Poll

I voted that they should bow out gracefully and turn group over to other moderators or at least appoint a new one, if they are the only moderator of their group at the time. This would be ideal if they also want to continue to remain a member of the group but no longer moderate it.

If they don't wish to have anything to do with the group at all, then they should turn over to current or new moderators and then leave the group. Either choice would be the respectful and responsible thing to do. Especially if you have others taking care of something that you created or started but no longer take part in keeping it going.

~Kalinka~The~Stellar~Moderator~ wrote: "I voted that they should bow out gracefully and turn group over to other moderators or at least appoint a new one, if they are the only moderator of their group at the time. This would be ideal if ..."

i agree with this 👍

~Kalinka~The~Stellar~Moderator~ wrote: "I voted that they should bow out gracefully and turn group over to other moderators or at least appoint a new one, if they are the only moderator of their group at the time. This would be ideal if ..."

I agree with you, Kalinka.

Individual participation in any group on any website can change depending on a great many things in both the virtual world and in real life.

I do not know what might be happening to affect anyone's ability to be an active moderator, and since such personal information is really none of my business, I would prefer to abstain from voting in this poll.

Debbie wrote: "Individual participation in any group on any website can change depending on a great many things in both the virtual world and in real life.

I do not know what might be happening to affect anyone..."

Thank you so much for your comment, Debbie. It's greatly appreciated.

Though you make a great and valid point on individual participation within groups on the site. This poll is centered on Moderators who've created groups and who are also still active on the GR website but are choosing not to moderate said groups that they've created.. They no longer share that responsibility with their fellow mods on active groups. They are not contributing in any way, while still choosing to keep their moderator status within the group. Even though they no longer moderate it.

Therefore, for whatever reasons they may or may not have for no longer moderating, is not the point. It's also not my business either. But while still being active on the site elsewhere, they should at least remove themselves as a moderator from that group. As Kalinka stated, at least do it out of respect for their fellow mods who are still doing all of the work.

So, I voted for to bow out gracefully...

I'm thinking the poll is questioning whether a Group's Founding Moderator-who perhaps was at one time VERY active and involved with said Group-one day decides (for whatever reason) to no longer carry on with their duties, obligations, or responsibilities that's required to BE a Moderator. At this point, everything would fall to the other Moderators of the Group to "keep the lights on" and everything running smoothly for the Members of the Group. Also, at this point, the "Founding Moderator" title is in name only. The poll question also states that the person has been active in other areas in GR, just not in the Group they abandoned.
This is why my vote was to bow out gracefully.

Thank you Nya and Debbie for your explanations. I understand the question a little better now and I see your points. But I still choose to not vote.

Debbie wrote: "Thank you Nya and Debbie for your explanations. I understand the question a little better now and I see your points. But I still choose to not vote."

No worries Sis.. We wanted your thoughts and opinion as well.. So thank you so much for posting 🤗

Same goes for me, Debbie. We value your thoughts and opinions, and appreciate your input.🙏

I think that if, for whatever reason, you can no longer handle the responsibilities of being a moderator, you should bow out and give up the moderator title. If there's a reason why someone wants to hold on to the title but not participate, I would like to know why.

I would like to know too, G.. I've been part of a lots of groups on GR, and I moderate a few myself. And I've seen this trend too many times on this site, and I don't get it at all. It's like people don't know the meaning of common decency or respect. It's almost like they think because this is all virtual, that the same rules don't apply here or something. IDK...

All I know is, it's just best to keep it simple. If you know that you can't or no longer want to moderate. Whether you're a founding moderator or not, if you're not doing the work/sharing the responsibility any longer, then just remove yourself as moderator.

See? Simple.

And again, I am only speaking on those who are still active on the site but are no longer active in the groups they've created.

One thing you might want to keep in mind, is that it may be a good idea to have someone with moderator privileges as a backup, even if they're not actively involved in moderating at the time. If the current moderator was suddenly unable to perform those duties, you need someone who can at the very least appoint a new moderator.

If your original moderator is not interfering, what does it hurt that s/he has the privileges?

In one of the groups I belong to, the originator decided to resign for personal reasons. I agreed to act as moderator temporarily until a new moderator was identified. However, I stayed on as an alternate, just in case. I'm active in the group, but I rarely function as moderator. I don't think the current moderator needs my help, but I don't want the group to become moribund if for any reason she had to resign.

I haven't tried it, but I understand getting the staff to appoint a new moderator for an inactive group is a big hassle.

