So you think you can moderate
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
If you decide you have my vote.
p.s. What happened with glaucon? I appreciate him a lot.
hammerzeit!
Self-nominations so far:
This is the public list. I have also received expressions of interest via PM.
- Pseudoscience - MacGyver1968, Bebelina
- Parapsychology - Bebelina, GeoffP
- Astronomy - AlexG
- Sci-fi - Kittamaru, GeoffP
- Free thoughts - NMSquirrel
- Religion - NMSquirrel, skaught
- Human Science - GeoffP
- Physics - Tach
This is the public list. I have also received expressions of interest via PM.
Bells
Staff member
Oh you have got to be kidding..
Your actions when you came after me so explicitly make a bit more sense now.
This is rich.
Your posts in Human Science have been tantamount to trolling and off-topic nonsense. Case in point, here are your last posts there:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795721&postcount=143
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2796014&postcount=145
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2828734&postcount=24
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2760935&postcount=22
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2753340&postcount=14
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2743318#post2743318 (A thread you started back in April that was so bad, it had to be closed because you could not even think about what the discussion was meant to be about until it had to be closed.
And the sad thing is, I could go on..
You do not have "acceptance" and no, I do not think you would be even-handed as your big headed ways would get in the way. You would act directly against those you have an issue with. You are, quite possibly, the most biased individual on this forum and yes, I do believe you would act on it. Especially when one considers how often you report people for any little thing you deem to be offensive.
To be a moderator, you cannot be so sensitive and yes, you are overly sensitive and too easily offended.
Human Science runs itself with very little intervention. In other words, you would not be running it.
As the former moderator of that forum, I refuse to support your self nomination. I think you would stifle it and kill it, because you seem to believe you should "run it".
If it was someone like Lucysnow (even for all our disagreements), she'd get my instant support because she has a bit more sense and isn't so anally rententive as to shut down discussions because they offend your delicate sensibilities..
Last edited:
i'll help.........
when you are a mod you can infract those instances
/snicker
geoffp said:
Rapport is a term used to describe, in common terms, that two or more people feel in sync or on the same wavelength because they feel alike.
It stems from an old French verb rapporter which means literally to carry something back; and in the sense of how people relate to each other means that what one person sends out the other sends back, for example they may realise that they share similar values, beliefs, knowledge, or behaviors around sports or politics.
if sci want to go back to the endless bickering in sfog......mod geoff
Emil, thank you for the good laugh, I've just spilled my tea
(it's frikkin' hot! :bawl It is not something impossible, but not everyday someone nominates himself to be an admin, so yea ^^
give the noobs preference
07 to the present
mmm
very interesting
there are those that like to slink and slither in the cover of darkness
Last edited:
I there are no other volunteers for the physics and maths forum, I will put myself forward. For the record (and I am only not naming names because the OP specifically asked us not to) I think there are people that would do a better job than me.
PS I will have a PhD in theoretical physics next week.
PS I will have a PhD in theoretical physics next week.
Egad! A plot!
Interesting. I've seen some slightly odd episodes recently, but I have to admit this is one of the stranger ones. This is one of the great things about SF: every so often, there's a point so bizarre one has to stop and ask: WTF? In that sense, it's a true representation of humanity.
Ah well. Bells, I would discuss this further with you, but I have to pick up my sekrit spy cloak from the cleaners. (They never get the blood stains all the way out.)
Well, I've already discussed my recent switch into human models and my reasons for greater interest in human systems as opposed to non-human models. You know, in the post you just quoted.
Er...you realize perhaps that was a link to a photo essay on Chernobyl. Which was where some humans lived, actually, and then had to move away because of an engineering mishap involving...well, the products of nuclear science, really. This is "so bad it had to be closed because [you] could not even think about what the discussion was meant to be"? I thought it was a stimulator of thought; but as you will.
Forgive me: I meant by the rationally-minded. My apologies for the omission.
Not sure what "big-headed ways" are. I've heard of 'big-hearted ways' (I think) and so I thank you for what was indubitably meant as a compliment. Or would my open "big headedness" conflict with my spymastery? No one can really hold down two careers.
Well, no. But why do you suppose this? Is it because you think this is how a moderator acts? Do you imagine that I could be somehow above the regulations for mods? If certain mods have used their untouchability to libel others, do you imagine I would do the same? Bells, the whole "spy" thing does sort of underscore a certain personal bias on your part against me. Anyway, I reject the allegation and look forward to a new series of charges.
And, just to reiterate: no, I would not be pursuing vendettas against them whut done me wrong. Not even if they shot my dog, if I had a dog.
Er, what was that you said, kettle? I couldn't hear over your whistling.
