CALL FOR MODERATORS

[Sledge]

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, you've followed me around and multiple times insisted 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, following around the opening post 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.

This is all unfounded conjecture. If you must judge me, judge me by my output here, in this board. Yes, I held you to the fire a bit because plagiarism is a very serious charge, and I am an online friend of DCP. I have not "followed" you anywhere.

Let's meet for lunch and hash this all out.

[ceeboo]

Hey 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.

Perhaps - But I thought I saw many posts suggesting that calls for moderation has been going on for many months now. That is to say, long before that particular member made their entrance here.

But - I did enjoy the Johnny Carson reference. Thanks!

[Shulem]

That sounds perfect. I'd like to nominate Shulem as moderator.

You'd like to do what?

"nominate Shulem as moderator"

Can't U read?

Jesus.

[Lem]

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, you've followed me around and multiple times insisted 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, following around the opening post 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.

This is all unfounded conjecture. If you must judge me, judge me by my output here, in this board. Yes, I held you to the fire a bit because plagiarism is a very serious charge, and I am an online friend of DCP. I have not "followed" you anywhere.

Let's meet for lunch and hash this all out.

Oh let's not, I don't need a private discussion. And yes, I edited my post just before you posted this, because I was pretty sure you would pick up on the word 'following' in order to bypass the larger issue. Which you did.

And I am judging you by your output here. You didn't hold anyone to the fire. You know the plagiarism charge was well established and proved. Ask Shades if you can't admit you already know it, he spent a tremendous amount of time splitting out derailments from others who were also friends with Peterson. If your friendship with Peterson prevents you from dealing with facts, that's another negative.

But, I also consider your standing comments on SeN to be relevant, because in them you specifically commented on and stereotyped this board, Shades, and participants here.

In the end Shades is making the decision, obviously, I'm just expressing my opinion. Of course I will respect whatever decision Shades makes.

[Shulem]

We voted on whether to have mods - should we be allowed to vote on which to have?

No. Shades is a complete control freak. He believes he's god's gift to the world. Moderators are to be his personal clones, his toys, his play things to gratify his feelings of being supreme. You want to be a moderator here? You're nuts!

Being a moderator here at Discuss Mormonism is to be an abused play-toy to amuse and gratify Shade's ambitions. You cannot think outside the box. You cannot think period outside of what Shades wants you to think because he is abusive in that way.

Are you an Aires, Shades? Just wondering.

I don't get along too well with Aires. I'm a Cancer.

No offence to other Aries but too late now. hee hee

[MG 2.0]

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.

Obvious to some, that is. I’m not volunteering because I come and go when I feel like it. I think Shades, for one thing, is looking for those folks that can be consistent. I wouldn’t be. Truth be told, I would be as even handed and respectful of the right of free speech and expression as anyone here. Probably more so. But that wouldn’t do well by you, I understand.

My experience with free speech here has been dismal. The woke crowd overpowers and almost literally drowns out and suffocates those that have an opposing point of view. Cancel culture is alive and well among the critics. That being so, I still respect the right of critics of the church to say their piece. It’s necessary to the overall conversation.

Nothing would change for you if I was a moderator, IHAQ.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Do moderators even do anything?

I see Shades opening comments:

If you want to be a moderator, it will help if you are a glutton for punishment or are otherwise a masochist. You will be subject to a maelstrom of verbal abuse on a daily basis. Prepare for every decision you make to be fifth, sixth, and seventh guessed and vehemently disagreed with. Plan to get used to the idea that the people you moderate will make it clear to you that everyone else's comment ought to be moderated BUT the one of theirs you just moderated.

It makes me chuckle. What kind of uncontrollable garbage is happening in these other forums? I see nothing in this forum which moderators need to be involved in. Daily? What an ask...and which posters here are appealing to moderators daily? Who is even breaking any rules?

I recall a good 10 years ago or so, I appealed to Shades after a pretty obvious rule violation was happening (I mean one of the main rules) and was continuing to happen. Shades dismissed my concerns and told me to stop complaining, as if I did anything more than report a rules violations. That had to have taken all but a few minutes of his time. I haven't broken a rule, nor offered an appeal, or reported anything since. I figured everyone was doing about the same. That moderators need to deal with so much daily, makes me realize I have no desire whatsoever to add to their workload. I mean if anyone becomes a moderator I might leave just so I don't add to their extreme abuse.

My last post? I doubt it. I guess I doubt the moderators have it that hard. No offense, I appreciate any work done for the kingdom. I can't conceive of many issues.

[MG 2.0]

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.

That’s bullcrap and you know it. The mudslinging goes both ways. I’ve taken more than my fair share of potty mouthed slurs and name calling. Much of it came from the poster that I think you’re referring to. At the time I had no idea what that person’s mental or physical health issues were. I figured he was a big boy and apparently he felt the same way about me. I got crapped on and there were times I crapped on him, I’ve already admitted to that.

Cruel words? Sir, I could go back and write a book containing the crap words thrown my way and moderators and/or the ‘woke’ participants didn’t have much if anything to say about it.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

All I have to say on that.

If I was a moderator, which I don’t want to be, you would have as fair hearing as anyone else. I am highly doubtful the opposite would be true.

So there you go.

Regards,
MG

[ceeboo]

Sir, I could go back and write a book containing the crap words thrown my way and moderators and/or the ‘woke’ participants didn’t have much if anything to say about it.

There is a reason for this.

Generally speaking (there are always exceptions) this has almost nothing to do with what is typed/said - Rather, it has everything to do with who it is that types/says it. This has been a significant problem on this board and I think it has gotten much worse since I returned a few months ago.

[dastardly stem]

Cruel words? Sir, I could go back and write a book containing the crap words thrown my way and moderators and/or the ‘woke’ participants didn’t have much if anything to say about it.


So there you go.

Regards,
MG

Writing a book about words, or even crap words? That sounds awfully intriguing. Mind getting on that, right away? Should be hitting the best seller list about this time next year.