EDIT:

I ask people to nominate themselves for my mock mod election: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58968
I made a cut off point of 10 people because it would get stupid if there were too many and it took enough time for even 10 to enter. Anyway the first ten to nominate themselves are above and therefor the choice is of those 10 or none at all, so dont give me a hard time about if you are too retarded to understand this concept in any way.

I have 100% of the votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and no voting for yourself.

Edit: OK as monkeytrousers has already voted for himself scrub that rule!

kebabomatic asked me to cast a vote for me.

Actually Im going to do the same so at the end of the week I will have one vote:D

I'm willing to sell my vote to the highest bidder.

I offer you my wife.

I offer you my wife.
I don't know if I would be able to withstand all that nagging though.

I offer you my hedgehog porn collection!

I offer you my hedgehog porn collection!
Interesting, is it homemade?

True. If I could, I would vote for Baron Max.

this is stupid. you just came up with names at random. the only ones in that list that wolud actually be good mods are invert, geodesic and spurious.
No you dickless moron! I held a fair and easy to understand nomination stage in this same forum: If you are blind and failed to enter your interest that is your problem!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58968

Mod for which forum?

Who the hell would vote for your whining ass? I've never seen you post anything of any worth.
You had a chance like anyone else to enter, it's been up 2-3 days.

I don't know if I would be able to withstand all that nagging though.
...but she does take it up the ass.

Exactly! What more could you want from a mod?

i havent seen anything intelligent posted by you either

Yeah, because you wouldn't know 'intelligence' or moreover 'logic' if it bit you on the ass.

Yeah, because you wouldn't know 'intelligence' or moreover 'logic' if it bit you on the ass.

that hottie in your av....now i'd to bite her in the ass

that hottie in your av....now i'd to bite her in the ass

You have good taste.

Whoops! I accidentally voted for Absane instead of Invert_nexus. Absane would have been my second choice, had I noticed Invert was on the list.

So invert should have one more vote and Absane should have one less.

That's cheating. You cannot vote for yourself. This isn't America :D

Hrm. I might abstain because there are a few I want to be mods.

:eek: I got a vote! I'll give you that 50 later when no one is looking Oniw.

:eek: I got a vote! I'll give you that 50 later when no one is looking Oniw.
It was probably just a sticky mouse.

I think half those people would make decent mods. My choice was actually between imaplanck and spuriousmonkey, because I think they woukld be the least restrictive of the ones up there. However, I didn't notice Invert Nexus was on the list.

Why is there not a "none of the above" option?
Am i the only one that thinks these mod wanabe threads are quite lame with out the administrations approvel?

Because it's a poll for the one you think would be most suitable out of the 10 who bothered to nominate themselves for my mock election. If you dont like any of them, Just dont vote.

I don't think any of the nominees seriously thinks they will be mod when they win this election.

No, and I'd probably refuse if I was offered, for the reasons I gave in the other thread - I must say I was suprised to see myself up there, but not that suprised to see 0 votes!
Kunax, I don't see why it's lame. It's quite brainless, and it's a semi-popularity contest (I see ToR has no votes yet either :D), but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

well. I just read over my half-awake 3am rant and I think il edit it when I get home

It's quite brainless, and it's a semi-popularity contest

is that not the same as lame, just with more words?



Because it's a poll for the one you think would be most suitable out of the 10 who bothered to nominate themselves for my mock election.

If there was a "none of the above" option you would get a better picture of who's and how may that actually votes. It would also give people that don't want any of the nominees as mods a places to put there vote.



If you dont like any of them, Just dont vote.

How will you see that i dont want X as mod then?

but seriously... who the hell is going to vote for you or TOR?

what has tor done to piss you off, have i missed out on some of the soap, was it good?

what has tor done to piss you off, have i missed out on some of the soap, was it good?

ToR is just anoying a lot of the time.

is that not the same as lame, just with more words?


If there was a "none of the above" option you would get a better picture of who's and how may that actually votes. It would also give people that don't want any of the nominees as mods a places to put there vote.


How will you see that i dont want X as mod then?

Well theres not! so either you choose between the 10 who bothered to show an interest, or make like a tree.

is that not the same as lame, just with more words?Nah, lame would be marginally less fun. But only marginally. :)

what has tor done to piss you off, have i missed out on some of the soap, was it good?

no soap, shes just not the moderator type.

imaplank - still quite new to the forum, and i doesnt seem to have the mentality of a mod

Spuriousmonkey - i would have no problem with him being i mod, but i just cant see it happining with the current administration.

absane - level headed enough at the moment, but power corrupts and im not sure what he would do.

