Again, I restate, fairness on Rob's part isn't the issue. Furthermore, Rob certainly hasn't abused the responsibility of being a moderator for the list. I also don't have an issue with him moderating the list on his own time; it's not like he's getting paid for being a moderator to the list. And again, I don't think Rob has any ulterior motives, and we are fortunate in that arrangement. But you should know being trained in law (not to mention the countless ethics discussions I have had to participate in (and which unlike most of my other colleagues I really enjoy)), an appearance of impropriety does make a difference. That appearance can get you into lots of trouble if not handled correctly, even if you bend over backwards to avoid problems you anticipate; and sometimes, whatever you do doesn't matter. That appearance could be perceived by outside organizations or people as an acceptance that NAQT is the dominant force in QB. Again, if this were College Bowl doing this, we'd have a big problem, and I'm sure we'd all raise a fuss, regardless of how benevolent whoever the moderator would wind up being in that scenario. It would upset some people I know who want to remain neutral to CBI or NAQT seeing that they would receive listserv messages from an NAQT server, just as much as I would assume deaffiliated-from-CBI programs would have a problem having to use "qb_at_...". Some people would consider it an implicit endorsement of their product. NAQT could also potentially tout that it "hosts" these mailing lists in written literature: "to get more information about our competitions and others run around the country, NAQT has established qb_at_... [and others] as a way to facilitate these interactions. Join by subscribing to our mailing list." NAQT would have a valid claim to these hypothetical statements listed above, because through Rob, NAQT has established these mailing lists, and the purpose for those lists is valid (to promulgate information about competitions around the country whether in college or high school). The question then is... does this appear to be a conflict of interest?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST