Moderator voting
- Thread starter MetalAges
- Start date
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
does the moderator actually have to be the smartest person here, or even close, really???Final_Product said:It was just rationally saying i am not the smartest here
derek
Grey Eminence
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
Not necessarily, I suppose. It would probably help to have a decent philosophical knowledge, or at least the ability to exercise philosophical thought, though.
Ok, Ok. I think I am winning by alot. I'll accept the position if it is given--and I have no problem passing the position on if people are not happy, or If I run out of time or interest. I guess I've been thinking about how I go about this, unless there is a sudden string of votes for others.
So, upon contemplation, I'm sure there are ways to make everyone happy and to make this a better forum: to make sure those that post threads that are irrelevant or idiotic, have the chance to rephrase or rethink their threads (like say Dissing Country's Morals or the Satanism thread could have been halfway decent had the thread starter thought about the point they were making, and what the actual content of their first post); to make sure some people don't post countless content-less replies that seem to bog every thread down; and finally closing threads that are getting out of hand (see the homosexuality thread, 14/88).
Any other suggestions?
I use this quote by Plato in the Republic as a guidepost for any moderator:
Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot helpnot under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to anyone who is better than themselves, or indeed as good. For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects; and everyone who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the stronger. This latter question need not be further discussed at present; but when Thrasymachus says that the life of the unjust is more advantageous than that of the just, his new statement appears to me to be of a far more serious character. Which of us has spoken truly? And which sort of life, Glaucon, do you prefer?
So, upon contemplation, I'm sure there are ways to make everyone happy and to make this a better forum: to make sure those that post threads that are irrelevant or idiotic, have the chance to rephrase or rethink their threads (like say Dissing Country's Morals or the Satanism thread could have been halfway decent had the thread starter thought about the point they were making, and what the actual content of their first post); to make sure some people don't post countless content-less replies that seem to bog every thread down; and finally closing threads that are getting out of hand (see the homosexuality thread, 14/88).
Any other suggestions?
I use this quote by Plato in the Republic as a guidepost for any moderator:
Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot helpnot under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to anyone who is better than themselves, or indeed as good. For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects; and everyone who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the stronger. This latter question need not be further discussed at present; but when Thrasymachus says that the life of the unjust is more advantageous than that of the just, his new statement appears to me to be of a far more serious character. Which of us has spoken truly? And which sort of life, Glaucon, do you prefer?
derek
Grey Eminence
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
in response to people bitching about me i say these^^^ threads were already crap before i started posting on themspeed said:
derek
Grey Eminence
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Speed gets my vote. Birkenau just wants everyone to be banned who he disagrees with. I think the important thing is that we all try to be respectful and amiable to eachother (only arguing the way friends argue and then make up) that way things don't get too nasty. You must allow any controversial views and just argue with it intelligently.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
Norsemaiden
barbarian
You may not agree with me, but I can justify that remark. The Simpsons subscribes to a universalist ideology. (I don't mean religious universalism). Communism is also universalist. Is there an episode that contradicts this?Birkenau said:
Censorship on the internet is a bad thing. I wouldn't want to gag you.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
if you mean "Communist universalism" as almost a direct antithesis to "religious universalism", then no, there isn't an episode contridicting the idea of the Simpsons being a Communist showNorsemaiden said:
Im relatively new here, but Ive read through alot of stuff, and it seems to me that while I dont always agree with speed, I have no doubt he'd be a fair and just moderator, same with final product. Also, Id like to cast a vote against anyone who has named LRD (or someone else) as someone who should be banned from posting, thats ridiculous.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
You know .. consider the results of the personality test before you (if you haven't already) selected a moderator from the above mentioned.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Demiurge
This user has no title
DeathsSweetEmbrace said:
Uh, stupid, you're supposed to vote for someone who's displayed an interest in this sub-forum, at the very least.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Demiurge
This user has no title
DeathsSweetEmbrace said:
I will continue to blame you, despite you being correct about this. The user has made fewer than 20 posts, none of which, with all due respect, are so philosophically overwhelming that it would be just to make her the moderator. Additionally, you have made no contribution to this forum to speak of, so why do you get a vote?
That reminds me, regarding users with very few posts, I liked that ARC150 character. He should begin posting again.
Similar threads
- Locked