New Moderators

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Bruce, Sep 19, 2005.

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    We better behave ourselves Carl! He, he, he! No more Nancy Grace thread kind of stuff.


    Abner :)


    Just kidding Gregg!!!!!
     
  2. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Okay... now I understand. Thanks.

    Only board administrators and moderators have access to the IP addresses. Disclosing them, or even discussing them in all but the most general terms, as we are now doing, would be a gross violation of the user's privacy... so that part of this discussion stops right here.

    There's no way of knowing, short of thoroughly investigating and following-up on the poster's IP address (and they needn't be "static," or in a pattern, by the way) with its ISP, precisely who Libertarian_Larry (or any of that username's numerical progeny) was. We could do that, of course... but why? Who cares!

    Personally, I think LL probably wasn't Dennis Ruhl... and I make that guess having not looked at anyone's IP address. I just didn't really think it was him to start with... but that's just my opinion. Actually, I think I know who LL is and, moreover, what triggered his attack at the precise moment that it came. If I'm right, then he's almost certainly not Dennis. I hope that that, if nothing else, gives you a little comfort.

    However, if a member, here, dares to surmise whom s/he believes was behind the various forms of the Libertarian_Larry username -- especially during the heat of an attack thereby -- I'm not sure that it raises to the level of a matter that needs to be "publicly settled as it was publicly brought forth"; or that's a "delicate matter" that "deserves some form of stated resolution" and that's "a deep matter of conscience that oughtn't be shoveled under a rug." S/he certainly knows who his/her enemies are; and is certainly entitled to his/her opinion regarding such matters. Moreover, I'm quite certain that anyone reading same realizes that's it's mere conjecture on his/her part, and not any sort of official statement of opinion of this forum.

    And if that weren't enough to end this discussion, let's reduce it to more of a "what goes around, comes around" or a "just deserts" sort of issue. Dennis Ruhl was not thrown outta' here for no reason; and all one has to do to get a feel for his kind of invective is read his posts over in the Crabby Forum, or in the Military Forums (as a gateway to AED and, therefore, in AED itself) under has well-known alias over there. He is a bitter, misguided, angry man who seizes every conceivable opportunity to deposit into permanent cyberspace the meanest and most vile and hateful, hurtful, and intentionally harmful -- or so he at least wishes they would be -- things about people here, in which he uses their real and given names, and pulls no punches in so doing. The last thing that he, or anyone on his behalf, should be complaining about here (or anywhere else, for that matter) is the possibility of his being falsely accused of being "Libertarian_Larry," or "Libertarian_Larry2," or "Libertarian_Larry3" by a member or members, here, who, in any case, is/are entitled to his/her/their opinion(s) and speculation.

    So I wouldn't, were I you (and there's a scary thought), hold my breath waiting for... how did you put it... "an apology for that (and other) acusations"... at least not from the person or persons who has/have you all up in a swivet over it.

    Hope that clears things up a little.
     
  3. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Actually, that was established before I ever became a moderator. It was Bruce who (wisely) closed that thread.
     
  4. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Conjecture: what a lovely word. I like it. It's my favourite.
    Here are some other lovely favourite words:
    gangrene (Ring Lardner's favourite)
    bloviate (Warren Gamaliel Harding's favourite)
    splitting (Otto Kernberg's favourite)
    reform (Preston Manning's favourite)
    auf Wiedersehen (Ernst Zundel's favourites)
    g-o-a-l (George Weah's favourite)
    bottoms up (Thabo Mbeki's favourites)
    ------- (John Kerry's favourite)
    huh? (George W. Bush's favourite)
    bwa-ha-ha-ha (Prophet Steve Levicoff's favourite)
    hai! (Sensei Abner's favourite)
     
  5. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

     
  6. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

     
  7. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Ha, ha, ha! or should I say hai!!!!!!!


    I just realized I have to be careful with my finger touching the "enter'. This results in multiple posts. But I digress.

    Loved the list Uncle!


    Abner :)
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I said my piece on it. As it pertains to me, the matter is tamaam shod, as they say in Farsi.
     
  9. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Just razzin ya a little Sir! Brace yourself though, I'm sure my buddy Ted Heiks will join in once he reads this. :)

    On a more serious note, You are going to be a great moderator, I already know you are a great man!

    If I ever get carried away (which is bound to happen), I will understand if you need to administer a legendary "Lethal DesElms Lambasting".


    Have good evening everyone!


    Abner :)

    P.S. Now let's see if I can manage to post this just once! Darn "enter" button. :)
     
  10. mineralhh

    mineralhh New Member

    Best wishes to all new moderators and thank you for putting effort into this surely very time consuming task. This is really good news.