In all seriousness, actually I've grown a rather thick skin regarding SF 'debatery'. I do smack down on the Report button if someone's libelling the hell out of me: sure. I can understand your own sensitivity on that point. But...well, what is it you expect me to do? Engage in the same mindless vitriol? Just rant and rave and spit back? That's not in the rules, Bells. And what would it prove? You know, we demand this general amitie - we want reasoned, fair debate - but it seems like the very same elements don't care about that. I mean, which is it supposed to be? Pick one. Seriously.
And I have said I would radically intervene in it? I thought I just said I'd try to calm down personal attacks and flame-outs. If you can find evidence of my over-regulation in that statement, please do so. I wish you luck of it.
How fortunate for me, then, that I neither require it, nor have requested it.
It's funny, though: I'd thought we were just here to explain our own merit, rather than get run through the ringers by the rest of the forum. I mean, I guess I have no objection to it: it's just odd I'm getting singled out. Ah well.
I need hardly remind you that a Moderator is meant to be more restrained that the average poster, I hope. In my case, I'm not sure there's much room for still more equanimity, but perhaps the effort shall cause me to spontaneously transmogrify into some kind of prophet.
You and Bells do seem very against the proposition. I applaud your sudden sense of rapport with her.
Interesting. I've seen some slightly odd episodes recently, but I have to admit this is one of the stranger ones. This is one of the great things about SF: every so often, there's a point so bizarre one has to stop and ask: WTF? In that sense, it's a true representation of humanity.
Ah well. Bells, I would discuss this further with you, but I have to pick up my sekrit spy cloak from the cleaners. (They never get the blood stains all the way out.)
Well, I've already discussed my recent switch into human models and my reasons for greater interest in human systems as opposed to non-human models. You know, in the post you just quoted.
Er...you realize perhaps that was a link to a photo essay on Chernobyl. Which was where some humans lived, actually, and then had to move away because of an engineering mishap involving...well, the products of nuclear science, really. This is "so bad it had to be closed because [you] could not even think about what the discussion was meant to be"? I thought it was a stimulator of thought; but as you will.
Forgive me: I meant by the rationally-minded. My apologies for the omission.
Not sure what "big-headed ways" are. I've heard of 'big-hearted ways' (I think) and so I thank you for what was indubitably meant as a compliment. Or would my open "big headedness" conflict with my spymastery? No one can really hold down two careers.
Well, no. But why do you suppose this? Is it because you think this is how a moderator acts? Do you imagine that I could be somehow above the regulations for mods? If certain mods have used their untouchability to libel others, do you imagine I would do the same? Bells, the whole "spy" thing does sort of underscore a certain personal bias on your part against me. Anyway, I reject the allegation and look forward to a new series of charges.
And, just to reiterate: no, I would not be pursuing vendettas against them whut done me wrong. Not even if they shot my dog, if I had a dog.
Er, what was that you said, kettle? I couldn't hear over your whistling.
In all seriousness, actually I've grown a rather thick skin regarding SF 'debatery'. I do smack down on the Report button if someone's libelling the hell out of me: sure. I can understand your own sensitivity on that point. But...well, what is it you expect me to do? Engage in the same mindless vitriol? Just rant and rave and spit back? That's not in the rules, Bells. And what would it prove? You know, we demand this general amitie - we want reasoned, fair debate - but it seems like the very same elements don't care about that. I mean, which is it supposed to be? Pick one. Seriously.
And I have said I would radically intervene in it? I thought I just said I'd try to calm down personal attacks and flame-outs. If you can find evidence of my over-regulation in that statement, please do so. I wish you luck of it.
How fortunate for me, then, that I neither require it, nor have requested it.
It's funny, though: I'd thought we were just here to explain our own merit, rather than get run through the ringers by the rest of the forum.
I mean, I guess I have no objection to it: it's just odd I'm getting singled out. Ah well.I need hardly remind you that a Moderator is meant to be more restrained that the average poster, I hope. In my case, I'm not sure there's much room for still more equanimity, but perhaps the effort shall cause me to spontaneously transmogrify into some kind of prophet.
You and Bells do seem very against the proposition.
I applaud your sudden sense of rapport with her.
Hehe. A very selective join date threshold, gus.
there it is!..
all candidates should be on public record.
it will increase knowledge as to who should be Mod,the more you know,the better the decision.
(see post that attempts to disqualify a candidate)
Effective moderatorship requires more than just holding a ban hammer.
It helps to know if a candidate will be met with resistance or not, to make the better choice.
Bells
Staff member
It's not that..
*Sigh*
Geoff offends too easily. Way wayyyy too easily. For that reason alone he should not be considered for any sub-forum.
His blatant anti-Islam bias would also make him as inappropriate as much as the management considered Sam inappropriate as a moderator for what they perceived as her bias back then.
you charge by the hour?
- Status