Domesticated Om - cant actually remember who hes is, so no opinion there

Communist Hamster - seems more interested in being a moderator that moderating, i wouldnt vote for him

Geodesic - good choice i think

ToR - still a newbie to the forum, and a rather moody-at-times one too.

Invert Nexus - another good choice

Redarmy11 - hasnt really shown any moderator-style posting, but could probably handle it.

TDI - just not the moderator type.

I will vote for whoever answers the following correctly:
1. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can make up a rule on the spot?

2. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can create a consequence to a violator on the spot?

3. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a member's reputation is allowed to influence in any form a decision made by a mod?

4. Do mods have to base all of their decisions by the rules and exactly the rules at all times?

5. Are mods required to treat every member equally and objectively despite member reputation or any other member characteristic?

6. Are people innocent until proven guilty?

7. Is it OK to hold a member accountable for doing something we do not like if the action had yet not been stated as a rule?

8. Is it OK for rules to be vague?

9. Do rules have to be subject to prewritten rules describing the proper procedures for creating and amending rules?

10. Is it OK expect members to ever imply or assume anything in any circumstance?

11. Is it OK for somebody that does not have a thorough understanding of the rules to be a mod?

12. Is there ever a circumstance in which a mod may make decisions that are not clearly specified in the rules?

I will vote for whoever answers the following correctly:
1. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can make up a rule on the spot??No


2. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can create a consequence to a violator on the spot?No

3. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a member's reputation is allowed to influence in any form a decision made by a mod?No


4. Do mods have to base all of their decisions by the rules and exactly the rules at all times?Yes


5. Are mods required to treat every member equally and objectively despite member reputation or any other member characteristic?
Yes

6. Are people innocent until proven guilty?
Yes

7. Is it OK to hold a member accountable for doing something we do not like if the action had yet not been stated as a rule?No

8. Is it OK for rules to be vague?
No

9. Do rules have to be subject to prewritten rules describing the proper procedures for creating and amending rules?Yes


10. Is it OK expect members to ever imply or assume anything in any circumstance?No


11. Is it OK for somebody that does not have a thorough understanding of the rules to be a mod?
No

12. Is there ever a circumstance in which a mod may make decisions that are not clearly specified in the rules?
No


............How did I do? How did I do?

For fun, I am going to answer these questions like I think you want :) If I am wrong, slap my wrist and say "bad boy, NO!"

Why? Various reasons. My answers are in parenthesis.


I will vote for whoever answers the following correctly:
1. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can make up a rule on the spot?

No. (No. However, if an unforeseen problem arises, we may know "deep down inside" that it is problematic and it should be dealt with.)


2. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can create a consequence to a violator on the spot?

No. (No. However, some actions need to be taken for problematic situations in which a definite rule doesn't fully apply. The consequence may be a simple warning, public or private.)


3. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a member's reputation is allowed to influence in any form a decision made by a mod?

Hrm. Something says you would say yes, but I will go with "no." (This is a tough one. All-in-all, I would say yes. For a hypothetical situation, assume that Fraggle Rocker has a bad day and posts and anti-black material. Now, our experience on this forum is very positive with Fraggle and he posts nothing but quality. We know from this experience he is a nice guy and it is not like him to post such material. What to do? I say ask him what is up and just offer a warning.

What if a guy joins SF with 5 posts and posts the exact same material. What do we do? A ban should be considered.

Just like in society, we favor to keep those that we like the most and benefit the most from.)


4. Do mods have to base all of their decisions by the rules and exactly the rules at all times?

Yes. (This is a vague question, but over all I would say yes.)


5. Are mods required to treat every member equally and objectively despite member reputation or any other member characteristic?

Same as 3, I think you would answer yes. (For about the same lines of reasoning as number 3, I would say no).


6. Are people innocent until proven guilty?

Yes. (Yes. This is basic)


7. Is it OK to hold a member accountable for doing something we do not like if the action had yet not been stated as a rule?

No. (It depends. Will everyone get over it? Then no. If it affects the stability of the forums, yes. I'd hate to have to stick to the rules to save one human on this board if it means losing 3 quality posters.)