    I'm especially happy about the appointment of DesElms, as with moderator status he is finally able to rework some of his earlier inappropriate posts.

    Best wishes to all.
     
  11. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    First, there would actually have to be "earlier inappropriate posts."

    Second, even if there were, going back and, in effect, revising history would be unethical, wouldn't it.

    Thanks for projecting, though... and thereby betraying what you would do if someone handed you the keys. I'll be sure to remind Chip and Bruce of your obvious ethical sensibilities when and/or if the day ever comes that they consider you as a moderator here.
     
  12. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Re: Re: ever on and upwards

    Administrators have to behave responsibly.

    Except to the future of the board.

    To a large extent, the people who participate here are Degreeinfo. They provide its interest and its content. You, Chip and Bruce just provide the occasion, the forum. If the management offends too many of the participants, the board will suffer. Whether or not people feel alienated is their decision, not yours. That's their vote, and it decides the future of Degreeinfo. People are indeed "watching carefully".

    I think that you have been one of Degreeinfo's most abusive participants.

    I agree emphatically and enthusiastically that differences of opinion and spirited debate about those differences are good things.

    But chasing participants around the board, following up every one of their posts with ridicule and goading, isn't a good thing. Ranting and hysterical flames aren't good things.

    Danny was agreeing with me.

    The reason for our concern is threads like this and this, which I find objectionable.

    All we can do at this point is to "watch carefully".
     
  13. buckwheat3

    buckwheat3 Master of the Obvious

    Count me in as watching too! I 've pegged that cat as an emotional roller coaster, who wants to mold and manipulate most discussions to his liking/agenda...those pasts posts only point in one direction.
    -Gavin
     
  14. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    I do believe I agree with everything Bill Dayson has posted here, and especially in the last week.
     
  15. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    If there is a quarrel with earlier posts, the quarrel is with Bruce's moderation.
    If there is a quarrel with current moderation, has DesElms actually functioned as a moderator, or has such moderation as has happened since the mess this weekend been done by others? There are, after all, now 5 moderators.
    If he has done something wrong in his moderation, quarrel with it.
    If he hasn't, what's the quarrel?
     
  16. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    concordia ordinum

    I have no wish to argue with either Bill or Dr Bear.

    Nothing would make the haters of this board (they hate you two too, Bill and Dr Bear) happier than for an extended dispute to develop over the new moderators--especially when it is unknown who's moderated what (if anybody, anything) since the appointment of the additional moderators. Nothing makes a certain type of person happier than to trigger a "let's you and him fight" scenario.

    Don't let's oblige such persons. Please. Please.

    I'm off this thread. I will not acknowledge either agreement or disagreement with what I've posted. Enough said already. Enough said, already.
     
  17. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Ex post fubar, the quarrel is with statements made prior to the coronation as moderator.

    I was shooting for a tabula rasa. I was outgunned.
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: concordia ordinum

    I realize you've said you won't acknowledge agreement or disagreement, but I'll respond in general, rather than specifically to you.

    If one sincerely analyzes what those who have stated they do not like this board have said, rather than hurt the board, such natural disagreements as have cropped up in this thread between people serve to show that (naturally occuring, healthy) diversity of opinion and style is tolerated here, rather than actively nipped in the bud or canned.

    I suspect that outsiders (no matter what may crop up on public forums in this regard) are watching this thread not to see dischord, but to see how differences of opinion and style are to be handled in a rational, fair, calm, civilzed way.

    People in a free society naturally are free to disagree with others. The role of forum moderators is to enforce TOS and to assure an orderly board. That can be done by people with widely differing opinions, even when those being moderated do not agree ideologically with those doing the moderation.

    So, people aren't looking for the fist fight to break out. I suspect that deep in their hearts they're actually looking to see how it is peacefully and amicably resolved. Everyone suspects that it can be so resolved. Everyone wants an amicable resolution, because a fair and amicable resolution would speak of the civility of the club when presented with matters that cross ideological boundaries.
     
  19. George Brown

    George Brown Active Member

    I agree Quinn. Despite what others may think about it, I personally would like to see Henrik, Neil, Dr Marianus et al participate back in this forum. There could be some really healthy debate on the issues both camps feel passionate about, concentrating on topics of mutual interest, not personalities.

    Cheers,

    George
     
  20. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Prior to becoming a Moderator I made specific statements on this forum to the effect that I do not believe in "banning" as a resolution to differences of opinion. Personally, I do not believe that those who champion non-wonderful universities can convincingly argue their merits. When they try they only drive people away from such programs. As far as I'm concerned, all members are entitled to express their opinions within the bounds of the Terms of Service regardless of the nature of those opinions.

    Even Yankees fans.
    ;)
    Jack
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page