New Moderators

Re: Hallelujah! For the LORD God omnipotent reigneth!

All three gentleman are excellent choices!!! Forgive the triplicate posts I posted before this one, not sure what happened. Anyway, thanks for taking on this responsibility.


Take care,


Abner

 

Maybe he's a trinitarian.

 

That was probably it! That's the kind of day I have been having. However, news of the three new moderators has cheered me up some!!!!! Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are all true sholars and gentlemen, a rare quality.


Respectfully,


Abner

 

Oh boy!!! Just noticed sholars should have been "Scholars".


Abner

 

He, he, he, he!



Abner

 

What abilities does a super moderator have that a moderator does not?

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No... it's Super Moderator!


Is there a need to duck into a telephone box before doing any moderating?

 

according to my understanding.......

I consulted your query and the following was the reply I obtained and I want to share it.

A moderator can light a cigarette underwater (not easy to do).

But a super moderator can smoke that cigarette under water, which is even harder.

Hope this helps.

 

Re: according to my understanding.......

So if I practice up on my underwater cigarette lighting and underwater smoking, maybe they'll ask me to become a new moderator next go-round.

 

Re: Re: New Moderators

George Brown is an excellent choice but choosing Gregg as moderator in other words is telling all south east Asian or perhaps all Asian to get out of this forum. He had been very rude, unfair in his comments and bias towards south east Asians. You can judge the whole country or the region as vicious just because of few bad people around.


I will have to think twice from now on wards to participate or just get lost.

 

No chicks?

No chicks? What about Dr. Gina? We could have a poll everyday, and IIRC she posted some pretty hot pics of herself.

Seriously, maybe we could use a female with some control around here like maybe Joann, Mary, Hille, etc.


I agree with some of the concerns others have mentioned. Anyone that writes anything positive (even if true) about an unaccredited school is usually quickly called a shill which is most often followed up by fraud, liar, etc, yet many of us (including me) recommend the big three and other schools often here which could be considered shilling for them. So, I hope these moderators will moderate fairly no matter who is out of line. I think Bruce has done a pretty good job trying to be even handed, but I think some know they can do and say things others can't. I hope that changes for the better rather than for the worse.

With that said, I am willing to give these guys a chance, and I hope others will too. Gregg may be able to fix some of the annoying technical problems this forum has had, Jack has been around and knows a lot about this place, and George is probably one of the most fair members on any of these forums. I wish you guys the best.

 

Re: Part 2 fo 2

Perhaps with your new-found moderator-dom, you could see fit to produce less for us to wade through.

Having once been a moderator around here, I wish the George, Jack, and Gregg the best. They will need it.

I think Gregg may find it particularly difficult, but life is about learning new skills.



Tom Nixon

 

Re: Re: Part 2 fo 2

I'm confident that Gregg will rise to the challenge, and not let his personal views interfere with his moderation duties, much as I have tried to do.

 

ever on and upwards

In my experience giving someone responsibility is the best way of ensuring that said person acts in a responsible manner.

The proof will be in the pudding. Let's stop hypothesising and give Gregg a shot. All three know we will be watching carefully.

Peace,

Dave C.

 

Maybe it was three hoorays for three new moderators????

Very clever Abner!

 

Exactly!!!!! Finally, someone who gets me! He, he, he!



Abner

 

Re: No chicks?

Actually, I have seen many regulars on Degreeinfo comment positively about certain non-accredited state approved schools, without being called a "shill". Many people who visit this board do not know the often subtle differences in accreditation and recognition, differences that can have ramifications when one attempts to use a degree. By and large, people querying Degreeinfo receive good advice.

A couple of decades ago, working adults did not have as many viable choices for completing their education in a non-traditional format. Programs like California Coast, Columbia Pacific and others filled a need not met by traditional accredited programs. since the advent of the Web, the situation has changed drastically. Web-based technologies have allowed colleges and universities to develop fully online programs that would have been cost and manpower prohibitive to do via other distance learning technologies like videoconference. There are now hundreds of accredited colleges and universities that offer degree programs via DL. Institutions such as California Coast have realized that unaccredited institutions no longer fill a need unmet by accredited schools.

Technology has also made it far easier for those who run substandard entities to market and deliver their "product" to a large audience. Those who promote entities that award entire degrees and/or huge amounts of "academic credit" for unverified "life experience" attempt to make the case that degrees from these entities are just as educationally valid or useful as those from accreditied institutions. Rather than provide anything remotely resembling evidence of this argument or providing a reliable and valid alternative to accreditation, they resort to name calling. Unfortunately, we tend to react by name calling as well ("shill", "troll", etc.).

However, the difference between the two sides is that regional, national and professional accreditating bodies have developed recognized standards of quality that form the basis of a school's accreditation (or lack thereof). Unaccredited schools have no such benchmark standards. One may disagree with the standards developed by the accrediting bodies, but just discounting them without providing anything viable in their place has no credibility. This is the situation with those labelled as "shills" and "trolls" on this board.

Frankly, I have always believed that name calling is counter-productive, so I have tried to avoid it (a suvey of my posts would bear this out). I believe that the best way to counter is by providing the best information available (and I am not alone by any means on this forum). Those who shill for a substandard institution will be asked to provide evidence for thier views. when they cannot, they tend to prove themselves non-credible in their next posts.

We have developed a bit of an "attack dog" mentaility when certain people show up on the board. Previous experience has taught us where they are headed, so we tend to try to cut them off before they get there. In doing so, we (Degreeinfo) come off looking harsh and unwilling to listen.

Recommending the "Big Three" colleges to someone looking for an institution to transfer diverse credits, do a portfolio, take CLEP tests, etc. is not "shilling". There is plenty of evidence that degrees from these institutions enjoy wide acceptance and utility.
Stating, ad infinitum, that an unaccredited entity is just as good or better than these three, while providing no evidence whatsoever, is "shilling". Chanting mantra such as "well, Degreeinfo believes RA or no way" or launching ad hominen attacks on regular Degreeinfo posters is not evidence.

 

I suspect the actual use of terms like "troll" and "shill" is far outweighed by the number of times someone complains about their use.

This is way overblown, and to even suggest that supporting comments about unaccredited schools are routinely responded to in such a knee-jerk fashion is unfounded.

"Shilling" is almost always applied when supportive comments extend far beyond the available evidence to support them. "Trolling" is almost always applied to people who argue simply to create arguments.

 

Re: Re: No chicks?

That technological advances change the game is an excellent point. I'm not sure that the advice we give here today will be relevant in five or ten years.

 

Re: ever on and upwards

Gregg will do great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Abner


P.S. As will the other moderators!!!!

 

Re: Re: New Moderators

I hope you reconsider your position, and decide to keep on posting. You are a extraordinary debatant, and your contribution will be missed. Regards