8. Is it OK for rules to be vague?

No. (My answer is no, but clear rules can be quite a challenge, if not impossible. Loopholes can almost always be found.

It is said that any computer program with at least 10 lines of code has bugs.

But, just because it may be impossible to make rules 100% clear, that does not mean it is OK to allow them to be vague... to introduce laziness. That is inexcusable).


9. Do rules have to be subject to prewritten rules describing the proper procedures for creating and amending rules?

Yes. (Depends on the guidelines. And what rules do we follow to make the rules for making rules? What are the premises? Do we account for the human factor? My answer is "No idea.")


10. Is it OK expect members to ever imply or assume anything in any circumstance?

No. (Sorry, I am not exactly sure what you mean by this question).


11. Is it OK for somebody that does not have a thorough understanding of the rules to be a mod?

No. (What a question. Define "know." The best businessmen do not know textbook rules for business decisions. They just know.

Should we have a list of rules for EVERYONE to view at their own will? Yes. Assuming the definition of "know" is excellent intuition or knowing every code in the book, my answer is NO. One has to "not be stupid.")


12. Is there ever a circumstance in which a mod may make decisions that are not clearly specified in the rules?

No. (My answer is yes. Not every circumstance can be thought up. Sure, we can amend the rules every time we think we need to, but at some point it may be better to just elect those individuals that know how to keep the forums running in line. If members do not like the moderation tactics, they can always appeal to the forums owners whose self-interest is to have happy members because running a forum is fun. It's no fun running a forum with pissed off members or even no members at all).

A good bit of this I do agree with, but some of it is impractical or inefficient.

What about intentions? Accident/Purpose?

1. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can make up a rule on the spot?
You bet your sweet ass there is!

2. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a mod can create a consequence to a violator on the spot?
Yes, and the more random and severe the punishment the better.

3. Is there such a thing as a circumstance in which a member's reputation is allowed to influence in any form a decision made by a mod?
Not so much reputation - it will come down more to whether I like them or not. The fact is that most members bore the pants off me, always spouting off and delineating complex, intellectual concepts. I think I'll probably bar most of them. In the end probably only a dozen or so will remain.

4. Do mods have to base all of their decisions by the rules and exactly the rules at all times?
Yes - my rules, which can and will change like the wind.

5. Are mods required to treat every member equally and objectively despite member reputation or any other member characteristic?
Now let's not be silly.

6. Are people innocent until proven guilty?
No, they are guilty until proven innocent - and the latter will never happen, so...

7. Is it OK to hold a member accountable for doing something we do not like if the action had yet not been stated as a rule?
Indubitably!

8. Is it OK for rules to be vague?
Not only acceptable but preferable - it confuses the masses and allows you to make back-to-back diametrically opposite decisions with little justification.

9. Do rules have to be subject to prewritten rules describing the proper procedures for creating and amending rules?
No, they have to be subject to me crushing your 'rights' and protests with an imperious wave of my hand.

10. Is it OK expect members to ever imply or assume anything in any circumstance?
Yes, you may imply or assume whatever you like. But that doesn't change the fact that, if any of you motherfuckers move, I' ll execu.., er, warn every motherfucking last one of you.

11. Is it OK for somebody that does not have a thorough understanding of the rules to be a mod?
No-one will know the rules. Sometimes I'll change the rules and not even be aware that I've changed them. I envisage having to bar and reinstate myself innumerable times.

12. Is there ever a circumstance in which a mod may make decisions that are not clearly specified in the rules?
What do you think?

I should have voted for you...:(

no soap, shes just not the moderator type.

imaplank - still quite new to the forum, and i doesnt seem to have the mentality of a mod

Spuriousmonkey - i would have no problem with him being i mod, but i just cant see it happining with the current administration.

absane - level headed enough at the moment, but power corrupts and im not sure what he would do.

Domesticated Om - cant actually remember who hes is, so no opinion there

Communist Hamster - seems more interested in being a moderator that moderating, i wouldnt vote for him

Geodesic - good choice i think

ToR - still a newbie to the forum, and a rather moody-at-times one too.

Invert Nexus - another good choice

Redarmy11 - hasnt really shown any moderator-style posting, but could probably handle it.

TDI - just not the moderator type.

