|
In Reply to: coordinators posted by susie on November 18, 2004 at 17:45:44:
We're actually discussing that now, how coordinators should not be VERY invested posters, and how they should not be prolific posters.
When discussions get heavy, it's often not easy to separate when a coordinator is posting as a private individual, or when he/she starts representing "the company" and exercizing his/authority as a coordinator.
We tried making a rule that we had to sign "Coordinator" when we stopped being a regular poster, and posted as a coordinator, but some people saw that as unfair, with coordinators having too much power for abuse of privileges... you know, like switch over to coordinator mode when you can't win an argument.
Maybe some coordinators were used to being the board heavies, checking IPs to see who said what nasty thing against them, etc, while they were invested in open disagreements on the boards, and that wasn't healthy.
Another aspect is that if known coordinators (and you can often tell who's who even if they use another handle) get very vocal about their personal views, it can look like they are forwarding an agenda of their own to influence and control others... when it all began as someone wanting to express themselves freely just like anybody else.
So maybe, coordinators should try to post as little as possible.
It's hard to make a rule like that though. It depends on the type of posting atttributes. Believe it or not, one of our coordinators put it this way:
f + e + i= pc
where f=frequency, e=ego and i=intelligence/critical thinking and pc is the posting coefficient for the given coordinator
Uhhh... now you're sorry you brought it up?
