Stepping Down as Moderator

[Norsemaiden]

I was informed that you didn't want to serve jointly as moderator with me Justin. I apologise that I didn't PM you to confirm this first. I don't dislike you, but I am concerned that you may perhaps delete some people's posts for not being philosophical enough in your opinion - that's all.

Anyway: could we do it together? The three of us, what do you say?

 

[speed]

Its not a "partisan battle" to refute false claims (such as the claim that I refused Norsemaiden's offer- I neither received an offer, nor responded to one)

As far as an "ongoing battle"- this is an exaggeration. I dont think much of Norsemaiden's thought process, but I dont interfere with her posting, or even usually respond to them. I will not, however, allow her to slander me, or make blatantly false statements, unopposed.

Im also confused why you think philosophy is the business of "getting along". It is the pursuit of thinking and is "personal" to the extreme. Only when thinking is not taken seriously does it have the character of altruism. Others around me shape my world via thought. I hold them accountable for this.

First, you claim philosophy is not about the business of getting along, yet all of these controversies in this thread, have nothing to do with philosophy. Second, you've gone on to state all philosophy becomes "personal". I think thats a bit of an extreme inference for persons who generally engage arguments and discussions about philosophy/ideas etc, not create their own systems, ideas etc.

I think we need more discussion.

I feel like King Lear! Regardless, Im stepping down at the end of the month. My suggestion is to name Arc150, Demiurge, or Cythraul moderator; or, let Derek run it himself.

 

[Justin S.]

I was informed that you didn't want to serve jointly as moderator with me Justin. I apologise that I didn't PM you to confirm this first. I don't dislike you, but I am concerned that you may perhaps delete some people's posts for not being philosophical enough in your opinion - that's all.

Anyway: could we do it together? The three of us, what do you say?

I understand your concerns, and appreciate your apology. On the first page, I laid out a very rough sketch of my conception of a mods duty. I think that should address concerns about "irrationality" or justification for excercising mod powers.

At this point, I dont see it being relevant, as Im clearly not in favor with either the average poster, or the powers that be.

I suggested to speed via PM that I dont think, regardless who is "elected", that a pop vote is the most appropriate way to handle this. I also said that, since the new mod(s) would replace him, and that he is a foundational member here, that his say should be final on the matter (of course, input from other members should help weigh on this decision).

I also told him that, while not a big deal, the mod of this board is symbolic and can influence the course and conception of discussion here.

Im curious to see how this plays out...

 

[Justin S.]

First, you claim philosophy is not about the business of getting along, yet all of these controversies in this thread, have nothing to do with philosophy.

They most certainly do. Friction between myself and other posters results from fundamental differences in conception. Philosophy is essential thinking rooted in an individual, not cute games for intellectual stimulation.

Second, you've gone on to state all philosophy becomes "personal". I think thats a bit of an extreme inference for persons who generally engage arguments and discussions about philosophy/ideas etc, not create their own systems, ideas etc.

When thinking and questioning, one must never let the thinker and questioner slip from view. There is no "un-personal". Similarily, no one is "outside" conceptual dimensions and systems, however ignorant and clumsy they may be. While one is engaging in "arguments and discussions about philsophy/ideas etc.", they most certainly are operating under their own, positing their own. This is the heart of the matter and the true sense of "applied philosophy".

My suggestion is to name Arc150, Demiurge, or Cythraul moderator; or, let Derek run it himself.

Very well. But, this still seems vague (new mod or Derek), and we are unsure about their response and intent (none, except Cythraul, have yet to post in this thread). If one or more say yes, what occurs? I still insist it makes more sense for you to just chose a new mod(s), and if the board doesnt have too many objections, be done with it.

 

[fah-q]

If a vote is to be held, it should be anonymous as to avoid threads like this.
Speed, would sending you PM's of who we would like to see take over be amicable?
Had Derek weighed in on this yet?

 

[speed]

They most certainly do. Friction between myself and other posters results from fundamental differences in conception. Philosophy is essential thinking rooted in an individual, not cute games for intellectual stimulation.