You omitted the following:

ToR doesn't want to be a mod
Tor has much too much fun to be a mod. As mod I'd have to read posts and threads and not skim and ignore, worst of all I'd have to behave, and then I may as well change my name to sweetum's.

You bet your sweet ass there is!

Yes, and the more random and severe the punishment the better.

Not so much reputation - it will come down more to whether I like them or not. The fact is that most members bore the pants off me, always spouting off and delineating complex, intellectual concepts. I think I'll probably bar most of them. In the end probably only a dozen or so will remain.

Yes - my rules, which can and will change like the wind.

Now let's not be silly.

No, they are guilty until proven innocent - and the latter will never happen, so...

Indubitably!

Not only acceptable but preferable - it confuses the masses and allows you to make back-to-back diametrically opposite decisions with little justification.

No, they have to be subject to me crushing your 'rights' and protests with an imperious wave of my hand.

Yes, you may imply or assume whatever you like. But that doesn't change the fact that, if any of you motherfuckers move, I' ll execu.., er, warn every motherfucking last one of you.

No-one will know the rules. Sometimes I'll change the rules and not even be aware that I've changed them. I envisage having to bar and reinstate myself innumerable times.

What do you think?

I think you should change your name to ToR's hero. A moderator after my own heart.

'Power can only be truly demonstrated through it's 'abuse thereof'

by ToR

I'm voting for ToR. Not only is she desperate to be a mod but I imagine that my vote will increase the chances of her having sex with me. Also she would rule like a medieval queen, throwing frequent almighty strops and randomly executing the peasants on a whim, like a good moderator should.

Vote ToR.

I'm voting for ToR. Not only is she desperate to be a mod but I imagine that my vote will increase the chances of her having sex with me. Also she would rule like a medieval queen, throwing frequent almighty strops and randomly executing the peasants on a whim, like a good moderator should.

Vote ToR.

haha I just voted for you before I read this!

And yes, you have my moderator style down to a 'T' , the only mod spot I could possibly accept would be 'God mod'.

I'm voting for ToR. Not only is she desperate to be a mod but I imagine that my vote will increase the chances of her having sex with me.

I voted for myself because there is a fair chance I will have sex with myself.

Seriously this is a serious thread, stop ruining the seriousness of my seriosity by making nonserious comments! you guys. :mad:

Seriously this is a serious thread, stop ruining the seriousness of my seriosity by making nonserious comments! you guys. :mad:

it's not serious, I don't want to be a mod :mad: I've always leaned towards goth look or hippy or rock, but never mod.

Well theres not! so either you choose between the 10 who bothered to show an interest, or make like a tree.

oh my, your a cranky one



Seriously this is a serious thread, stop ruining the seriousness of my seriosity by making nonserious comments! you guys.

Serious thread :) you got to be kidding, until the owners say and approve the selection of new mods ALL your mod threads will remain with out meaning.

Infact they are a vast of space i vote for them to be deleted or move to the cesspoll if the current mods feal like being nice.

oh my, your a cranky one


Serious thread :) you got to be kidding, until the owners say and approve the selection of new mods ALL your mod threads will remain with out meaning.

Infact they are a vast of space i vote for them to be deleted or move to the cesspoll if the current mods feal like being nice.

My oh my you are a retarded one! this is what is known as a piss about colloquially, how can you not detect that? Hmmm are you german?

Its less funny if you have to take a piece of chalk and draw out ones humour to spazes.

Its less funny if you have to take a piece of chalk and draw out ones humour to spazes.

Tell me about it!

The stuff I have laid claim to on this forum and it's been taken seriously is seriously NOT funny!

I need to add disclaimers now!

personally the person i would most like to be a mod is ophiolite, however he isnt on the list and probably doesnt want to be mod so i'll go with TDI

Tell me about it!

The stuff I have laid claim to on this forum and it's been taken seriously is seriously NOT funny!

I need to add disclaimers now!




Yeah, I dont mind that people arent so quick, but I resent when they are obviously trying to demean me, when they dont have the facility to understand where I am coming from in the first place.

Yeah, I dont mind that people arent so quick, but I resent when they are obviously trying to demean me, when they dont have the facility to understand where I am coming from in the first place.


I relate. I tend to simply ignore the less intelligent offence attemptee's, afterall what would a reply achieve, if they are so dense as to miss every point previously, what chance of a catch after?

