Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    D+Ders say that what ever our criticism of the process, Corey was chosen by A and in the words of yourself and wirwarin mir, give him the chance in that role. We should reject a second mod. If criticism of Corey's consideration was justified, trying to elect an unecessary second mod is plainly both undermining of his position and disrespectful. I cant see how anyone standing to be second mod can claim they have the interests of D+D at heart and for those reasons, I personally will not deal with them.
    I think everyone needs to take a step back. This isnt that big a deal. The new mods of d and d, be it 1 or 2 of them arent going to affect d and d, besides to get rid of spam and offensive posts. And thats all im going to say on the matter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think at the end of the day A can run this site anyway he wants. He may well make irrational decisions, mistakes or calculated judgements, we will never know everything and hence discussion of his motivation or reasoning seems pretty pointless.

    At the end of the day what he says goes, and he has to explain to no one.

    Whether you think this is a good system or bad system is irrelevant as no one is forcing you to be here. I also suspect if mistakes had been made, no one is going to admit to them anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Oh yeh? Why not Vienna or Howard?
    Because Katie said that A found you both unsuitable for modship, I know no more information of than that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Oh yeh? Why not Vienna or Howard?
    No idea. Ive asked over and over again. I assume that its related to me and youve been dragged down as a result? sorry.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    It still lacks logic and is motivated by the acceptance that an error was made. That error is trying to be swept under the carpet as a result.
    I don't know why there was a rush in Corey's appointment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I don't know why there was a rush in Corey's appointment.
    neither do I, that is the main point of criticism. by accepting this ridiculous notion that we need a second mod is to undermine those complaints.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I think at the end of the day A can run this site anyway he wants. He may well make irrational decisions, mistakes or calculated judgements, we will never know everything and hence discussion of his motivation or reasoning seems pretty pointless.

    At the end of the day what he says goes, and he has to explain to no one.

    Whether you think this is a good system or bad system is irrelevant as no one is forcing you to be here. I also suspect if mistakes had been made, no one is going to admit to them anyway.
    Thank you, that is a good way of looking at it. Could we please get on with the poll/election please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I think at the end of the day A can run this site anyway he wants. He may well make irrational decisions, mistakes or calculated judgements, we will never know everything and hence discussion of his motivation or reasoning seems pretty pointless.

    At the end of the day what he says goes, and he has to explain to no one.

    Whether you think this is a good system or bad system is irrelevant as no one is forcing you to be here. I also suspect if mistakes had been made, no one is going to admit to them anyway.
    Of course, but we are not forced to accept polls and recognise second moderators. its a hell of alot easier to say im not interested in this second mod business than to go through electing someone else.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Of course, but we are not forced to accept polls and recognise second moderators.
    That sentance is very unclear?
    Who is "we" and what do you mean by force?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    That sentance is very unclear?
    Who is "we" and what do you mean by force?
    A can run the forum how he likes, but we as members dont have to draw up a list of nominations and create a poll. That is the decision we need to take now. I personally dont agree with or find any justification with a second moderator. I find it detrimental to the existing D+D mod position and our original complaints that should remain intact for if the scenario should ever arise in the future. What is the actual need to elect this second moderator and what are the motivations of those who are willing to stand for it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    No idea. Ive asked over and over again. I assume that its related to me and youve been dragged down as a result? sorry.
    No big deal. But I must say that if certain people (thee and me - and arguably the biggest contributors on D&D - known to all)) are banned from the hustings on the whim of ickle-katy or anyone else then that doesn't say much for openness or democracy on UKL.

    Not that I'd want to do it anyway but I'd like to know on what basis the debator of the year for 2004 has been barred. :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    A can run the forum how he likes, but we as members dont have to draw up a list of nominations and create a poll. That is the decision we need to take now. I personally dont agree with or find any justification with a second moderator. I find it detrimental to the existing D+D mod position and our original complaints that should remain intact for if the scenario should ever arise in the future. What is the actual need to elect this second moderator?
    At the end of the day if A wants to elect another mod which seemingly he does, I would prefer it to be someone I liked or supported than someone he randomly choose as everyone was being stubborn. Whether or not this mod is needed or not is again irrelevant as it looks like it going to be introduced anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    No big deal. But I must say that if certain people (thee and me - and arguably the biggest contributors on D&D - known to all)) are banned from the hustings on the whim of ickle-katy or anyone else then that doesn't say much for openness or democracy on UKL.

    Not that I'd want to do it anyway but I'd like to know on what basis the debator of the year for 2004 has been barred. :confused:
    I agree and I doubt anyone is going to tell you either and there has never even been a hint of democracy on this place anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    At the end of the day if A wants to elect another mod which seemingly he does, I would prefer it to be someone I liked or supported than someone he randomly choose as everyone was being stubborn. Whether or not this mod is needed or not is again irrelevant as it looks like it going to be introduced anyway.
    He isnt. He has handed it over to the mods on the apparent basis that this has support. If we never ask for the poll and never offer contributions then it never happens. Its a personal choice, but I will not support, recognise or deal with a second moderator, I now know I am not alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    No big deal. But I must say that if certain people (thee and me - and arguably the biggest contributors on D&D - known to all)) are banned from the hustings on the whim of ickle-katy or anyone else then that doesn't say much for openness or democracy on UKL.

    Not that I'd want to do it anyway but I'd like to know on what basis the debator of the year for 2004 has been barred. :confused:
    Join the queue!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    He isnt. He has handed it over to the mods on the apparent basis that this has support. If we never ask for the poll and never offer contributions then it never happens. Its a personal choice, but I will not support, recognise or deal with a second moderator, I now know I am not alone.
    Thats his choice and we have to accept that is the way he wants to run it then.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Join the queue!
    Perhaps my eyes are too close together. :rolleyes:(or more likely I don't frequent the "general discussion" board to exchange assinine pleasentries with everyone often enough)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Thats his choice and we have to accept that is the way he wants to run it then.
    If he wants to appoint someone based on a thread and poll that noone supports then let him do that. I for one will only take moderation concerns through Corey. Id also look at the discussion on this thread and notice that very few people are really entertaining this. In fact, to my knowledge, those most vocally for it are those who said little about the original appointment but suddenly spring to life when there's a second position on the table. Those people arent interested in D+D anymore than GC and as a result they wont get support from me.

    This asks a fundamental question: if after the disagreements of the original appointment you accept that one moderator saves face in the light of justified criticism by creating a spur of the moment second moderator position. Im not about to be bullied on a second issue, particuarly one that has no relevance to the needs of the forum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    If he wants to appoint someone based on a thread and poll that noone supports then let him do that. I for one will only take moderation concerns through Corey. Id also look at the discussion on this thread and notice that very few people are really entertaining this. In fact, to my knowledge, those most vocally for it are those who said little about the original appointment but suddenly spring to life when there's a second position on the table. Those people arent interested in D+D anymore than GC and as a result they wont get cooperation from me.
    And would you care to mention some of these people?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    If he wants to appoint someone based on a thread and poll that noone supports then let him do that. I for one will only take moderation concerns through Corey.
    Are you talking about corey at the start of this sentance or the situation we now find ourselves in?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Id also look at the discussion on this thread and notice that very few people are really entertaining this. In fact, to my knowledge, those most vocally for it are those who said little about the original appointment but suddenly spring to life when there's a second position on the table. Those people arent interested in D+D anymore than GC and as a result they wont get cooperation from me.
    I would agree with you that certain users on this thread have posted an obscene amount of posts to convice other people they should be a mod. I would hope that users of this forum had enough sense to see this ploy for what it is, a cheap one.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.