Rossc for Moderator position

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah you can't take things seriously what you read at I2. What I say there is satire or not being serious or joking around and I am sometimes serious.

It's not uncommon for people to take things seriously there what they read. I used to take things seriously there but not anymore. Heck I say things to my buddies there I wouldn't normally say to them on IM or elsewhere because I don't expect them to take what I say seriously.

Hmm, though I don't want power seeking mods either, I have to wonder at the wisdom of automatically rejecting volunteers. I think it's been suggested before, but a more transparent selection process probably isn't a bad idea.

Indeed and I have always been straight up with Alex and with my feelings on things here. I have not tried to win the hearts and minds of people in my postings and at times a little brutal but I believe I have been fair and accurate in every post.

The question of trust is something that needs to be considered in context. It demands knowledge that he really is not privy to. Anyone here could be anything and so in finding something concrete to attach meaning to the abstract concept of trust you have only teh observed behaviours and the knowledge of others. Here we have people I know very well with experience of me speaking in unison on what I am like from a perspective of experience and in light of things that Alex could not possibly know. This is the context that will help define whether I am "trustworthy".

Naturally I am humbled by the sentiments.




You may be a decent person and a decent mod.
You seem to be making some strange associations here and I will try to address this "asking"issue. See if you follow the logic and then apply it back to what you have just posted and see how it then holds up.

From the moment we are born, we ask (in crying) to have our needs met.
We gain knowledge and experience through asking. We gain experience in things through the promotion of ourselves.
This is what this is. Seeking a new opportunity for which I believe I am well suited. I don't expect Alex to be a mind reader and I don't think it is fair that he could have an insight to my knowledge or experience or what I could bring to the table YET it is a bad thing to show him?
It is underhanded and speaks of being power craving?
Do people get jobs handed to them in real life without putting it out there? When you are at work do you wait for your employer to notice you have been there two years without a break before they say "Hey you know what how about we give you a holiday now?" Do you apply?
Do bank Managers come to your home and say "You know what I have decided that you are probably earning enough to warrant a home loan. How about we sign you up?
This seems to be what I am hearing.

Of course the alternative is worth considering just so as to be fair.
Alex may be better selecting people blind. Making a leap of faith and modding someone of gut instinct. Hundreds of members here and he is not really going to know anyone or what they can deliver so pick someone at random and hope they don't embarrass the forum as some mods have done through their antics.
No one volunteering? Why not pick a random who has not put up their hand and showed an interest, right? I mean they have not shown they want the position so that makes them credible and chance of apathy or half-hearted commitment...what? Not factored?
But on the upside you won't have to "risk" someone who is interested on account of fear of them being not right.
I just can't understand that fear and apathy are good trade offs in this mindset nor a great way to flavor the merits of moderator or appointment of moderator decisions.

So revisit what I have said there mate and see what you think because it makes completely no sense at all as far as I can see and no doubt you were trying for rational. I may have missed something important in the translation



These people are members here as you can obviously see from the post counts of the ones posting here.
Are they members of I2? Yep most of them. Are they members of other sites? Yup most of them. Does this suggest "rigging" No it doesn't rigging would be proxy accounts and multiple account holders voting which I don't believe this has occurred. Why try for the smear here?
Why are they posting here and why did I make a thread on I2 about it? Simply put I have been a member here since 2007 (Yup look at the profile). I have been a member of I2 about the same time and the people at I2 know and like me.
Why? Because I am awesome.
They say nice things about me because there are nice things to be said about me and they know me n ways that Alex can not and so they are in a position to put forward constructive endorsements. Any WP member ever given any other endorsement about their ability as a potential mod? No? Want me to find many posts to prove otherwise?
So Zara, back at you, why the suggestion of something underhanded?

I was merely pointing out an observation of mine. I do not know the people at I2 and would not be able to ascertain if they are joking or serious. Aspies are much like that, no?
As League Girl says, they are not to be taken seriously anyway and I will assume they are joking. I have nothing personal towards I2 or yourself and was just merely pointing out an observation in relation to the topic at hand. It was not something I went looking for yesterday, just a topic I noticed there.

No it was not an observation, it was a valued judgment.
I am not asking how did you know there was an I2 thread on my potential modship. I am asking why you are making a smear against me and this campaign. Two totally different things. One does not lead to the other. So again, why the smear and suggestion of poll rigging and there being a flaw in this?

Pretty much, members who nominate themselves would not be nominated at all, as I understand it, and I'm not sure if regular members can nominate others though, which it seems only the administrative staff can do that, but for the sake of making a discussion perhaps it isn't that bad doing it, even though it would not seem to be influential to the actual thing.

Regular members can recommend members here. I heard SBI had been recommended here three times to be mod and he recommended tallyman and he was chosen. I heard lotusblossum was recommended too. I don't know if she got the offer and if she took it or not.

I don't know if nominations are the sane as recommendations. It doesn't work here like how presidents are chosen.

Where do you stand in regard to Creation Science versus the religion of Evolutionism? Homosexuality? Abortion? Do you think a good method of argumentation is to lock threads when another member ticks you off? Do you feel like throwing the banhammer around whenever in a bad mood or otherwise just want to toy with the emotions of those under your power?

Loaded question. (ie Where do you stand in regard to the delusional belief that a magic anthromorphised fairy tale creature exists?)

What that question has to do with moderation?