No

No
No

Yes


Yes

Yes
No

No
Yes

No


No

No


............How did I do? How did I do?
Right. How did you get to be such a winner? You have answered every question correctly with utter precise logic.
A+
:)



Why? Various reasons. My answers are in parenthesis.



No. (No. However, if an unforeseen problem arises, we may know "deep down inside" that it is problematic and it should be dealt with.)



No. (No. However, some actions need to be taken for problematic situations in which a definite rule doesn't fully apply. The consequence may be a simple warning, public or private.)



Hrm. Something says you would say yes, but I will go with "no." (This is a tough one. All-in-all, I would say yes. For a hypothetical situation, assume that Fraggle Rocker has a bad day and posts and anti-black material. Now, our experience on this forum is very positive with Fraggle and he posts nothing but quality. We know from this experience he is a nice guy and it is not like him to post such material. What to do? I say ask him what is up and just offer a warning.

What if a guy joins SF with 5 posts and posts the exact same material. What do we do? A ban should be considered.

Just like in society, we favor to keep those that we like the most and benefit the most from.)



Yes. (This is a vague question, but over all I would say yes.)



Same as 3, I think you would answer yes. (For about the same lines of reasoning as number 3, I would say no).



Yes. (Yes. This is basic)



No. (It depends. Will everyone get over it? Then no. If it affects the stability of the forums, yes. I'd hate to have to stick to the rules to save one human on this board if it means losing 3 quality posters.)



No. (My answer is no, but clear rules can be quite a challenge, if not impossible. Loopholes can almost always be found.

It is said that any computer program with at least 10 lines of code has bugs.

But, just because it may be impossible to make rules 100% clear, that does not mean it is OK to allow them to be vague... to introduce laziness. That is inexcusable).



Yes. (Depends on the guidelines. And what rules do we follow to make the rules for making rules? What are the premises? Do we account for the human factor? My answer is "No idea.")



No. (Sorry, I am not exactly sure what you mean by this question).



No. (What a question. Define "know." The best businessmen do not know textbook rules for business decisions. They just know.

Should we have a list of rules for EVERYONE to view at their own will? Yes. Assuming the definition of "know" is excellent intuition or knowing every code in the book, my answer is NO. One has to "not be stupid.")



No. (My answer is yes. Not every circumstance can be thought up. Sure, we can amend the rules every time we think we need to, but at some point it may be better to just elect those individuals that know how to keep the forums running in line. If members do not like the moderation tactics, they can always appeal to the forums owners whose self-interest is to have happy members because running a forum is fun. It's no fun running a forum with pissed off members or even no members at all).

A good bit of this I do agree with, but some of it is impractical or inefficient.

What about intentions? Accident/Purpose?

You need to work on your logic and understanding of rules and justice. You are an ineffective mod with an ineffective understanding of what rules are for and how they work. Better luck next time.
DFD
:(




What do you think?
Congratulations. You have effectively answered every single question wrong. You get the worst score ever known to human kind. Not only are you an ineffective mod, you are an ineffective everything.
FFFF
:mad:


Implank is ahead of the race as best qualified mod. Their answers within this questionaire should help us better determine who the best mod should be.

Right. How did you get to be such a winner? You have answered every question correctly with utter precise logic.
A+
:)

Ah you see, I'm not just eye candy to chicks.;)

You need to work on your logic and understanding of rules and justice. You are an ineffective mod with an ineffective understanding of what rules are for and how they work. Better luck next time.
DFD
:(

I understand what the perfect world is. My view of the perfect world is the world you constantly preach to us.

However, I have the ability to see that this world is neither perfect in this way nor will it ever be close.

You ask us to make a 3,000 page book of rules that account for every possible situation and have the best possible punishments. I see this as impossible and a waste of time. It would be nice, but it would not work.

Not only are you an ineffective mod, you are an ineffective everything.
FFFF :mad:
Evidence for this surprising extrapolation?

Nobody is talking about any perfect world. We are talking about effective moderation. The imaplank managed to pass with flying colors. It is not that difficult to understand real simple concepts that are completly practical and fair to all.
The fact that you think you have to write a 3000 page rule book shows that you do not know how to make straight forward simple rules that apply to every situation effectively. Maybe if you study more and exercise, you will be better like imaplank.

Here are a core set of rules (consequences not included):
1. Actions with intent to destroy the forum.
2. Actions with intent to destroy a thread.
3. Intentionally harassing other members.
4. Spamming.


