New Moderators

Just wait for the next thread on NCU and/or psych degrees! Simon's toast!

 

Part 1 of 2

So do I. And Jack, too. I am confident that, among the three of us, I was Chip's and Bruce's last choice... and I say that not as a shot-from-the-hip, smarmy remark; but more as an expression of my humility and sense of honor at being asked.

During another troll attack on DI here some time ago I first asked Chip if he would make me a moderator so I could help Bruce when he was working a long shift -- or sleeping so that he could -- and some troll, at the time, was having his/her way with us. Chip didn't make me one at that time, obviously... but that's when I first learned that, even before I asked to be one, he had considered it. But in the months since, he did not make me one... which, considering the offers I made to help with the server and other technical problems that have plagued this place since then, and how effective I would have been at alleviating said problems if he had gone ahead and let me do so, and how much downtime he was willing to allow instead of just letting me help, I took that as a cogent commentary on what he thought of me -- or at least what he thought of how helpful I could be -- and I just assumed that said help around here was not welcome.

If so, there's no question in my mind that my willingness to be highly opinionated, and to pull no punches in my posts, was among the top reasons. My political differences with Bruce, I'm guessing, also played a role in whatever hesitation -- if any -- he may have had... even if he was not aware of it in himself.

All these things considered, it is a testament to Chip's and Bruce's ability to see things as they are, and not as they may sometimes seem, that they ultimately recognized in me an ability to... well... perhaps as decimon put it, "wear two hats," and do justice to the responsibility of being a moderator in a place like this. I am honored by that... and humbled.

George and I knew of one another's being asked at the same time because Chip addressed the same email to both of us. But the third person -- Jack -- was unknown to us until we learned about it like everyone else, here. And I'm ecstatic about that because Jack was one of two or three others here that I was hoping would be the third. But, based on your words, here, perhaps it will come as a surprise to you, Bill, that you were on that list, too. That being the case, imagine my surprise at your comments...

What a curious concern... especially from someone who received a PM from me not long ago thanking you for being you... and telling you how much I appreciate your postings, even when I don't agree with them. All of this was a few weeks ago after, and in response to, your having posted something which I won't here characterize, in a thread which I won't here identify, and with which I took great issue. But, clearly, you had second thoughts -- as good people of conscionce such as yourself are wont to do -- and you removed the posting even as I was drafting a reponse thereto. When I finally clicked on the "Submit Reply" button and posted my response, I realized that you had deleted the very post to which I was responding; so, not wanting to force your words into that thread if you, yourself, did not want them there, I quickly deleted my response, as well... and hoped that no one had seen either of them. Your sense of decorum, appropriateness, fair play, good faith, and even kindness, guided you to your deletion. My deletion was so motivated... and my PM to you of recognition of your frustration which caused you to make your post in the first place, and my appreciation for the goodness in you which caused you to re-think and then remove it -- and which made me like you even more, by the way -- was conveyed from me to you in that PM.

Further, as I recall, my exchanges with you have always been reasonable -- even if sometimes contentious -- and fair-minded on both our parts. What a strange reaction, therefore, yours, here, now seems to me; and what a telling projection you now reveal in your assumptions presented here about my inability to be sufficiently fair-minded to do this job for which I've been, to my surprise, selected... to the point that you're thinking maybe you'd like to leave. Such would be a loss to us all.

Again, you seem to project what you might do if you had what are my obvious feelings about Lerner, and you were in my shoes now. I am surprised by your lack of faith in your own ability to be objective were you in this place... but I respect your candor, in any event.

I have stated, in clear and unambiguous terms, what I think Lerner's up to in this place. I believe I am right, and I stand by every syllable I've ever written about it. I tell you that I have also asked Bruce to kick him outta' here a few times. But Bruce, in his wisdom, has not done so. As time has passed, I have come to believe that maybe... just maybe... he was right to not pull that trigger quite so fast as I might have. And I have learned from this.

I am, nevertheless, still troubled by Lerner. I don't trust him. I think he's one person here, and quite another person elsewhere; that he knows just how far to go to keep from being thrown outta' here, and dances with far too much delight on that line; and that he's playing us like a fine instrument.