When thinking and questioning, one must never let the thinker and questioner slip from view. There is no "un-personal". Similarily, no one is "outside" conceptual dimensions and systems, however ignorant and clumsy they may be. While one is engaging in "arguments and discussions about philsophy/ideas etc.", they most certainly are operating under their own, positing their own. This is the heart of the matter and the true sense of "applied philosophy".



Very well. But, this still seems vague (new mod or Derek), and we are unsure about their response and intent (they, except cythraul [thanks], didnt post in this thread). If one or more say yes, what occurs? I still insist it makes more sense for you to just chose a new mod(s), and if the board doesnt throw a shit fit, be done with it.

Now, now, lets not soften this petty personal gripe and argument of yours over semantic gymnastics. Now i invoke Iago for such behavior. This thread is just rife with Shakespearean plots.

I really didnt even want to comment on this process. I still dont. This is why Im stepping down. I have my hands in way too many things. I offerred a list of my prefferred choices, and I acknowledge they have flaws---mostly of infrequency of posts in 2 cases. But i picked them, because I feel they'd be better and more objective moderators than me. I'm still fine with Norsemaiden and Justin S co-moderating. Im fine with derek moderating alone. Im fine with any member of this board--with a few exceptions--moderating. I'm fine with whatever this board decides.

In short, I've offerred my suggestions; its left for board members to decide by Oct 1.

 

[Nile577]

This current thread has wandered into drama. Assuming Speed cannot be persuaded to stay (I think his work has been excellent), I favour the creation of a poll listing those who have been nominated and accepted the offer, thus far: Justin, Norsemaiden & AnvilSnake. I suggest it remains open until October 1st at which point whoever has amassed the greatest number of votes is declared moderator. Call it selective democracy? I understand there might be objections but this seems to be a definite action path that circumvents all this bickering, which I suspect, if left unchecked, will rumble on until the end of the month.

If not, let's let the guy in Infoterror's signature decide, no? (I find him strangely alluring; almost erotic. His eyes fizzle with psychotic genius, detached from his good-natured, easy-going smile. I have dreamt of him, yes - the guy in the signature that is, not Infoterror).

 

[OldScratch]

This current thread has wandered into drama. Assuming Speed cannot be persuaded to stay (I think his work has been excellent), I favour the creation of a poll listing those who have been nominated and accepted the offer, thus far: Justin, Norsemaiden & AnvilSnake. I suggest it remains open until October 1st at which point whoever has amassed the greatest number of votes is declared moderator. Call it selective democracy? I understand there might be objections but this seems to be a definite action path that circumvents all this bickering, which I suspect, if left unchecked, will rumble on until the end of the month.

If not, let's let the guy in Infoterror's signature decide, no? (I find him strangely alluring; almost erotic. His eyes fizzle with psychotic genius, detached from his good-natured, easy-going smile. I have dreamt of him, yes - the guy in the signature that is, not Infoterror).

I will wager that you Nile577 may indeed be the first person in his life to find Mr. Voter erotic in any way :zombie: He rather reminds me of the archetype "Young Republican Cub" neo-nerd/neo-con. Sort of like the pudgy(hey, the world is much fatter) older Alex P. Keaton character(Family Ties) of the modern day.

 

[Horus]

I say Norsemaiden and Justin share the position. It would be interesting to see 2 mods of different ideas of Philosophy.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I support Justin S. I have to represent the hometown, and I met him in person once.

These are poor reasons.

Actually I would like to see him as mod to balance out the more extreme, ANUS-ite camp. I'm too worried that with Norsemaiden that the conspiracy theories and the extreme-for-the-sake-of-extreme elements become too prominent. I do enjoy reading many of the articles infoterror posts, but I wouldn't want to see this place steer towards a haven for that type of thought. There already is one elsewhere.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Originally posted by MasterOLightning

. I'm too worried that with Norsemaiden that the conspiracy theories and the extreme-for-the-sake-of-extreme elements become too prominent. I do enjoy reading many of the articles infoterror posts, but I wouldn't want to see this place steer towards a haven for that type of thought. There already is one elsewhere.

