CALL FOR MODERATORS

[dastardly stem]

If you can't keep up with the mess, you're probably not cut out to moderate.

Son of a bitch! Disqualified again.

[Lem]

I still think Sledge would be a good mod, I highly, highly doubt he's a security risk (did anyone ever post at MDDB? or any apologist site?), but I also believe that the board in general needs to feel comfortable with the mods and so it goes. On that basis it's not a good idea for now.

I don't think a person needs to pass a CCIE exam to be a mod.

I'm sure the board has a way to lock down the IP field as Res asked, I might look into that later, but that's obviously not the real concern here.

Seriously Gadiantion, I normally agree with you wholeheartedly, but you have this one wrong.

Look at it from my viewpoint. We have a new poster, Sledge, who has multiple times accused me of not having evidence to show Peterson's plagiarism, even though multiple people have attested to it, a thread in the archives shows it, and even new examples have been given. Today, we find that this poster, pretending to not know about the Peterson plagiarism thread, is actually a friend of Peterson's, who has been reading this forum for years, based on his own posts. He also has called this board "a festering cesspool," and has directly accused Shades of hosting a board of "anti-Mormon bigots." There is literally NO WAY he has not seen the evidence in the plagiarism thread, and yet he continues to pretend otherwise.

Also, if you recall, Smokey, thinking it was me, doxxed another east coast exmo professor last year, and Peterson jumped on it, sharing the (incorrect) information gleefully. He was thrilled to provide in real life information about the person he thought was responsible for calling attention to his plagiarism so people could attack her. He was wrong, but it didn't stop him.

Also today, I find out that the reason my name here is in dark blue is because, according to you, the names in dark blue are the ones Peterson follows. Now, maybe that was a joke, but to find that out in the same week that a new poster has harassed me multiple times about the Peterson plagiarism thread (but no one else, even though multiple others contributed examples), AND that he wants to be moderator, "only for 90days!" is enough to send me away permanently, regardless of your assurances that our data is safe.

I went through enough nonsense leaving the LDS church in real life and still have difficulties with family, I don't need the experience re-created here because people like Peterson and his LDS cohorts think god is on their side when they attack people, and you guys are (naïvely) sure there is no risk.

[ceeboo]

I went through enough nonsense leaving the LDS church in real life and still have difficulties with family.......

I am sincerely sorry to hear that, Lem.

[Philo Sofee]

Yeah, I don't think Sledge should be moderator... I think someone who has been with the board for several years is much better. We don't know hardly anything about Sledge. No offense Sledge.

[Shulem]

Yeah, I don't think Sledge should be moderator... I think someone who has been with the board for several years is much better. We don't know hardly anything about Sledge. No offense Sledge.

I agree.

Listen to Shulem. He is wise.

[Gadianton]

I'm not an expert on Shades, but since he don't talk much and I like to speculate, my guess is if a single long-term poster has a serious issue with a mod when 3 others are shoe-ins, then why do it? If Shades were to ask me what would I do (he won't) I would say 'no' at this point because of the concerns. Given the near unanimous 'nays' -- pretty sure the chances are zero.

is actually a friend of Peterson's, who has been reading this forum for years, based on his own posts. He also has called this board "a festering cesspool,"

These things pointed out are extremely valid, and Sledge will have to understand they are difficult things for people to get past and possibly they can't be got past. I probably failed also to consider -- as I'm aware of many of his statements -- that I've watched his participation on SeN for a long time, where he's also an outcast and a contrarian, and feel like I have more context. But sure, I could also be naïve.

As for the blue, i didn't think of my comment coming across quite in that way and I apologize. yeah, it was kind of a slam with a ring of truth, but the story: The old board had blogs before that feature broke, being a blogger made your name blue automatically, and people got used to seeing certain names as blue, especially Dr. Scratch, and so I wanted to keep continuity by having Scratch's name blue. Originally it was just Scratch, then I started adding other names of people with certain specialties (stats for you), then waffled on it being elitist or not very useful and haven't touched it since the first few days.

Let me know here or PM, i can remove your name from it, and/or we can delete all the comments regarding it here and the other thread.

If Sledge ends up bowing out gracefully and letting it go at this point, which is probably a good idea, hopefully people can back off, at that point, on the insinuations that he's trying to become a mod to engage in criminal activities with people's privacy.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Philo's wisdom and also Shulem's first sentence of one of his assessments. If people are available who have been around for years and have the general trust of other participants already then those are ideal candidates.

[drumdude]

I'm not an expert on Shades, but since he don't talk much and I like to speculate, my guess is if a single long-term poster has a serious issue with a mod when 3 others are shoe-ins, then why do it? If Shades were to ask me what would I do (he won't) I would say 'no' at this point because of the concerns. Given the near unanimous 'nays' -- pretty sure the chances are zero.

is actually a friend of Peterson's, who has been reading this forum for years, based on his own posts. He also has called this board "a festering cesspool,"

These things pointed out are extremely valid, and Sledge will have to understand they are difficult things for people to get past and possibly they can't be got past. I probably failed also to consider -- as I'm aware of many of his statements -- that I've watched his participation on SeN for a long time, where he's also an outcast and a contrarian, and feel like I have more context. But sure, I could also be naïve.

As for the blue, i didn't think of my comment coming across quite in that way and I apologize. yeah, it was kind of a slam with a ring of truth, but the story: The old board had blogs before that feature broke, being a blogger made your name blue automatically, and people got used to seeing certain names as blue, especially Dr. Scratch, and so I wanted to keep continuity by having Scratch's name blue. Originally it was just Scratch, then I started adding other names of people with certain specialties (stats for you), then waffled on it being elitist or not very useful and haven't touched it since the first few days.

Let me know here or PM, i can remove your name from it, and/or we can delete all the comments regarding it here and the other thread.

If Sledge ends up bowing out gracefully and letting it go at this point, which is probably a good idea, hopefully people can back off, at that point, on the insinuations that he's trying to become a mod to engage in criminal activities with people's privacy.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Philo's wisdom and also Shulem's first sentence of one of his assessments. If people are available who have been around for years and have the general trust of other participants already then those are ideal candidates.

I don’t think Sledge would be doing anything illegal as much as unethical and against the best interests of the board.

We don’t need a self proclaimed friend of Peterson as a mod here. Surely there are plenty of believers who know nothing of Dan who could serve as mods.

[Gadianton]

Well maybe you can back off on accusing him of looking to do something unethical and against the interest of the board. And then every time he responds, reading an admission to guilty motives into it.

Maybe closer to the truth is that IP information can be used maliciously, we don't know him very well, and given his statements and admitted ties to that community, it creates a certain risk that we shouldn't take.

[drumdude]

Maybe closer to the truth is that IP information can be used maliciously, we don't know him very well, and given his statements and admitted ties to that community, it creates a certain risk that we shouldn't take.

Yes.

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe closer to the truth is that IP information can be used maliciously, we don't know him very well, and given his statements and admitted ties to that community, it creates a certain risk that we shouldn't take.

Yes.

Sounds reasonable.