Many times members will say things egotistically like:
"I just destroyed your thread".
"I am only posting here to annoy a member".

These are self incriminating evidence that a member is inentionally violating rules. They are not in a thread to participate. Reputation or how long they have been a member is irrelevant. They do this all the time.

Here are a core set of rules (consequences not included):
1. Actions with intent to destroy the forum.
2. Actions with intent to destroy a thread.
3. Intentionally harassing other members.
4. Spamming.

See, these are rules I like because anyone with a clear mind and a good conscience could put these 4 to good use. However, as I recall you want specific rules that are clear. Definitions.

Example:

3) What is intent? How do display intent? What exactly is harassing?

You and I both know what rule three means. But we need (according to you) to set specific guidelines on how to define these words. Also, there are many kinds of harassment. What if it happened one time and it's mild ("You are ugly" and end of story) or one time and it's severe ("I'm going to cut your throat")? What if it's mild and happens an X number times? Is it more severe than if it happened X-1 times? Should we have banned at X-1? Where do we draw the line for immediate banning? How long should the ban be for every possible instance?

I think it's best to have general rules (as you have it) and not worry so much about every possible case to consider consequences. Everyone that has been on the Internet long enough to stumble upon a forum should have SOME sense of netiquette. A member will know (at least in theory) when they post something that might not be tolerated. A moderator should know when the line is crossed.

Those are specific definitions. If you do not know what intent means you are a loser. You know crap scrap about rules. Fail! FFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!

Those are specific definitions. If you do not know what intent means you are a loser. You know crap scrap about rules. Fail! FFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!

What do you think is more important: the forest or the trees?

I know exactly what the answers may be. Depending on which way you answer, I will know exactly where you are coming from and how we differ.

Irrelevant. F!

Irrelevant. F!

I see. Well done.

(not really).

No really for you. You seem to think that trees and forests have anything to do with effective moderation. Even imaplank managed to pass the test of wits without going to illogical convulsions that you seem to be experiencing.
F

I gave the exact same answers that Imaplank gave.. however I tried to explain the reality of it. Something you failed to see.


You seem to think that trees and forests have anything to do with effective moderation.


ESTJs live in a world of facts and concrete needs. They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly and systematically. They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these systems. They value competence and efficiency, and like to see quick results for their efforts.

This is cool skill. Everyone agree?

The forest/trees example was me trying to figure out how you view the world. Do you think the overall system is important or ever single peice is just as important as all the others. I think you would go with the latter, but because you claim it is irrelevent, you fail to see connections.

In my opinion, anyway.

I'll give you a C for effort.

You did no such thing regarding explaining the "reality" of it. You failed because you failed to see the reality of it. Furthermore, you are using mass manipulated connotations regarding the term "reality". Society has a zombified tendancy to call anything negative "reality". Something bad happened. Woops that's just the reality. DO NOT USE REALITY IN MORONIC connotations.

I have explained far more than I needed to, and you still do not know anything. Imaplank seemed to have effectively figured it out. You are too obsessed with idiotic and false connotations of "reality" to know real reality which is attained by successfully completing the test of wits.

You did no such thing regarding explaining the "reality" of it. You failed because you failed to see the reality of it. Furthermore, you are using mass manipulated connotations regarding the term "reality". Society has a zombified tendancy to call anything negative "reality". Something bad happened. Woops that's just the reality. DO NOT USE REALITY IN MORONIC connotations.

I refer to the reality of what is possible, not that when things suck "get over it."

Hey luke licker are you going to give me the vote for being the first to answer your questions satisfactory? or are you going to give it to the first person who copies me?

I refer to the reality of what is possible, not that when things suck "get over it."
Obviously not because you failed miserably.
The test clearly indicates that you failed clear thinking objectivity, and insteald abide by bias, abuse, corruption, and lack of competence.

You caught me :(

It must be hard to do that degree when you fail at clear, objective thinking, Absane.

It must be hard to do that degree when you fail at clear, objective thinking, Absane.

Damn straight it is. I am thinking of becoming a liberal arts major.

;)

People do it anyway. Unless you are totally stupid enough to imply that it takes clear objective thinking to complete a degree which any moron can do. It goes to show how really pea sized your brain is.

