CALL FOR MODERATORS

[Res Ipsa]

To be clear, my comments about bias, which were made in a different context, have nothing to do with whether Sledge can be a clone of Shades.

Okay. So, not applicable to Sledge as a moderator?

I took your comment to be a general concept about moderating, based on this:

Because being a clone of Shades requires a moderator to do his/her best to recognize her/his personal bias and to set it aside when acting as a moderator...

My apologies, and i will not refer to your comment in my discussions with Sledge then, but I still think your comment about bias should be applicable to all under consideration.

Lem, this is a longstanding point of disagreement between us. If I think you've misapplied my words, I'm going to clarify.

Obviously, my clarification wasn't clear, so I'll take another crack at it. If I recall correctly, the words you quoted were in response to a specific question you asked about why I, as a moderator, would want an LDS person on the team to consult. I answered your question, which was clearly based on how I think about moderating. Obviously, Shades is the authority figure that sets the expectations for moderators. In this case, the expectation is "clone of Shades." My opinion as to what I think I have to do to become a clone of Shades is not intended to be any kind of authoritative statement about moderator qualification. Each moderator gets to figure out for herself how to think about becoming a clone of Shades.

Even if you and Sledge accepted my view as authoritative or even reasonable, it applies only to conduct as a moderator. Having bias that a person demonstrates as a poster is not relevant to whether the person can recognize that bias and set it aside when acting as a moderator. That's what I meant by my comments having nothing to do with whether Sledge can (i.e., has the ability to) be a clone of Shades.

[canpakes]

So, I guess that means that Sledge is our guy! …

[Lem]

Okay. So, not applicable to Sledge as a moderator?

I took your comment to be a general concept about moderating, based on this:

My apologies, and i will not refer to your comment in my discussions with Sledge then, but I still think your comment about bias should be applicable to all under consideration.

Lem, this is a longstanding point of disagreement between us. If I think you've misapplied my words, I'm going to clarify.

I do my best. but yes, I disagree that you are as clear as you seem to think you are. It regularly seems to result in you feeling the need to lecture various people. A need I don't agree with.

Obviously, my clarification wasn't clear, so I'll take another crack at it. If I recall correctly, the words you quoted were in response to a specific question you asked about why I, as a moderator, would want an LDS person on the team to consult.

The LDS person under discussion being sledge, yes.

I answered your question, which was clearly based on how I think about moderating. Obviously, Shades is the authority figure that sets the expectations for moderators. In this case, the expectation is "clone of Shades." My opinion as to what I think I have to do to become a clone of Shades is not intended to be any kind of authoritative statement about moderator qualification. Each moderator gets to figure out for herself how to think about becoming a clone of Shades.

Then say that its your own opinion. You stated this:

Because being a clone of Shades requires a moderator to do his/her best to recognize her/his personal bias and to set it aside when acting as a moderator...

When you say things like the above, yes, it sounds like you are being authoritative, especially since you were recently a moderator here.

Even if you and Sledge accepted my view as authoritative or even reasonable, it applies only to conduct as a moderator. Having bias that a person demonstrates as a poster is not relevant to whether the person can recognize that bias and set it aside when acting as a moderator. That's what I meant by my comments having nothing to do with whether Sledge can (i.e., has the ability to) be a clone of Shades.

But you used the term personal bias, directly within the context of commenting on how to moderate for Shades. You specifically said this:

Because being a clone of Shades requires a moderator to do his/her best to recognize her/his personal bias and to set it aside when acting as a moderator...

and yes, I am asking whether Sledge can set aside that bias, so I got the point you are ridiculously belaboring. Next time, please pay more attention to what I write before you jump to your conclusions.

But yes, I get it. You speak, I interpret that the best I can in the context of a discussion, you don't like it so you blame me for misunderstanding.

Yes, it's longstanding. Please try to be clearer at the outset when you communicate. I'm sure it will go far to resolve this issue. In the meantime, I will refrain from quoting or referring in any way to any comment you make in order to avoid miscommunication. In return, I would politely ask you to please dial back your condescension. Other people are also educated and communicate for a living, but you seem to have this idea that only you do it correctly. It's tiresome to keep trying to be civil when you break out this side of you.

[Dr Moore]

While people can and do change, based on last year's pattern of obnoxious and generally immature behavior on the prior board, I am highly skeptical that the user Sledge can be trusted with any kind of moderator-level control on this board. Just my two cents. His aggressive campaigning for selection only bolsters my suspicion.

[Dr Moore]

I understand, but I really don't think moderators have access to personal information, other than IP address, which don't tell you anything.

