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, The example that stands out most to me begins here (this associated
cv-pls
). In that instance, several of our room members participated in a discussion on a question and answer which could result in the impression by both the person on the other side, and others in the community, that the room members were ganging up on that individual. While we have a policy in place that there should be one point person involved in such discussions, the policy is, inherently, difficult to enforce due to involving actions outside the room, which must be seen, and recognized, by someone (which generally means someone that visits the post later in the process in order to be able to see what the actions were). While I can understand that there is often a desire to chip in with a comment, we should try to raise the bar which people use to gauge if a comment should be made when there is already someone interacting with the post (i.e. leaving comments, including those which are close reasons). This bar should be increasingly higher as more people interact with the post.To remedy this, I think we should be reminding people more often when it does happen that we should be trying to let the person already involved on a question or answer be the one primarily interacting with a post. I don't think that it's possible for us to enforce that there should never be more than one person commenting on a post (at a minimum, there are CV actions which force comments to be made), but the number of people should be limited and the benefit to the OP should be of a higher concern.
I don't think that this type of situation is one where people are intending it to be, or for it to be perceived to be, a group against an individual. However, I do believe it's something we should be more proactive about curtailing in order to help our room members keep it as something they think about when participating in interaction on a post.