People do it anyway. Unless you are totally stupid enough to imply that it takes clear objective thinking to complete a degree which any moron can do. It goes to show how really pea sized your brain is.

Any moron can complete a degree in mathematics?

Yes.
Probably not you considering your lack of ability to reason reasonably.

If you don't take into account members' reputations, eg the popularity of a particular member, as well as length of membership, how on earth can you make a judgement on which members you can get away with banning and which you can't? What you propose might be fair, lixluke. But it just isn't practical.

If you don't take into account members' reputations, eg the popularity of a particular member, as well as length of membership, how on earth can you make a judgement on which members you can get away with banning and which you can't? What you propose might be fair, lixluke. But it just isn't practical.

you are totally stupid enough to imply that

you are totally stupid enough to imply that

Troll.

As seen on the test, it is completely unfair and impractical to allow reputations and length of membership to affect objective judgement. It is the essence of corruption. It makes total and no sense logically. It is completely unsound and impractical. It has nothing to do with equal treatment of all.

Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do. You do not seem to have a clear and reasonable mind. ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.

As seen on the test, it is completely unfair and impractical to allow reputations and length of membership to affect objective judgement. It is the essence of corruption. It makes total and no sense logically. It is completely unsound and impractical. It has nothing to do with equal treatment of all.

Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do. You do not seem to have a clear and reasonable mind. ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.


Coolskill, do you want to be a mod?

Spuriousmonkey 9 36.00%



Jesus, has the monkey been paying people off again?

Let's say two people make the exact same racist comment. Let's say they are D'ster and samcdkey.

If we banned samcdkey for 3 days, do you think she is more likely to have learned her lesson (that is, to not say things like that) than D'ster who has also been banned for 3 days?

Really, when is samdcdkey racist? If she said something just one time.. would you be up for a warning or a ban? How long?

Now D'ster.. he hasn't been around lately but he is the racist of SF. Does he just get a warning? A ban? How long?

Now, you could make the rule that the first racist comment is always gets a warning. However, there are so many ways racism can present itself that it's hard to have established rules that account for everything. Maybe new member A says "all blacks are lazy." Ok, that deserves a warning (in my opinion). New member B posts lynching pictures and makes a joke about it. That is a ban (in my opinion). Those are extreme cases.. but there is a middle ground somewhere where a set consequence (as established by the rules) means different things to different people. At this middle ground, some learn and some do not following the consquence.

I say, equal consequence for equal people. Not everyone is equal. That's life. It sucks, but it's true.

Those that want everyone to be equal are very likely to be those at the bottom of society.. those that do not want to be treated as equals are likely to be those at the top of society. Those in the middle are likely to be content with everything. And as long as this imbalance exists, there will never be equality. Plus, we all inequal just by virtue of intellect.

Maybe every mod should consult cool skill before making a decision...

Now D'ster.. he hasn't been around lately ....
He has, as J.B.

Spuriousmonkey 9 36.00%



Jesus, has the monkey been paying people off again?

He did say we could hold hands :o

He has, as J.B.

Are you serious? Wow.

But I do not really read J.B.'s material.

Are you serious? Wow.

But I do not really read J.B.'s material.

It's all D'ster. Through and through.:rolleyes:

He did say we could hold hands

i got to touch his thingy, but then he wanted to play train and i ran away

Let's say two people make the exact same racist comment. Let's say they are D'ster and samcdkey.

If we banned samcdkey for 3 days, do you think she is more likely to have learned her lesson (that is, to not say things like that) than D'ster who has also been banned for 3 days?

Really, when is samdcdkey racist? If she said something just one time.. would you be up for a warning or a ban? How long?

Now D'ster.. he hasn't been around lately but he is the racist of SF. Does he just get a warning? A ban? How long?

Now, you could make the rule that the first racist comment is always gets a warning. However, there are so many ways racism can present itself that it's hard to have established rules that account for everything. Maybe new member A says "all blacks are lazy." Ok, that deserves a warning (in my opinion). New member B posts lynching pictures and makes a joke about it. That is a ban (in my opinion). Those are extreme cases.. but there is a middle ground somewhere where a set consequence (as established by the rules) means different things to different people. At this middle ground, some learn and some do not following the consquence.

I say, equal consequence for equal people. Not everyone is equal. That's life. It sucks, but it's true.

