada regional forum users (and apparently some 355 forum users also ) would *like* to see as a Canada mod. They gave us four serious candidates to consider. The discussions on this thread during the process and subsequent unintended confusion also told us something about how the candidates might respond to situations that might arise. The discussions also caused some earlier candidates to reconsider their interest in the position. It's all relevant.
Please don't arbitrarily include me in your collective comments by saying "you guys " ! I never once mentioned Rob Lay in any of my correspondence nor do I or did I have a beef with him or the other mods who read us the rules after the fact . I just asked a question of Vasco to which as of this writing, I rec'd no answer from Him. I bowed out and with that am no longer in anyone's scope. BTW looking at the polls today and it would appear your a shoe in Gary Espada 8394 EtypeFHC 887465
Thank you Yin for providing this explanation....I think we could have used it in the beginning but OK, better late than never I guess. I appreciate the fact that you answered questions directly without the usual put-downs and deflections. I also read into your post what appears to be a sort-of apology and admission that this process has been mishandled to a certain extent. I, as the leading current candidate (as far as the vote, no sorry poll is concerned), feel somewhat relieved that someone in your position finally stepped up and clarified this. Thank you for the kind words but I never ever stated nor gave the impression that my main goal was to "win". Not sure where you're getting that from??? My motivation is to be a great mod for a site that I absolutely love and for a section in which I am very active in. Also, as a VP of a local Ferrari & Fiat club as well as member of other clubs such as FCA, etc...I know Ferrari guys and I know car guys so that gives me an advantage for sure. I also organize 2 of the biggest and best italian car shows in Canada so surely that can't hurt. I know a lot of the guys here and that can help being a good moderator for sure because the approach can differ based on the different personalities. Getting consensus among several different car clubs on how, when and where to hold an event is a miracle in itself and so far I have been able to do that very well. And we're talking events with 150-200 cars and hundreds of people attending so I know how to cater to people and get them to collaborate, unite and get along (Just like a moderator), it's what I do... I'm in complete agreement with this and I do completely fulfill the requirements needed and am willing to commit to the work needed. Thanks for clarifying it, it actually makes my candidacy even more credible now. I'm fine with everything you stated here except that I hope the "reaction" I've had to the fiasco won't be used against me since I certainly was not responsible for it. If this is going to be used as an excuse to not give me or someone like me the title of moderator it would be completely insane and unfair since all I've done here has been in good faith, honest and for the good of this section and Ferrarichat in general. I don't think any of my posts indicate in any way, shape or form that I would be unfit to be a moderator. The "butthurt" and "too sensitive" accusations in this thread were mostly misplaced and untrue. Labelling someone with that just because others posters did so is just not right. you're taking something seriously, asking questions and clarifications because of the "flip-flopping" doesn't make you a person with thin skin, it only makes you a logical person trying to remain on topic and getting your questions answered. I hope Rob can see that I am a person who truly does deserve it, who will serve him and the site very well and that I am thankful for the opportunity. I also hope that the voting will count as more than just a poll and will be taken seriously hence giving the registered users here some credibility and respect for their choice whether I finish first or not.
I swear to God this was all worth it just for the free lunch I was offered over the phone this afternoon by certain fchatters (Or was that mean getting the bill?) Thanks to all who understand that not all people are perfect. Perhaps I didn't plan this 100% but then again who is perfect? You guys can keep beating a dead horse but thanks to my fellow mod they have graciously explained everything. With all that said, I have learned that many on here are not perfect either apparently! Who knew? So thanks for certain PM's! I look forward to seeing a new mod here. Once the smoke clears it really is fun I promise. And as you can see, you get some nice support from some cool dudes
