CALL FOR MODERATORS

[Lem]

I don’t think I said I need to consult with an LDS person.

You said "I’d love to have an LDS member I could consult on issues," so I'm confused, is it the "love" vs. "need" I got wrong? Or the "consult with" vs. "consult on"?

But I think having an LDS person on the team would help me be a better clone of Shades.

Ok. Interesting. In any case, my objections aren't to the LDS status of Sledge.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t think I said I need to consult with an LDS person.

You said "I’d love to have an LDS member I could consult on issues," so I'm confused, is it the "love" vs. "need" I got wrong? Or the "consult with" vs. "consult on"?

But I think having an LDS person on the team would help me be a better clone of Shades.

Ok. Interesting. In any case, my objections aren't to the LDS status of Sledge.

“Love” v. “Need”

[IHAQ]

If Shades were to appoint Sledge or MG 2.0 as moderators my participation here would cease. Immediately. Permanently.

Personally, I think Shades should appoint whomever he thinks would be suitable and who he thinks he could work with (Sledge and MG 2.0 being obvious vetoes) and not tell us who it is.

[Res Ipsa]

If Shades were to appoint Sledge or MG 2.0 as moderators my participation here would cease. Immediately. Permanently.

Personally, I think Shades should appoint whomever he thinks would be suitable and who he thinks he could work with (Sledge and MG 2.0 being obvious vetoes) and not tell us who it is.

Why in the world would you do that?

[Sledge]

As I’ve said, I’ve moderated a lot in the past and have enjoyed the problem solving aspect of it that sometimes emerges. Also being a moderator helps me feel like I’m contributing something to the community.

Let me start over.

A white person who creates a site called "Black people information", or more accurately--since "Mormon" is not the preferred name--"Information about the Negro" has created a racist site and probably is a racist. That is not in dispute. I don't need to be a particular color or race to understand that. (If you don't understand this very fundamental thing, then you aren't equipped to have this discussion.)

Suppose also that this same white person hosts another site--a message board--called "discussion about the negro race," which is primarily directed at discussions how much "negroes" are wrong, believe stupid things, hate and disrespect white people, and much more. The person who has created and hosts these two sites is quite probably a bigot. That is not in dispute. I don't need to be a particular color or race to understand that. (If you don't understand this very fundamental thing, then you aren't equipped to have this discussion.)

That's the analogy. Here's the reality:

You, a non member of the Church of Jesus Christ, created and have maintained a site called "Mormon Information." You are not a member, and Mormon is not the preferred name. This makes your site a bigoted site and you, quite probably, a bigot. Enhanced by the fact that you have run and paid for a message board where other bigots and haters post primarily about Dr. Peterson, but also post about how much they hate the Church of Jesus Christ. So, two bigot sites created and maintained by a single person who is not affiliated with the church means that there is high probability that you are a bigot.

Capisce?

http://disq.us/p/2aalwrf

Given how you've described this community, its name, its members and its caretaker last summer, why do you now want to contribute?

I told you my DMs are open if you'd like to discuss something that didn't happen here. I don't think it's relevant to what does happen here. A moderator is a dispassionate clone of Shades, so my opinions then and my opinions now don't matter. Only the rules matter.

To clarify once again, in the above, I was trolling. I own that.

But you clearly have a problem with me, and it's only because I asked you to back up a plagiarism claim (a very serious claim) and you could not.

[Sledge]

If Shades were to appoint Sledge or MG 2.0 as moderators my participation here would cease. Immediately. Permanently.

Personally, I think Shades should appoint whomever he thinks would be suitable and who he thinks he could work with (Sledge and MG 2.0 being obvious vetoes) and not tell us who it is.

It's always good practice to leave the playground when someone who is different from you tries to play.

[Gadianton]

Why do you want a moderator position so bad?

Being passionate about something isn't entirely and singularly a conflict of interest. Sledge is asking for a 90 day trial. For me, 90 days as a mod would be a marathon. Xen is a great guy, but not around a whole lot. Res is gold but can overextend himself helping. Sledge can be a wet blanket, but he's been a mod elsewhere for a long time and he already knows he likes it. Odds are good he won't burn out, he is around Terrestrial a lot, and he's an ardent socialist who loves community even when community doesn't love him and can submit to the state authority (Shades).

If Shades were to appoint Sledge or MG 2.0 as moderators my participation here would cease. Immediately. Permanently.

There's no comparison between Sledge and MG. Sledge just apologized several times for moderate trolling words that in context weren't that big of a deal. On another thread, MG just doubled down on some of the most cruel words I've seen on this forum, when context is taken into account. I could go on but won't to keep this short.

I'm a little surprised people just can't give an inch or give a person a break, especially when that person is trying to be friends and willing to take the criticism. Be that as it may, Shades does as Shades does, but I would think he has to seriously consider the comfort level of the participants of what's a pretty small crowd, and if people really can't get past their concerns then maybe now isn't the time.

At least A-Mike can shut up about the forum being a bunch of progressives.

[ceeboo]

Sledge just apologized several times for moderate trolling words that in context weren't that big of a deal.

Yes, he sure did and that, alone, is admirable.

I'm a little surprised people just can't give an inch or give a person a break, especially when that person is trying to be friends and willing to take the criticism.

Yep!

Be that as it may, Shades does as Shades does, but I would think he has to seriously consider the comfort level of the participants of what's a pretty small crowd, and if people really can't get past their concerns then maybe now isn't the time.

Yep again.

At least A-Mike can shut up about the forum being a bunch of progressives.

Not sure why you needed to add this part to your post? What does A-Mike have to do with any of your comments about MG/Sledge and moderators? You made some really strong points - This didn't help, in my opinion. If anything it distracted from your points.

[Lem]

Given how you've described this community, its name, its members and its caretaker last summer, why do you now want to contribute?

I told you my DMs are open if you'd like to discuss something that didn't happen here. I don't think it's relevant to what does happen here. A moderator is a dispassionate clone of Shades, so my opinions then and my opinions now don't matter. Only the rules matter.

To clarify once again, in the above, I was trolling. I own that.

But you clearly have a problem with me, and it's only because I asked you to back up a plagiarism claim (a very serious claim) and you could not.

Lol. Was that you? In case you hadn't noticed, someone started re-creating the plagiarism thread in the archives. I think the first case presented is there. But now that you've reminded us that it was you making the bogus non-plagiarism argument, it brings up another issue.

It's quite obvious from the things you said to Shades about this board that you've read here quite carefully for years. There is no way you didn't know about Peterson's problem with plagiarism, it was a huge thread, and Shades even added it to the list of epic threads he kept pinned to the top of the forum.

But, multiple times you have pestered me, insisting you needed 'proof' and that it didn't happen, even though it's clear now you absolutely do know about Peterson's plagiarism. in my opinion, constantly picking at the OP of a plagiarism thread that you clearly knew about, and accusing her of a lack of 'proof,' in spite of multiple comments from others also attesting to the plagiarism, doesn't inspire confidence. It just sounds like a little more 'fun and harmless' trolling, right? Just what one wants in a mod.

[Moksha]

What does A-Mike have to do with any of your comments about MG/Sledge and moderators?

Envelope-to-forehead: It might have something to do with why the issue of moderation has arisen.