Betsy wrote: "If your original moderator is not interfering, what does it hurt that s/he has the privileges?."

There in lies the issue. They are not moderating the group. They are not involved in any way. So, why should they keep Moderator privileges if they are no longer a moderator? Why have them keep a certain level of access to a group and its members, if they are no longer performing the duties that title affords them?

Well I have been part of groups where the founding moderator decided that they just don't want to or can no longer serve the group in that capacity. So if there were already active mods in the group, they just turned everything over to them and then they removed themselves as a moderator. Some of them just left the group after that and others still remained members after stepping down as a moderator.

So really it's pretty simple. If you're not moderating then you should no longer have those privileges whether you remain a member of the group or not...

And again, if you're still active on the site, but not active in the group you founded, then Why are you staying on as a moderator?? That just makes no sense to me at all.
Especially since you know that none of the other Moderators can remove your moderating privileges. Only you can do that since you're the founder/creator of that group. And maybe that's the whole point..

Cause why else would you keep those privileges when you're doing nothing to contibute to the group any longer?
🤔🤔🤔

Thanks, Betsy for your comment and vote! :)

I'm not voting because it depends on the circumstances.

I think if they aren't moderating they should give up the moderator title.

But they may want to stay on & participate or they may find that impossible & decide to leave the group.

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I'm not voting because it depends on the circumstances.

I think if they aren't moderating they should give up the moderator title.

But they may want to stay on & participate or they may find that impossible & decide to leave the group..."

Thanks, Carol, for your input! :)

"Bow out gracefully & turn over to other moderators" This poll option means they will remain in the group if they choose to, but they are just stepping down as a moderator....

The option on the poll to Leave the group is there as well. Which means they would do just that. So, no longer a mod and no longer a member either.

Their circumstances are not the question or point of the poll, however. We all have sets of circumstances that may change things and affect what we do here online, and if we may still be able to contribute in the fashion that we have been. That's not for me, you, or anyone else to determine.

BUT, if a founding moderator is found to still be consistently active on the site, yet not active or sharing their duties in a group they founded, then that's the issue. No matter their set of circumstances, if they're not moderating, and they know they can no longer do it, they shouldn't keep that title.... They should also have enough decency to reach out to their fellow mods and at least let them know what is going on with them, or why they're not moderating. Instead of just going radio silent with everything regarding the group. (This has also happened on GR) Even though they're still active elsewhere on the site.

Regardless of their circumstances it's common courtesy to at least inform the people/moderators left dealing with the group you no longer have time for or choose not to participate in that you will not be available. If after a certain amount of time they are still not active, then it's time to bow out gracefully. Stay a member if you choose to do so, let the group regroup and let everyone move along

I'm agreeing with everything being said here about the reasons to just bow out gracefully, when you no longer wish to do any of the Mod duties. You would still be a member of the group-that doesn't change. Just speaking for myself, this is what I would do personally. If I couldn't/wouldn't be able to rise to the challenge of my duties, responsibilities, and obligations, I would be honest enough with myself and fellow Mods to explain this and bow out. In my opinion, this is the healthiest choice for everyone, and in the best interest of the Group as a whole.

I took over a group about 10 yrs ago. The original moderator - who had started the group - first brought me on as a co-moderator. Then some months later she told me that she was moving - changing jobs and had decided that she no longer wanted to moderate the group. We had an easy transition and she was there to help in any way she could. But she bowed out. I did not remove her as moderator - I felt that was up to her, if she so chose. And she did within a couple months. She is still a member of the group. And I know and have let some other members know that should I just up and disappear - which I would never do except for a bad illness or death - that she, being the group originator, still has the power to moderate or to choose another moderator or to close out the group. I personally cannot close this group - since I didn't start it. So even tho the original founder does not participate very often - she remains in the background in case I should go missing. I believe that that is the only fair way to do it. GR's will not change the power making me totally in charge and able to close this group, which is fine with me. Deb did not up and vanish before she took responsibility and handed the group over. Personally I think those that do just vanish should be booted from GR's. Either be responsible or give up your rights of a GR's membership.

I have put in suggestion after suggestion to GR's that dead groups brought to their attention should be listed with the request of a new moderator and at that time sole authority should be transferred to the new person. Obviously GR's doesn't care or doesn't listen - they do nothing!

Thank you, Sandi👍

Thanks Sandi 😇

Thank you to everyone who has voted and who has shared your thoughts on this topic. It is much appreciated.

Thank you to everyone who voted and voiced their thoughts!

This poll will close tonight Jan 10th @ 11:59pm/EST..