Mod Elect?

[GenocideAlive]

If we were to choose an alternate for a position of moderator in the IR, whom would you choose?

My vote: Schwitzer.

Edit: PM me if this gets locked on my skull. Doesn't have to be a current-mod, and preferably someone that actively participates in the IR.

[SarahK]

SarahK she's such a wonderful person all round!

[Mtank]

Schwitzer sounds good. But someone like Black.Ice or WK would be decent too. Trouble is, they don't post much here.

Perhaps a method of public moderating would work. Sort of like an angry mob taking the law into its own hands and stoning a criminal.

Oh, and before I forget...In before the lock.

[Morkeliph]

Well obviously I think *I* am the best qualified for this job. I *am* considerably neutral. But If I can't vote for my self, then Schwitzer it is.

[ScottieIWU]

Schwitzer. Probably because it wouldn't end in locking threads simply because they've been going for a long time.

[Mtank]

Well obviously I think *I* am the best qualified for this job. I *am* considerably neutral. But If I can't vote for my self, then Schwitzer it is.

Silly rabbit. Do you not know that Desert_Eagle is the most neutral? (As he clearly stated in the PM requesting for modship to Kong_Xing, the heir apparent of the Warboards Crown at that time.)

wait. Here's the exact text.

I would really like to be an ID moderator (Intellectual Discussion) I am very neutral and will keep it professional. You will not have to warn me once or even one mistake. If I make one mistake you can take away my powers.
Thank you.

[ScottieIWU]

Silly rabbit. Do you not know that Desert_Eagle is the most neutral?And here I thought Neo was the absolute most neutral.

[Morkeliph]

Oh yeah...I forgot. :rolleyes:

Desert_Eagle: You're never gonna live that one down kid.

[Mtank]

Actually, either GenocideAlive or Morkeliph wouldn't be bad, in my eyes. Scottie IWU too.

[Prozerran]

I'm not voting, because this is just a subtle attempt to draw attention to an issue that can be resolved openly. If we can't have two-sided, open-ended discussion in this forum, then what's the point of keeping it open? I'm asking you, Neo, because there has been much discussion about your apparent favor towards Desert_Eagle. Hell, let's not be implicative here. Let's just say it for what it is. Neo, why are so many people under the impression that you cannot be objective as a Moderator of this Forum? Well, let's hear it and get it all out in the open, folks. Enough with the bullshit, just fucking communicate. That's why we have Warboards.

[Nuts]

Since Schwitzer is already a global mod, I would like to see Genocidealive as an IR mod. But would that work considering that he's banned about 50% of the time? :P

[Morkeliph]

Actually, either GenocideAlive or Morkeliph wouldn't be bad, in my eyes. Scottie IWU too.Woohoo! Another vote for me (kind of)! That brings me to 2!!! Only 1 behind Schwitzer and tied with GenAl! Come on people, I know you really love me! ;) :P

[ScottieIWU]

Edited because GA's post following this has a point. This can wait.

[GenocideAlive]

I'm not voting, because this is just a subtle attempt to draw attention to an issue that can be resolved openly.
Actually, it was an attempt to offer a solution to the staff without attacking anybody. I'm not entirely sure those involved can offer up a discussion without hurt feelings or someone taking offense. Please keep the personal attacks / qualms with other members out of the thread and don't respond if someone posts something like that. It won't help or solve anything and we can actually bring about positive change if we handle it with maturity and forgiveness.

[Morkeliph]

Really, I think IR should be moderated by a team of say 3 people. In order to close a thread it should require 2 of the 3 petitioning for its closure. In that case, I vote for myself, GenAl, and Scottie. Or myself, GenAl and Schwitzer. Basically, I really just like myself. (Hey, why lie about it!?)

[Nuts]

Nuts used to be a moderator of IR. He was pretty damn good too. Unfortunately, Nuts became critical of Warboards management and was subsequently placed on the "do not fly" list. To this day, Nuts maintains an amiable, yet distant relationship with the Warboards staff.

/self promotion without consequence

[ScottieIWU]

The problem with moderation in a forum like IR is that one has to either not participate but read all of the posts, ignoring the impulse to respond and make sure that discussion stays civil. Otherwise, you can take the other route and post and try to not let your personal feelings influence the actual moderation, which is a lot harder in certain issues (i.e. religion) and can lead to improper moderation.

I guess my point is that Mork kinda has a point. Maybe 2-3 mods of IR would be best so that the mods could keep each other in check.

[SarahK]

De-mod Neo, he gives Desert_Eagle way too much slack, much less than others get... Nepotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism) should never be tolerated.

[Desert_Eagle]

1. What is your evidence for Neo's alleged breach of neutrality?

2. I think Neo is a great mod, as far as I can tell he has not broken any rules and all you have are baseless accusations.

3. I would be a good neutral mod. I can keep things professional if that is my job.

[frazz]

*pant pant pant* * screeeeeech* In before lock!(is that what you meant GA?)
Ya neo is totally unfair. He should be moderated.
I mean, I understand him deleting all the spam posts in DE's recent topic, but I don't think he noticed the spam THREAD.
GA wouldn't be strict enough. I don't know anyone who would be strict enough.
I always had confidence in neo, until DE arived.
EDIT:
1. What is your evidence for Neo's alleged breach of neutrality?

