Hi Heather; ====== The scary thing is who might also add their names and the advice they might offerr the new member, if you know what I mean. ====== Again, I'm relatively new, but seeing how well Adland is set-up to begin with, I would THINK that whomever was sifting through the names of potential mentors would be screening pretty thoroghly. Or is that just niave on my part? I'll say my thoughts really plainly. I think there's a huge potential for "mentors" to abuse the position. My greatest fear would be that a "mentor" would start convincing new members to join their downlines, etc. They will justify it by saying that they are taking time to be a mentor, so they have a right to do so. One thing we see a LOT of is that person [a] comes up with something good - and there's always someone who will abuse it. Email is a great example. Email is a good thing.... spammers spoil it for a LOT of good people. Take one that's closer to home. We have something here called "top posters" - and being a top poster gives the members a little "top 25" or "top 100" icon by their name. That's a nice concept. It's supposed to encourage interaction. BUT, a lot of people run forum to forum posting "good post" and "thanks for the info" to make sure they stay on the top posters list. Heaven forbib we should tell those people that they aren't really contributing. We'll quickly discover how verbally abusive they can become. So... yeah. My concern would be whether or not "mentors" will abuse their positions. I think it's not so much a case of choosing them well - but babysitting and supervising them once they start. : ) Linda

Hi Peter, I think those that are already helping as Advisors ought to select who is nominated. I would then suggest that everyone vote on them with Bogdan having the final say. We could do it like the POTW also, everyone nominate, then everyone vote. In any case a voting process would probably minimize getting those that are not well suited to the task. Also, having a good profile for selection purposes would minimize mismatches. It would be good to include in the profiles peoples positions on hot issues such as surf for cash sites, randomizers, MLMs, etc. Also include certifications, skills, etc. Give people good qualifications so they can pick a buddy that matches them.

Linda, ======= Take one that's closer to home. We have something here called "top posters" - and being a top poster gives the members a little "top 25" or "top 100" icon by their name. That's a nice concept. It's supposed to encourage interaction. BUT, a lot of people run forum to forum posting "good post" and "thanks for the info" to make sure they stay on the top posters list. ======= I guess I'm "greener" than I first believed. I thought those "Top Poster" titles were based on comment. Now I understand Peter's and your concern. Peter, I think volunteers should be familiar with all that Adland has to offer. Additionally, there should be some guidelines put in place that would address both your and Linda's concerns.

First off I don't want this to turn into something that it isn't meant to, I feel that this forum isn't the plae for the discussion, I am not attempting to hijack the forum thread and change its meaning. Advisors ought to select who is nominated These people will be volunteers and not nominated. If you have a strong feeling on the subject then perhaps sending Bogdan a message might be in order, but no one here would ever now be assigned a buddy or guide,. Tat does not mean that you could not volunteer as one and help forge AdLands future by providing that good guidance to the new members.

In making the suggestion Peter, I was thinking there would be more volunteers that needed buddy positions. I am speaking of a selection process for who can be a buddy of those that have volunteered.