But I also think there's something decent in him... down in there somewhere; that there's maybe more to his story than I may realize or understand; and I have heard, through a rather circuitous grapevine, that all, where Lerner is concerned, may not be as it seems, and that I, for one, should maybe be more patient. So I am now thankful that Bruce didn't listen to me about Lerner. I'm not saying that I don't think he should maybe still not be thrown outta' here, but I cannot, in fairness, ever be the one to do that... at least not as long as his posts get no worse than they have been recently.

Bruce has obviously determined that Lerner should not be banned. I need to -- and will -- respect and honor that. If Lerner crosses obvious lines, I may take action if I think it's appropriate; but I recognize my bias where he's concerned, and even though I know that I, having learned from Bruce, could now be unbiased about Lerner when it comes to a banning decision, I'm as concerned about the appearance of impropriety as I am about its actuality. So, therefore, I must, in good conscience, recuse myself from sitting in judgement of him here... at least under the color of authority. Fortunately, there will now be other moderators in sufficient numbers that I can ask them to review the situation and then decide. That's only fair. And that's how I'll play it.

And since I've dared to opine so about Lerner, here, I must add that I continue to have hope against hope that he will begin to realize the effect that some of his posts have around here; how potentially misleading to newbies they can be; and how much more...

Continued in the next (of my) post(s)...

 

Re: Re: New Moderators

Give Gregg a chance. I've had heated exchanges with him also, but I don't think he's given any indication that he'd be likely to censor posts because they contain a political view with which he disagrees. In fact, I think the contrary is the case--he seems like a live-and-let-live free speecher. I don't know Jack quite as well, but while I've had a few jousts with him, I'm confident he'll be fair.

This forum has allowed some very vigorous political debate. We know what the moderators are there for: to stop the kind of nonsense that occurred last weekend and to keep the mill-and-shill gang from polluting the forum with disinformation and abusive language. I trust that this will be the attitude going forward. I'll bet you on it, Bill.

 

Part 2 fo 2

...continued from the previous (of my) post(s):

...valuable his contributions could be -- and I mean that, from my heart -- if he'd just... well... sort of turn over a new leaf around here, so to speak. But these are just my opinions... to which I'm entitled, incidentally. My becoming a moderator here does not require of me that I no longer have such opinions. It only requires of me that I not allow them to color my decisions. I can do that. And where I am confident that I cannot -- and I've become, after all these years, very good at recognizing when that's the case -- I will ask someone else to review and decide. I trust that that will be good enough.

Why should I view them any differently than I do Lerner? At least with Lerner, I admit to asking Bruce to kick him out in the past (which, as I stated above, I'm now glad didn't happen after all). But no amount of irritation I have shown toward the posters to whom you're referring caused me to suggest that they, too, should be banned. Again, I believe you assume too much... perhaps not without cause, I suppose... but too much, nevertheless.

If you believe that anything will change around here just because I will now have the power to ban you, think again. I'm having trouble thinking of anything you've ever written here -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- that's inherently bannable. I'm not sure where this viewpoint/attitude/fear is coming from... but it's somewhat overblown in your own mind, apparently. Relax!

If you have been thinking lately -- unbeknownst to the rest of us -- that maybe you've been spending too much time here; and/or that, since your DL degree is now gotten, there's little else you can do, say or learn here and, therefore, it's now time to go, then fine. Go, if that's the case. But don't use my having become a moderator as the trigger for a move that's obviously been on your mind since before this moment. You have much to contribute to this place. Much. Deprive us all of that if you wish -- and at great loss to the rest of us, here, by the way -- but do not dare place the responsibility for your calling it quits in my lap. I've done nothing to deserve that, and you'd be unfair to do it.

Janko, here, used precisely the right phrase: Fiduciary responsibility... and all that that implies. That's exactly how I see it. This is not my forum. I have opinions, and I will continue to express them wherever I'm able to credibly do so without it being perceived as it being under the color of authority. But now I have a larger calling here. It will almost certainly change what I can and cannot -- or at least will and will not -- say here, and how. That this place is able to credibly accomplish it's calling is far more important than that I'm able to argue around here quite so vehemently as I have previously done. I will do my job as Chip, et al, wants it done; and not how Gregg DesElms, wants it done.

