h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

After reading Whoami?'s suggestion at F48887?thread=252241 i thought of an idea myself.

There used to be a system of "Section Leaders", this was intended, but it never happened, that one volunteer from each section would be the leader of it. What i suggest is that, following a similar test as that suggested by Whoami? (although more advanced), a small number maybe 5-10% of volunteers from each section, would be given the title of Senior Guru/ACE/Scout/Sub-editor/CA or whatever. These people would then run the section, recruiting new members, dealing with any problems that arise, etc. This would take presure off the italics, who currently have a lot of work to do running the groups. This idea is similar to that used by the Guardian Angels, with their Archangels scheme, although i am not an expert on the GAs i think this system has worked for them, and i think it might work for the official groups as well.

I would like any comments, good, bad or neutral, on this. Thanks.

Tango (Guru)

Hey Tango,

This is a blast from the past!

Just to clarify one thing before I start, there has only been one Section Head as far as I can remember and that was Bruce. He was awarded this status for his sterling work in establishing the GuideML Clinic and doling out advice to Newbies.

The Section Head scheme was experimental and was disbanded - we left Bruce with his badge out of respect - it's like Shim's blue fish, an h2g2 quirk. The scheme was replaced with the Gurus, who do the same work and a little more.

The reason I am personally against creating section heads for each scheme is that by creating a hierachy, you are also increasing the potential for conflict. For example, I couldn't possibly decide who the top ten Aces/Subs/Scouts/Gurus are and it would be unfair to classify. By creating a hierachy you attach a certain level of importance on a particular Researcher's work,, when in fact we respect all of you for all the work you do.

While we appreciate that you want to take some of our load from us (always appreciated), the introduction of Section Heads would create more work for us by adding another layer to the volunteer schemes, and distances us a little from the Community as a whole.

We really do appreciate any ideas that contribute to the development of the schemes and h2g2.

Cheers for now,

Ashley

"This is a blast from the past!"

Too right! We need more of them, though.

"Just to clarify one thing before I start, there has only been one Section Head as far as I can remember and that was Bruce. He was awarded this status for his sterling work in establishing the GuideML Clinic and doling out advice to Newbies.

The Section Head scheme was experimental and was disbanded - we left Bruce with his badge out of respect - it's like Shim's blue fish, an h2g2 quirk. The scheme was replaced with the Gurus, who do the same work and a little more."

Sounds similar to memory of the time, so

"The reason I am personally against creating section heads for each scheme is that by creating a hierachy, you are also increasing the potential for conflict. For example, I couldn't possibly decide who the top ten Aces/Subs/Scouts/Gurus are and it would be unfair to classify. By creating a hierachy you attach a certain level of importance on a particular Researcher's work,, when in fact we respect all of you for all the work you do."

This is potentially a problem, i agree. I would hope that h2g2 is mature enough to rise above problems like these, but there will always be people that don't like the system. One way to solve that would be to have a strict system for choosing, maybe time served, a vote every so often to choose a new person, a "quiz" and each question can be marked out of 10 by the other gurus.

"While we appreciate that you want to take some of our load from us (always appreciated), the introduction of Section Heads would create more work for us by adding another layer to the volunteer schemes, and distances us a little from the Community as a whole."

Distanceing you from the community is a good point, i hadn't thought of, i'll need to think about that one and see if i can come up with a way round it. There might be more work at first, but if you can trust the new group to look after themselves, (and assuming they do a good job), once it is all up and running, it would probably (i think, at least, although i have obviously never run such a scheme myself) by less work.

"We really do appreciate any ideas that contribute to the development of the schemes and h2g2."

Hmmm... It strange, italics never use that sentance when they like an idea...

Any opinions from anyone else, or shall i just do what ashley wants and drop it?

Tango

I think the introduction of such a hierarchy is unnecessary and might be divisive.

Blunt and too the point, thanks for you comments.

Tango

http://www.everything2.com/ has a hierarchy system and I hate it. That's why I don't use Everything2 at all any more. h2g2 is so accessible to newbies because even the Italics can make mistakes, and the only degree of hierarchy is Italic or not. Since the Italics are friendly, the result of that is simply to provide someone with the power to make things happen when there's a problem and to keep us all happy and in line. That's the way it should be.

In case you missed that, that's a resounding 'no'.

Whoami?

I seem to be lossing here...

You say the only hierarchy is italic or not, that means you do not count being a volunteer as a hierarchical step, if that is true, why is a senior volunteer any different? It would effect other volunteers, that is all, regular users of the site would see no real difference.

Tango

Volunteers are not immune to any rules, and have no privileges that are not tied to, and proportionate to, their responsibilities. Creating senior volunteers might disillusion those that didn't get selected.

As far as I can discern, I do not try to pull rank on the good Researchers of h2g2 because I'm a Volunteer. I respect people because they're people, and not because they're Italics or Volunteers or rich or strong or attractive or whatever.

Creating volunteers helped h2g2 to work more effectively towards its goals. Creating another tier of management for the sake of it doesn't have that same clear benefit.

Whoami?

I think the main thing is, Tango, what would it achieve, aside from setting some volunteers in a position above other volunteers? Who would it benefit?

As Ashley said, the position was created when we had no-one else to credit. Now we have the excellent volunteer schemes, it's all a bit redundant.

And besides, we'd have to get another badge designed

So it all comes down to the CAs being lazy. (Disclaimer: That was a joke, it was not intended to represent my, or anyone elses, opinions of the CAs, nor was it intended to degrade the work done by the CAs)

OK, i seem to have lost. I'm not even 100% sure i like the idea, i'm just in the habit of suggesting things i think of, regardless of whether or not they are a good idea, because it meant inspire a good idea from someone else, that i wouldn't have thought of myself. (too many commas i think )

Ok, let's stop wasting time, and get back to discussing to guru test idea.

Tango

What Tango said! [I do the same with my suggestions...]

Whoami?

Me too, nowt wrong with a bit of brainstorming every now and again - throw as much mud up the wall as y'can and see how much of it sticks, as they say.

Although I'm sure in the original metaphor it wasn't mud...

But thanks anyway, Tango!

Don't we **** the original?

Whoami?

Ooo! A game of fill in the blanks... There are some interesting sentances you can make by adding various 4-letter words. Not all of which give the intended meaning...

Tango