Those that want everyone to be equal are very likely to be those at the bottom of society.. those that do not want to be treated as equals are likely to be those at the top of society. Those in the middle are likely to be content with everything. And as long as this imbalance exists, there will never be equality. Plus, we all inequal just by virtue of intellect.

Maybe every mod should consult cool skill before making a decision...
Everybody is equal you idiot nazi. Nobody has more rights than anybody. Nobody deserves more rights than anybody.
For total stupidity, Absane gets:
F

Destroy envy and selfishness and everyone will be equal. Seeing as how you cannot, just do the best you can and then some. For example, it's a fact that women like power and confidence, not men that get handouts just to be equal

Everyone has the same rights, but not everyone can take as much advantage of them as some other people.

And Cool Skill.. for someone that preaches about "irrelevance" and "ad hominem" attacks, you sure do like to throw them around.

B for effort, D for content.

Envy and selfishness has nothing to do with equality under rules. Rules apply to all people equally. Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do.

Why not dispute my logic and premises instead of making a counter-claim and then claiming I am illogical? Sheesh.. this reminds me of a presidential compaign.

The only job of a moderator is to help run the forums in accordance with the administration's wishes. But treating everyone the exact same is to give just as much attention to those who contribute nothing as we should give attention to those that actually mean something to us.

If you don't take into account members' reputations, eg the popularity of a particular member, as well as length of membership, how on earth can you make a judgement on which members you can get away with banning and which you can't? What you propose might be fair, lixluke. But it just isn't practical.

you are totally stupid enough to imply that

As seen on the test, it is completely unfair and impractical to allow reputations and length of membership to affect objective judgement. It is the essence of corruption. It makes total and no sense logically. It is completely unsound and impractical. It has nothing to do with equal treatment of all.

Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do. You do not seem to have a clear and reasonable mind. ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.
I got the reaction I wanted though didn't I. And hey? Don't be a hater, dude. :p

No, not you, lixluke. You just shut up.

Why not dispute my logic and premises instead of making a counter-claim and then claiming I am illogical? Sheesh.. this reminds me of a presidential compaign.

The only job of a moderator is to help run the forums in accordance with the administration's wishes. But treating everyone the exact same is to give just as much attention to those who contribute nothing as we should give attention to those that actually mean something to us.
Because you are illogical, and there is no counter.

The moderator's job is not to help run the forums in any other way than according to the rules without bias. Also to assist people that need assistance. All of that crap you are talking about is beyond a moderator's duties and proper use of power.

Only a bias moron with no logic or objectivity considers those that mean something and those that contribute nothing.
THERE ARE ONLY MEMBERS AND ALL ARE EQUAL. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE WHO MEANS SOMETHING AND WHO CONTRIBUTES NOTHING. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETER A RULE WAS VIOLATED OR NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE VIOLATOR IS IRRELEVANT.

Ah, you're just pissed because you'd be out on your ear if Absane was a mod. Why else would you keep on about there being no difference between 'those who mean something and those who contribute something'? ;)

Cool skill wins. Round of drinks for all?

Cool skill has never won anything in his life. That's why he collects welfare.

Zing!

If the current mods adhered to the rules 100% lix you would be(like most of us) perpetually banned or atleast highly censored. You seem to have a fixation with ridged rules, yet hypocritically break them at every opportunity.

Because you are illogical, and there is no counter.

The moderator's job is not to help run the forums in any other way than according to the rules without bias. Also to assist people that need assistance. All of that crap you are talking about is beyond a moderator's duties and proper use of power.

Only a bias moron with no logic or objectivity considers those that mean something and those that contribute nothing.
THERE ARE ONLY MEMBERS AND ALL ARE EQUAL. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE WHO MEANS SOMETHING AND WHO CONTRIBUTES NOTHING. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETER A RULE WAS VIOLATED OR NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE VIOLATOR IS IRRELEVANT.

You can never be a mod, mod's cannot ban themselves:cool:

So sad because the facts remain unchanged.

So sad because the facts remain unchanged.

We are too illogical to understand.

We are too illogical to understand.

eh?

:bugeye:

eh?

:bugeye:

*duh?*

I nominate Kiwi123 to moderate the World Events forum.

:m: Well done Spuriousmonkey!:m:
You have not only been voted the person that people would most like to be a mod, you have trampled the entire opposition into the dirt.


http://releasethereality.com/image/flydick180.jpg

I declare success, tied with domesticated om! :D