I've been posting online over 2 decades. I have seen people, even here, play fast and loose with people's in real life on the board, in the chat, via messages, and via email. I've seen people get pissed off and divulge, sometimes in collaboration with another pissed off poster. I've seen people drunk doxxed here. I've seen in real life jump around the boards on to blogs and back again. I've seen persons wrongly identified and wrongly accused, thereby putting an additional innocent party's in real life in harm's way--family, friends, employment. I've had posters here share in real life about their adversaries behind the scenes with me when I never once showed an interest in it. IP addresses are but one source of confirmation that can lead to pursuit of additional in real life.

I don't like it. I don't do it. I don't like it when others do it because they use it to damage people.

Again, and speaking only for myself, I need more time to know you.

How easy it would be for Sledge to share IP addresses with interested parties, which has actually been done on other boards to in order for Mopologists to identify places of employment and ultimately a near bullseye identification of people who are now active at this very board today. Again, I don't trust Sledge and personally I would be taking more extreme opsec measures to participate here if he is assigned moderator privileges.

[ceeboo]

Lem, this is a longstanding point of disagreement between us. If I think you've misapplied my words, I'm going to clarify.

I do my best. but yes, I disagree that you are as clear as you seem to think you are. It regularly seems to result in you feeling the need to lecture various people. A need I don't agree with.

Obviously, my clarification wasn't clear, so I'll take another crack at it. If I recall correctly, the words you quoted were in response to a specific question you asked about why I, as a moderator, would want an LDS person on the team to consult.

The LDS person under discussion being sledge, yes.

I answered your question, which was clearly based on how I think about moderating. Obviously, Shades is the authority figure that sets the expectations for moderators. In this case, the expectation is "clone of Shades." My opinion as to what I think I have to do to become a clone of Shades is not intended to be any kind of authoritative statement about moderator qualification. Each moderator gets to figure out for herself how to think about becoming a clone of Shades.

Then say that its your own opinion. You stated this:

Because being a clone of Shades requires a moderator to do his/her best to recognize her/his personal bias and to set it aside when acting as a moderator...

When you say things like the above, yes, it sounds like you are being authoritative, especially since you were recently a moderator here.

Even if you and Sledge accepted my view as authoritative or even reasonable, it applies only to conduct as a moderator. Having bias that a person demonstrates as a poster is not relevant to whether the person can recognize that bias and set it aside when acting as a moderator. That's what I meant by my comments having nothing to do with whether Sledge can (i.e., has the ability to) be a clone of Shades.

But you used the term personal bias, directly within the context of commenting on how to moderate for Shades. You specifically said this:

Because being a clone of Shades requires a moderator to do his/her best to recognize her/his personal bias and to set it aside when acting as a moderator...

and yes, I am asking whether Sledge can set aside that bias, so I got the point you are ridiculously belaboring. Next time, please pay more attention to what I write before you jump to your conclusions.

But yes, I get it. You speak, I interpret that the best I can in the context of a discussion, you don't like it so you blame me for misunderstanding.

Yes, it's longstanding. Please try to be clearer at the outset when you communicate. I'm sure it will go far to resolve this issue. In the meantime, I will refrain from quoting or referring in any way to any comment you make in order to avoid miscommunication. In return, I would politely ask you to please dial back your condescension. Other people are also educated and communicate for a living, but you seem to have this idea that only you do it correctly. It's tiresome to keep trying to be civil when you break out this side of you.

Lem

Was that a "tribute" to Res post?

[Shulem]

While people can and do change, based on last year's pattern of obnoxious and generally immature behavior on the prior board, I am highly skeptical that the user Sledge can be trusted with any kind of moderator-level control on this board. Just my two cents. His aggressive campaigning for selection only bolsters my suspicion.

Something to that effect crossed my mind too, namely internal board sabotage.

A crazy man with a nail on the end of a stick can poke a lot of tires in one night.

[Lem]

While people can and do change, based on last year's pattern of obnoxious and generally immature behavior on the prior board, I am highly skeptical that the user Sledge can be trusted with any kind of moderator-level control on this board. Just my two cents. His aggressive campaigning for selection only bolsters my suspicion.

the aggressive campaigning bothers me too. I agree with your assessment.

[Sledge]

How easy it would be for Sledge to share IP addresses with interested parties, which has actually been done on other boards to in order for Mopologists to identify places of employment and ultimately a near bullseye identification of people who are now active at this very board today. Again, I don't trust Sledge and personally I would be taking more extreme opsec measures to participate here if he is assigned moderator privileges.

You cannot discover personal information from an IP address. You can discover the originating ISP and sometimes the general geographic area, but that's it.

Here's my current IP:

73.23.140.87

Go to town.

the aggressive campaigning bothers me too. I agree with your assessment.

There's a surprise.

[Shulem]

Here's my current IP:

73.23.140.87

Go to town.

That does it. Poor security practice and bad form.

You should not be a moderator at this time. You can't be trusted.

Shades!