I think xtcxtc may be alluding to staff turn over as a positive thing, in preventing management (site or forum) from getting stale, or anyone feeling like they own it and ought to run it any way they see fit (whether that is in line with the overall site direction or not
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
). The tough part is to balance between turnover and freshness of minds vs stability and long term site direction. With too much turnover, any particular set of goals for a forum or for the site are subject to being changed midstream, or even golden goals not being reached because people don't stay long enough to understand everything necessary and put the time and effort towards those improvements before they change over. I say this as I know at times people have bandied about the concept of set time limits for positions - while xtcxtc didn't directly state that concept, I do know it strongly relates to the concept of staff turnover.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would like to take a moment and comment on a few of the changes that have taken place since C22 left, primarily as a result of this thread and others like it. I will begin by saying that C22 left with a lot of people not liking what he did, but I also agree he went in with the best intentions and things got away from him. The single-person administration would lead to quick decisions, and quick action - which would get things accomplished (by that single person's visions), and with the size of this site there isn't the time for that single person to also try and accommodate other views. But anyways, he tried...didn't work out as planned, but did teach a lot of us lessons on what works and what doesn't.
Currently, the owner is hands off, and the site is run by a team of 6 admins (not a single person making all the decisions). Those admins work to an agreement on any changes (forums, or personnel) so there isn't the problem of a single minded direction. Since C22 left and the site operations were turned over to a team of Admins, and voting for replacements have been unanimous by those holding the position. Criteria for selection is primarily a history of showing long time contributions for the site and a stability to judge situations without personal bias. I will say that all the admins maintain respect for one another and we don't have any backdoor efforts being made, however we do have an Admin log showing if anyone does run amok and starts going out of control. That accountability exists, and is visible to the other admins and the owner. But it hasn't been necessary as nobody has been abusing the position. We work together for any and all site goals. I will also point out that having so many 'voters' to make changes does hamper the speed with which things can be implemented, but we've also built an operating procedure by which the admins can try to make changes in a reasonable time while allowing the others to have a say before something is acted upon. Typically, we give the others a few days to critique a proposed change before enacting it, or we can make it quicker with a majority approval. Still, this is a living process, open to refinement as we move forward.
We've created the senior mod position (perhaps, more accurately we've refined it as they weren't clearly defined when they were created). These positions are created to offer a pool of Admin candidates if needed and are granted some higher powers (ie, banning ability). These positions are filled by private selection amongst the Admins and current smods (about a dozen or so persons)- usually unanimous if not strong majority selection. Again, we have a moderator log showing anyone getting out of hand, but that has not been an issue, as the staff members of this position have not shown a tendency to abuse their authority.
Mods in general are no longer held arbitrary standards (post counts), but are accountable for their forum operations and actions. To my knowledge, most of the mods that have been removed without their wanting to step down have been primarily due to abandoning their post. There have been a few mods that have been forcibly removed, for abusing their position or trolling the site or attacking members - basically, behaviour unbecoming of a staff member - but again those decisions aren't reached or executed by a single person but by the group of admins reaching such a decision together, often with input from other staff members.
And lastly, while it isn't publicly viewable, we do try to let the staff know if changes are planned. Granted, despite the expectation that staff discussions stay private we know sometimes these things leak out. But the point is, if someone will be effected by any changes, we Admins try to let the effected mods know ahead of time so they can be prepared and help ease any transitions, as well as offer input on what exactly is the best direction for a forum to go.
- ah, more later. But this is long enough for now.
[edited for typos...and I'm sure I still missed a few]
but oh well - i've moved on; I know that I will never be a moderator again.. but I still do have interest in BL and its further success. 