2. I think Neo is a great mod, as far as I can tell he has not broken any rules and all you have are baseless accusations. Well, I guess you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, DE.

3. I would be a good neutral mod. I can keep things professional if that is my job. I think it has been universaly established that Iran is more neutral and less rude than you are.
http://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gifhttp://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/new/1/padlock.gif

[Nuts]

3. I would be a good neutral mod. I can keep things professional if that is my job.

Main Entry: 2neutral
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from (assumed) Medieval Latin neutralis, from Latin, of neuter gender, from neutr-, neuter
1 : not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping <a neutral nation>
2 : of or relating to a neutral state or power <neutral territory>
3 a : not decided or pronounced as to characteristics : INDIFFERENT b (1) : ACHROMATIC (2) : nearly achromatic c (1) : NEUTER 3 (2) : lacking stamens or pistils d : neither acid nor basic e : not electrically charged
4 : produced with the tongue in the position it has when at rest <the neutral vowels of \&-'b&v\ above>
- neu·tral·ly /-tr&-lE/ adverb

No matter how many times I read this definition, I just can't fathom how you can claim to have anything in common with the word.

[ScottieIWU]

I think it has been universaly established that Iran is more neutral and less rude than you are.Holy shit frazz, you just went up about ten jumps of people on this forum that I respect for wit and intelligence.

Gold.

[U-238]

Gahhhh! Computer lock up! Gawd I hate my parents OS (Win98) Anyway for a mod for the IR? Ohh Gee thats tough. I don't populate the IR much so I wouldn't know who's neutral or biased or what. Ummm Let me see. I've heard schwitzer was non biased or mabey it wasn't him. Hmm I'll think about it. The thing is, is I got inhere before lock and now I've got a prime seat right in front of the ban cannon.

[Kingscrab]

I'd give Scottie a vote. He seems pretty level headed and well spoken.

I'd vote GA also, as he seems to enjoy this domain, but honestly... it's much more amusing to watch him chew up bad debaters. *coughexampleDEcough* :D

[frazz]

The only problem with our current IR mod(you know who you are) is the he(or she) is way to unfair toward DE. Other than that, I like how it is now.

[Spartan-II]

I vote Schwitzer or B.I.

[Mtank]

Holy shit frazz, you just went up about ten jumps of people on this forum that I respect for wit and intelligence.

Gold.

I concur. I too am feeling something odd and unusual...respect.

I think this thread is playing a rather positive role, bringing together the members of the IR in a harmonious colleective of mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation.

Well, most members, at least.

[Neo]

I find it interesting that most of you think I have some sort of slack when it comes to DE, but if you've noticed, I have been coming down harsh on everyone.

If you all would prefer that I do not contribute to discussions as often as I try then I wont, and simply function as a moderator for IR. It might be a bit hard on my end (I do love certain topics) but so be it, I always have other things to do.

I was going to delete this, out right, because it seemed to be another one of GA-like-Xenon's attempt to degrade me or my moderation attempts because he just doesn't like me. But then I read it (like omg an IR mod read a thread~!) and thought it wasn't to bad.

I won't be moderating this specific thread for IR-Standards, so feel free to post your thoughts on the issue.

It should be noted that:

Schwitzer can moderate this forum, but he is a Global, and thus most likely busy with other stuff. You can contact him specifically if you feel the need to, but I would imagine he doesn't really pay much attention to IR.

I seem to be one of the only staff members to even pay attention to IR. I know that Schwitzer pops in every now and again, and rarely, other staff do, but other then that?

So it comes down to this: You're stuck with me -- So deal with it.

I also find it interesting that a few of you have started to blatently break rules, as if they shouldn't apply to you, because you dislike Desert Eagle or what have you.

If anyone was going to become an IR Moderator it would Nuts as he would get my vote. Part of me believes many of you would dislike him anyways, since I decided to take his advice in moderating IR as of late.

I would like to note, since it seems most of you are in here:

I have begun moderating IR very strictly. Personal attacks, flaming, trolling, 1, or 2 liners, etc.. will no longer be allowed. If you participate in doing so now, I would suggest you stop. If you find any posts like this, or are a target of such posts -- don't respond to it. You can either report it so it gets attention, or wait for me to come through and deal with it.

This is how its going to be -- I will no longer be as leniant as I was in the past.

And the Death Eagle issue? Will you people grow up?

FFS, he might be annoying, and he might post often on the same subject, or topics closely related to the same subject (bush sucks, war sucks, govt. sucks) but you always have the option to not click on the thread title, thus, letting the thread die.

Or, better yet:

Create your own thread.

Some of you seem to bitch about Desert Eagle and act as if he's some horrible person, but the fact is, he has probably kickstarted more discussing in IR then there has been for a long while.

Unless of course you all would prefer to discuss religious, god-based topics ad infinitum like GA.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

If you have been attacked by Neo, please disregard. Additionally, please do not address or rebutt any claims at innocence Neo has staked no matter how ridiculous. Ultimately, this thread isn't about Neo nor is it about Desert Eagle, or "Death Eagle" as Neo has termed him about 12 times.

