Brian,

Through your most recent actions, you have been able to clearly show and present forth my largest grievance, which represents a clear and present conflict of interest when it comes to the proposition of change within this community.

First off, I am a large advocate of both freedom of expression and freedom of speech. However, like all advocates of this free system of communication, you must also be a large supporter of accepting responsibility for your free action and expression.

That said, when you largely insult members of the same community you wish to present change to, you tend to loose a large amount of credibility within this community. This is the same problem we had with Bo and Proton Charger and is not exclusive with this community.

Quite the contrary actually, as this is a real world problem and I have tried to show that many times. Let me give you a few of these. For example, you cannot walk into a board meeting and propose change to your peers while, at the same time, you are bad mouthing them, and expect them to find you and your interests credible.

As it has been said many times, this “may be only a Message Board”. That said, all we have to rely on each other, at the end of the day, is a series of paragraphs. Based on those words, we do our best to derive intent, tone, agenda, and credibility. You are free to say whatever you want, but, as in every system of free expression, you must be held credible at the end of the day given everything you write.

That is part one of the example. Part two comes when a proposition of yours (and others who have also acted this way) is overturned by a majority of those who participate in the vote. Instead of staying on topic, you resort to throwing a completely unrelated issue (see below) into the thread, and sometimes follow up with personal attacks. This is not a way anyone, no less someone who has been talking behind the backs of their peers, should attempt to gain the respect of others, influence other people’s decisions, or even think that this is an appropriate and/or productive method of behavior in general.

brian_reilly
And you know, you mods voting no should all get together and get your stories straight with Chad before you start posting.

As mentioned above, this is not the time to start personal attacks and I am kindly asking you now, to stop. Each mod is an individual with their own point of view. Just the same as I have my own point of view. Your suggestion that all mods must consult me before voicing their opinion is, indeed, an attack that is inappropriate and completely unproductive to your proposal of enlisting new mods.

brian_reilly
I mean in recent memory we have these quotes about Bo and PC:

Jesusfreak
We have tried to be as accommodating as we could…

Chad
…it is not a secret that I haven't done anything to appease you

And we've got you complaining about how rough being a mod is, and screaming at me for wanting to replace you (which, again, I didn't want), and then saying you're having trouble with keeping religious topics in check and sorting them from spam, and then saying there's too many of you.

Again, going off topic. Mods are stating a fact, which you can only truly appreciate after you have had responsibility of being a mod. Modship is just that, a large responsibility and it is not all glitz and glamour. They are not complaining, they are telling it exactly how it is. They work very hard to keep this community together and responsible for its actions. They are subjected to daily criticism and many times unfairly. Again, attacks lead to flame wars and are innapropriate when used as a last resort for negotiation.

brian_reilly
The we have Chad speaking about democracy:

Chad
This is a democratic based community

Chad
the mods' vote determines , as well as as banning, board changes, etc.

Correct, this is a representative democracy, as I've said many times. In a representative democracy, the public chooses leaders who draft rules, make large decisions, etc. We went even further by allowing the public to vote on rules and various decisions. Either way, the public had (and still has) a chance to vote on this matter and, just like the people who represent the public, it looks like the need for new mods does not meet public demand.

I don't understand why the 7 empty mod positions would need to be filled anyways. Weren't people arguing that there were too many mods already?

Anyone notice that Chad used a lot of big words there…because I did. If not for my expanded vocabalary (and yes it's spelled wrong on purpose!), I wouldn't have understood any of it.

But, what the community wants, the community gets. If you guys vote for new mods then so be it.

*edit* Whoops it is already, shows how much I pay attention :p

It really sums the progression of this topic much better.

-Matt

The problem with adding more Mods is: conflicting ideals/morals/whatever. We have a hard enough time trying to come to a consensus on a issue right now, seven more will make it harder. Meaning it will take us longer to deal with issues…

In a case such as the above, a thread that could potentially go bad or good, ie Religion posts, could be locked for weeks before we decide whether or not to let it be….

Jesusfreak
The problem with adding more Mods is: conflicting ideals/morals/whatever.

Umm, I'm sure I'm not alone when I think that diversity among leaders is a good thing…

Zack
if you thought they were bad now, try adding seven more people with different ideas

Again, we already had seven more people. We just lost them, and with it, much of our diversity.

I'm not even going to respond to Chad's post. I tried discussing with him and private, and all he did was dance around in circles whenever I asked him something and then up and leave when I asked why the community doesn't get to vote on important issues.

brian_reilly
I'm not even going to respond to Chad's post. I tried discussing with him and private, and all he did was dance around in circles whenever I asked him something and then up and leave when I asked why the community doesn't get to vote on important issues.

Let this be your first warning. You have now totally gone off topic and, as warned before, this board does not tolerate that. This board also does not tolerate unfounded personal attacks, which was the reason I left the chat in the first place.

For the record, I was accused of tampering with polls by Brian. Not only this one, but others in the past.

I will say for the last time. If you want to prove a point, negotiate, or make a proposal, you will present the facts and the facts alone. You will not go off topic, and you will not make personal attacks.

I will not lock this thread, as it would prevent others from voting. I will, however, suspend your account the very next time you decide to ignore the guidelines of this community and impose your own.

Chad
For the record, I was accused of tampering with polls by Brian. Not only this one, but others in the past.

Not true. I did not accuse him of tampering with this poll. I said that he had every opportunity and reason to do so if it did not go his way.

And I don't see where I have “totally gone off topic”. I was responding to Zack and Ron's earlier posts, so if so, they must be way off-topic too…Are you threatening to suspend them as well?

Chad
This board also does not tolerate unfounded personal attacks, which was the reason I left the chat in the first place.

gbcentral3: You are pathetic.

What do you call that?

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I want to throw in my two cents.

As far as democracy goes, true democracy DOESN'T work. That's why we have representative democracy.

As far as new mods, I say no because we have enough. We should have a set number of moderators. This number should stay as it is.

the only time we need a new moderator is if we lose one, or one slacks in his duties, or abuses power, or whatever. Then, if one is “de-modded,” then one should replace the gap.

I think we have enough moderators. If we need one replaced, then fine. We replace him (or her).

I think all of this is just silly.

Whoever owns the message board and starts it should just appoint one or two mods per forum section; that's all that's needed. Heck, MuppetCentral.com only uses 3 or 4!

The only thing anybody around here should really be concerned about is the lack of respect or concern for other members, and I am not even sure if a post I responded to today already was by a moderator or not, but just the response in itself was rude and unwarranted.

Try–please people–try to be more diplomatic in your responses to one another! I just want the fun I desire from this place to BE fun; not a bunch of flame wars or rude posts at one another.

Thanks,
Kev

Vincent we do have mods that have left/de modded since the elections and so that's what were talking baout exactly what you just said.