I have often written around here that just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should. How you missed that, Bill, is a mystery to me.

Please, Bill -- nor any of the rest of you -- do not leave just because I, for one, will now have the power to make you leave if there's an objectively good reason for that to happen. As should be clear from my political postings, I'm as left-wing and liberal as any of you can even imagine. I'm -- and have been for at least two decades -- what those on the Right pejoratively call a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." The notion of free speech to we Lefties -- nearly at any and all costs, in fact -- is near and dear to my heart... as should be, and I think is, painfully obvious to many around here. Maybe you haven't really thought this through, Bill. I'm probably the least likely of the moderators around here who might ban someone... anyone... even you. That said, I must -- and will -- honor the wishes of this forum's owners as to how they want this place run. This will almost certainly mean that I will first admonish, and then ban, some people sooner or later. That's true of Bruce, too. Heck... he's probably even wanted to ban me around here a time or two when he and I were in heated debate. But he didn't. He didn't because he's good at this. I aspire to his level of proficiency.

I'm sorry -- genuinely sorry, Bill -- that I have somehow given you these misapprehensions. And as we all know of opinions within groups, for every person who dares to express one, a certain number of others within said group almost certainly agree... but just keep it to themselves. That being the case, then I apologize to everyone around here who has somehow been able to derive from my words, beyond what I really did mean, that I also wouldn't be fair-minded if it ever became partly my decision who gets to say and do what around here. For those who believe that that would (or, I guess at this point, now, ever will) be the case, all I can say is that you assume too much; that perhaps you are projecting behavior onto me that would be yours under the same conditions; that I clearly conveyed a sensibility of mine that simply wasn't/isn't accurate; and, therefore, I've given you the wrong idea. If so, my bad. But, I assure you, if you are of that kind of opinion regarding how I'll do this job, then you have somehow -- whether of my doing, or your own -- become misled.

I will endeavor to disabuse the lot of you of your misapprehensions. You'll see. Everthing will be the same as it has always been. The three new moderators -- or at least two of them, if you don't agree that I'm one -- have demonstrated themselves, here, to be as fair-minded and level-headed as anyone who has ever posted here. Bruce already has our respect... certainly mine. Chip, too, of course. I never knew Bill Gossett; nor do I know Nate. But George Brown and Jack Tracey are best-of-breed, as far as I'm concerned. You can all bet your asses that I'm not gonna' be the runt of this litter!

If any of you -- and I mean any of you... even Lerner -- believes that I'm screwing-up around here, then just PM or email me and tell me so. I'm far more sensitive -- and a better listener, perhaps -- than many of you realize. I will hear you loud and clear. If I disagree, we'll discuss that, like grown-ups... and come to a conclusion that's honorable and fair... even if we can't, in the end, agree.

For those of you who have posted here, or emailed, or PMed their expressions of support or good wishes, thank you. For those who now dread, fear not. Nothing around here will change on my account... not even for Lerner.

The only thing that will now be different is that neither the likes of Libertarian_Larry or his numerical progeny will any longer have a chance in hell of doing what he/they did here on Friday night and Saturday... even if Bruce is out enjoying his life, as he most certainly has a right -- and is probably long overdue -- to do. There will be more sentries on the wall, now as is also long overdue -- and I'm proud, and honored, to be one of them. I will not let any of you down. Not a one of you. You watch.

Peace, everyone... and thanks for wading through this. Perhaps now we understand one another a little bit better... or so it is my fervent wish.

 

One man, one vote? Says who? Where?


I thought I had six votes, because, privately, I had voted as follows:

Two votes - for Gregg
Two votes - for Uncle J
One vote - for Marylynd
One vote - for Ted Heiks

Much hearty "Congratulations" to Gregg and George and Jack. Excellent choices, threesome, all!

George, my not having voted for you is all the more reason that you should have been (and were) selected.

Why?

In the last two Presidential elections, the one I did not vote for, always got elected! .... so, what do I know? In spite of my politics differing significantly from our Prez's, I must admit that he is an "ok" Commander-In-Chief. He is not the best, but certainly not the worst, either. Yes, I am loyal (to a fault, some would say).

Long live DegreeInfo!

Thanks, Bruce and Chip. Thanks, all.

