I'm nominating myself for SOCVR RO.
Being an RO is both a responsibility and a commitment. It's important to be a role model for how people should participate in the room, while also moderating the participation of the other users. It also means making a commitment to sustaining and growing the room for the foreseeable future.
As a user, I already help by answering questions about procedure, and pointing out to others where something might be done better or where I see there are issues which need to be resolved, both in the room and in our interactions with other users (when it's something that reflects upon the room). As an RO, I will continue to do so.
Why me? This question really has two parts: Why do I want to be an RO? and Why should I be an RO? At the highest level of abstraction both of those questions have similar answers: A) I care about the room, both that we're doing something beneficial and how we're perceived on SO; and B) I'll do a good job. Saying "I'll do a good job" may sound a bit flippant. It's not intended to be. It reflects both my confidence that I can be even more helpful to the room by being an RO and a commitment to working with the RO team to do a good job coordinating/moderating the room over time.
I think SOCVR already has a good group of ROs. I'd be honored to work more closely with all of you.
@Aralun, I don't recall strongly disagreeing with an RO action during the time I've been in the room.
There have been times where I've disagreed with the inaction of "the ROs". However, such impressions are difficult to separate between any times when ROs have chosen to not take action (if such exist) and times when ROs have just not been present or not been in a position to see the issue.
There have been a few times where I've felt that an RO should have provided a gentle reminder to users to not stray into discussing the user rather than the post. However, those times have been few and generally when there hasn't been an RO in the room. On the occasions where such discussion has continued, ROs have stepped in and reminded people to focus on the post/content, not the user. However, there have been times when I've felt a reminder to not discuss the user would be desirable, so that the frequency of such comments is reduced.
Prior to choosing to nominate myself, I did look at some times in the past where there have been situations which have blown up into larger meta issues. While my view of those is certainly imperfect, at a minimum due to some messages being deleted and me not being in-the-moment (hindsight is much easier), I have felt that within those times there were instances where ROs have not been sufficiently proactive. I'm hesitant to be specific because I don't want to dredge up old, closed issues where, from what I've seen, appropriate lessons have already been learned from the ensuing discussion.
I don't recall strongly disagreeing with any guidelines.
A significant part of my agreement with the ROs/guidelines is that who I am strongly aligns with the existing policies, which are largely an extension of Be Nice combined with what's necessary to maintain that, and to both in reality be, and to engender a perception in the SO community, that what's done by the people in the room does not go beyond what's acceptable (e.g. that the group does not step over the line from being a collection of individuals into being a mob).