Last edited by greenblue on 15 Sep 2010, 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

....I'm going to regret this, since this question is quite clearly a trap, but sod it, I'm in the mood for some debate;

Creation Science is an oxymoron - there is little or no science involved. Evolution is not a religion; it is a measurable and reproducible process.

Go get some maggots. Pour something poisonous on them - Caffeine is good for this example.

Those that survive have the gene to resist that poison; if they survive to pass on those genes, the next generation will also have an increased resistance, and if you use the same poison again and breed those that survive, eventually, after many generations, you end up with a subset of maggot that is all but immune to that substance.

The Labrador, the Border Collie, these breeds of dogs did not evolve naturally - in fact, neither type is more than a few hundred years old at most. Dogs are a funny example though, as they remain genetically compatible no matter the breed, size and shape. A better example would be the Jersey Cow, or the Rex Rat.


As for the other points, I'm sure Ross can answer for himself but I'll field the questions as an independant;

Locking threads as a response to criticism is unacceptable - I have not known Ross to do such things when he has had moderatorship on other sites.

Nor have I known him to wield the Banhammer lightly; he'd rather discuss the point and convince the other side to see either the opposing view, or that what they are doing is unacceptable.

Sidenote; This forum doesn't support strike tags? Ye gods.

I would suspect that the trap there is to see how well he'd handle a diametrically opposed viewpoint; whichever side he supported, iamnot would take the other and see how Ross handled confrontation.

At least, that's what I'd do - it's a good way to get the measure of someone, especially if they claim they can be fair and impartial.

I doubt he is going to throw banhammers on anyone who doesn't agree with him or who argues his point or opinions. He does the same himself and doesn't let it go until it's been discussed and all his questions have been answered. He ain't going to ban someone for running away from the situation. Same as throwing out warnings for those reasons.

I am not. It sounds that you are assuming quite a lot here and are trying to interpret that I have some issue with you.
Take a look again at your own thread, many comments in the first few pages could be grossly misinterpreted as a way of having you get in here for the amusement of those who have some issue with WP. I certainly hope there is no rigging of this vote for such a case but again, I do not know these people and how serious they are about anything. Now I know you have no control over other people say and I'm not trying to hold you responsible for it but it was something of to concern to me.
If you have a problem with me pointing that out then I'm sorry, but your campaign is not as perfect as it is claimed to be. You may make a good mod, but I still stand by my decision.

Good Questions
Creation Science versus the religion of Evolutionism?

I don't believe that Evolution is a religion and I believe that Creationalism is the basis for many religious beliefs. I am Agnostic. I think people draw strength from their values and morality. Belief structures are paramount in how people view the world and helps define their values in way good and bad. I have no issue with either concept and think that neither one in itself has more merit than the other.

Homosexuality?

I am heterosexual and do not know what it is to feel sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. I know what it is to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. I suspect it is similar. People have their own preferences and they need not be mine. World would be a boring place if we were all clones. In short it is a non-issue to me.

Abortion?

As a replacement to responsible sex practice or as a quick fix solution to pregnancy, I don't agree with it. It ought not be something taken lightly. That is not to say I don't think that there ought to be a case for abortion.

Locking threads?

Meh. I really don't see that this is particularly helpful. I think as an absolute last resort. They are only words and I think diffusion and combating the threads in question with better opinions and better words a more positive approach. Threads are for discussion people don't have to join in and CAN ignore discussion to view or to participate.

Banhammer?

Banning someone because they "tick you off" is a great way of displaying the site to your own butthurt and inability to rationally outgun the opposition. I don't get that bent out of shape by people. If I was to ban someone there would be a hell of a lot better reasons.
As for toying with people under my power, it is a funny thing being a mod. It is the illusion of power. The reality is that every action and every consequence and every opinion of yours is questioned and hardly a position of power. I would rather mock someone's idiocy than make a martyr out of their idiocy. I find that approach lending them credibility they probably don't deserve

Who bloody knows but I will give it a crack.
Firstly the tales do come from somewhere. Different reasons. I believe the fairy type creatures of European literature and folk lore were a device to keep children closer to home and not to stray lest they risk all kinds of horrid things happening to them. I believe that werewolves were derived from old account of savages raiding parties like the Berserkers who used to run into battle naked but for animal skins and in a frenzied state of induced psychosis and render their enemies with tooth and claw and fist. They were all but impervious to pain and would sustain much damage before getting taken down. Vampires? I believe that some plagues and illness would cause a catatonic state mistaken for death and people often were burying alive. Upon coming too they would in their madness and approach death go mental and this would be heard by concerned locals. On investigating they would find the recently dead or maybe worse still kicking villager (who by accounts had dies) with blood on their hands and from their mouth, where they had bitten themselves and ripped their nails trying to get out. Naturally to add insult a few prayer and a stake was driven through them and the village safe again. Elves they were an actual people. They were a white skinned people in Scandinavia. They were a gentle people who were no match for the encrouching warrior tribes moving into the area. The concept of these folk was distorted and romantised through the ages until now we have Legolas taking on all comers with bow and arrow on tv.

Hope that helps

I really don't think so Zara. I think I am simply taking a lead from what you say and it is in fact you who is assuming things.
As to a perfect campaign? See there you go again. At what point did I or others refer to my campaign as perfect. This ought to be an easy one for you to explain. You again put it out there and without assuming I call you to give account for what you said.