 

While I am pleased with the choices, after reading this post, I wonder if a female shouldn't have been one of the choices. We do have a number of regular, thought-provoking, intelligent, articulate (like Marylynd) females on here.

Oh, well, perhaps next time. Excellent choices nontheless!

Now if Roberts doesn't get confirmed................

 

It's best that I address this issue from the start. I was surprised when I was contacted by Bruce, primarily because I've not always been the best behaved member myself. That I should now be charged with maintaining respectful discourse, well, the irony has not escaped me. Despite that I will take my responsibilities seriously and I will not use the Moderator function unfairly. People with whom I have had disagreements in the past, such as simon or Lerner need not be concerned on this issue. To my knowledge, they have never done anything that was deserving of censure or restriction from a Moderator. I think that what people may notice is that I will be posting less frequently. In the past I have posted my opinions on all manner of topics. I do not think I will be doing this in the future simply in order to try to prevent any confusion between my personal opinion and any mythological collective "degreeinfo opinion." I hope to continue to provide information to the other members about subjects related to DL as this seems to be a fairly neutral or objective activity. Finally, I would like to say that even with several new Moderators, it will be difficult to review every posting to every thread. I hope people will feel free to help us out by telling us about any objectionable material that appears. Take a few moments to review the Terms of Service. Also, feel free to offer criticism if this seems appropriate.
Jack
(Ted, I know you were joking. It was just that you provided me with a easy opportunity to address a few issues that people probably had on their minds.)

 

Modering a DL board is a damned hard job. One that I wasn't up to back some years ago with distancedegree.com. If people only realized how many times I had to recuse myself behind the scenes due to that nasty little thing called a "desire to be fair". (Yes, I handed off any posts directed at me and refused to adjudicate on them. Just ask Peter French if you think I'm kidding.)

It's a thankless task. It sucks to be a "judge", to be honest. Almost as much as it sucks to be an "expert." Something I'll never take on again (the judge thing, not the expert thing ;-)). Now, I may be blowing air out my nose when I say this, but I think Gregg DesElms will understand what I mean when I say "I understand scrupulosity" -- because, well, I've been cursed with the condition. Scrupulosity makes being a judge all the more difficult.

In an orderly society, we have "rules" -- in this case, the "Terms of Service." When those rules are violated, those who are called upon to judge are up against more angst and knuckle-wrenching than most imagine. Is it fair? Even if it is, will it be perceived as fair? (That's just as important.) Did one wear one's judge's garb in anger? Ought we have to held back a while, or recused ourselves alltogether?

Those who are scrupulous and liberals (in the classical sense) are hit doubly hard. Liberalism calls for freedom of speech to be defended. As the saying goes, "I disagree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it." When a judge stands up and silences someone, and that judge is a flaming liberal, there is very often a deep crisis that occurs, and that crisis royally bites, rest assured.

I don't envy George, Gregg, Jack (or any other moderator, anywhere). As the joke goes, "In the next European war, the loser takes France." Well, I wonder what these three did to anger the powers that be so much that they ended up with the thankless, stressful job of being judges.

Wisdom to the three of you. You'll need it.

 

Thanks, Jack, for clarifying that!

 

Gregg,

Will you do me a favor? If you ever ban me, will you please do that without explanation?

 

Huh, what?

I thought that Gregg obtained the moderator job because I voted for him?

Drats.................

 

Re: Re: New Moderators

Maybe, but it'll take him twelve paragraphs to do it.

 

Re: Re: Re: New Moderators

Legal briefs!

 

is Gregg

Is Gregg a lawyer?

 

Man! Eat just one baby, around here... and you're marked for life!



And, to bullet... no, I just play one on TV. (kidding)

 

Hi all,

Thanks for the best wishes. I look forward to working with you all.

Cheers,

George

 

Re: Hallelujah! For the LORD God omnipotent reigneth!

 

Re: Hallelujah! For the LORD God omnipotent reigneth!

 

Re: Hallelujah! For the LORD God omnipotent reigneth!

 

Hmm. Three tries, and not a single original thought.



But seriously... did the system slow down for you to the point that you thought your post wasn't taking and, therefore, did you click on "Submit Reply" three times?