The forum wouldn't go any further in that direction than it already has gone or than would go, unless someone started clamping down heavily. Since there is already a thread for "conspiracy" related subjects, they would be unlikely to be troubling you as threads in the rest of the forum.

 

[fah-q]

What do the topics of Norsemaiden's discussions have to do with effectively and competently moderating this board?

 

[Patrick R.]

I support Justin S. I have to represent the hometown, and I met him in person once.

These are poor reasons.

Actually I would like to see him as mod to balance out the more extreme, ANUS-ite camp. I'm too worried that with Norsemaiden that the conspiracy theories and the extreme-for-the-sake-of-extreme elements become too prominent.

That is your only reason? You aren't afraid of bias or anything like that? By the way what do you consider a 'conspiracy'? Something that is hard to believe? That is how a lot of people are, they find it to hard to believe so it must be a 'conspiracy'.

Just let Norsemaiden moderate.

 

[derek]

Sorry folks, my home internet connection has been down for a week or two, and I'm awaiting a new PC for my office, so my attentions have been elsewhere.

I am happy to continue as a Mod. I enjoy browsing the board and while my research interests are clearly classical, I see myself as someone who can appreciate philosophy as a whole, not just academically. I check UM almost everyday. That being said, if the consensus is that the board needs someone to moderate who has more tangible links with philosophical academia, then I am fine with that.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Sorry folks, my home internet connection has been down for a week or two, and I'm awaiting a new PC for my office, so my attentions have been elsewhere.

I am happy to continue as a Mod. I enjoy browsing the board and while my research interests are clearly classical, I see myself as someone who can appreciate philosophy as a whole, not just academically. I check UM almost everyday. That being said, if the consensus is that the board needs someone to moderate who has more tangible links with philosophical academia, then I am fine with that.

Everyone seems happy with you as a moderator Derek. I certainly am.

(Thanks Ptah and Patrick R).

 

[Neith]

If a poll was created all the votes would be anonymous, to answer a question from before. If Derek and Speed were to come up with the best candidates in their opinion, who were then entered into the poll then it would be pretty fair. Having said that, it then turns into something of a popularity contest and so the 'winner' wouldn't necessarily represent the best candidate for new mod after all.

I don't have a problem with either Norsemaiden or Justin.S being mod, but if one is elected over the other then there might be some ill feeling cropping up from whichever didn't get picked. I'm not accusing anyone here, I might just saying it's possible and if it did happen then it might spoil a lot of otherwise good threads. If both are elected then it might transpire that they take over threads with their own debate and so other opinions might not be given much attention. Having said that, they can do that already so it probably wouldn't make much difference.

That's pretty much my two cents on it (for now )

 

[derek]

This will never get sorted unless someone forces a resolution.

If Speed is resolute in standing down, and nobody has any qualms with me staying on, then I believe Nile577, Seditious, Cythraul or ARC_150 would be the most suitable candidates. Within them I see the ability to comment upon topics of philosophical academia while retaining the capacity for seeing philosophy as a familiar thread that exists within all thinking people. A democratic vote will lead nowhere (the system is inherently flawed) so I put their names up as candidates I believe most able to do a good job.

 

[Cythraul]

I recently notified speed that I thought I wouldn't make a good candidate, but if I were to be sharing mod duties with somebody else (derek in this case) then I certainly wouldn't have any problem taking up the job. That said, I have no problem with any of the other candidates suggested so far.

 

[Norsemaiden]

This will never get sorted unless someone forces a resolution.

If Speed is resolute in standing down, and nobody has any qualms with me staying on, then I believe Nile577, Seditious, Cythraul or ARC_150 would be the most suitable candidates. Within them I see the ability to comment upon topics of philosophical academia while retaining the capacity for seeing philosophy as a familiar thread that exists within all thinking people. A democratic vote will lead nowhere (the system is inherently flawed) so I put their names up as candidates I believe most able to do a good job.

To quote Catherine Tate: Am I bothered though?

 

[derek]

I've never enjoyed that show.

I just thought those folks would make the best moderators.