Please state your non-party specific idea(s) and move on. I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'd rather have an open discussion amongst members. We stand a chance at coming together as a group and having something worthwhile to present in terms of what we'd prefer and how we'd like things to be run. Don't let people ruin it with immature attacks and recycled insults.

I liked the 3-mod elect system, that seemed pretty cool.

[Snot]

I have to give this to Schwitzer, he deserves it more than any one else. No diss to the other staff and admin... but the guy does a wonderful job.

[Desert_Eagle]

Main Entry: 2neutral
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from (assumed) Medieval Latin neutralis, from Latin, of neuter gender, from neutr-, neuter
1 : not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping <a neutral nation>
2 : of or relating to a neutral state or power <neutral territory>
3 a : not decided or pronounced as to characteristics : INDIFFERENT b (1) : ACHROMATIC (2) : nearly achromatic c (1) : NEUTER 3 (2) : lacking stamens or pistils d : neither acid nor basic e : not electrically charged
4 : produced with the tongue in the position it has when at rest <the neutral vowels of \&-'b&v\ above>
- neu·tral·ly /-tr&-lE/ adverb

No matter how many times I read this definition, I just can't fathom how you can claim to have anything in common with the word.

Well thats because none of those definitions are appropriate given the context. Neutrality in this case means being able to consistantly perform a certain job function without letting your political affiliation affect your judgement, something I am perfectly capable of.



The only problem with our current IR mod(you know who you are) is the he(or she) is way to unfair toward DE. Other than that, I like how it is now.

And still you have been unable to produce any kind of evidence to support that position.

So far no evidence has been given. Unsupported assertion? You bet!

I concur. I too am feeling something odd and unusual...respect.

I think this thread is playing a rather positive role, bringing together the members of the IR in a harmonious colleective of mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation.

Well, most members, at least.

LMAO, this is a flaming contest which by the way is not an IR topic. You would probably claim that Neo was violating his neutrality for closing this thread, even though it's not an IR topic.

I find it interesting that most of you think I have some sort of slack when it comes to DE, but if you've noticed, I have been coming down harsh on everyone.

If you all would prefer that I do not contribute to discussions as often as I try then I wont, and simply function as a moderator for IR. It might be a bit hard on my end (I do love certain topics) but so be it, I always have other things to do.

I was going to delete this, out right, because it seemed to be another one of GA-like-Xenon's attempt to degrade me or my moderation attempts because he just doesn't like me. But then I read it (like omg an IR mod read a thread~!) and thought it wasn't to bad.

I won't be moderating this specific thread for IR-Standards, so feel free to post your thoughts on the issue.

No, we don't prefer that. They have made baseless accusations against you without merit. Basically their position is "we don't like Desert Eagle and anyone who disagrees that he should leave (because we don't like him) is biased." Simultaneously, "we can break rules because we've been here, but Desert Eagle cannot break rules because we don't like him," even though the only time I have broken any rule is to respond to some flamebait post which I did not see any moderating.

Keep this in mind Neo, they have not supported their case whatsoever. Concensus is not evidence, as is demonstrated by the thousands of people who believe in Young Earth Creationism. As far as I'm concerned you would be violating your neutrality by not closing this thread, as it isn't an IR topic.

Please state your non-party specific idea(s) and move on. I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'd rather have an open discussion amongst members. We stand a chance at coming together as a group and having something worthwhile to present in terms of what we'd prefer and how we'd like things to be run. Don't let people ruin it with immature attacks and recycled insults.

Ironically, you were the one who started with the insults.

[Neo]

If you have been attacked by Neo, please disregard. Additionally, please do not address or rebutt any claims at innocence Neo has staked no matter how ridiculous. Ultimately, this thread isn't about Neo nor is it about Desert Eagle, or "Death Eagle" as Neo has termed him about 12 times.
Made a mistake, wish to shoot me for it?

"Attacked be Neo"

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Please state your non-party specific idea(s) and move on. I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'd rather have an open discussion amongst members. We stand a chance at coming together as a group and having something worthwhile to present in terms of what we'd prefer and how we'd like things to be run. Don't let people ruin it with immature attacks and recycled insults.

I liked the 3-mod elect system, that seemed pretty cool.

Yeah, this forum isn't a democracy. That isn't going to happen.

AJ is the one who decides on staff, and if he has no interest in assigning a new moderator to IR, then chances are there won't be. And if any, I would assume it would be Nuts.

No one is going to get promoted because you don't like me or my moderation of the IR.

I would've assumed you'd have commented on my comment about coming down harsly and strictly on IR, and taking Nut's advice, but did you just ignore that, or decide my post wasn't worth reading?

EDIT: About the closing of the God Doesn't Exist thread (if thats on anyone's mind) I've yet to recieve any pms requesting it be re-opened (As I offered in the closing post), so it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. The thread was closed specifically because of a reported post to.

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

dditionally, please do not address or rebutt any claims at innocence Neo has staked no matter how ridiculous.

No he didn't mean anything by that though, he's simply trying to keep this a good thread that brings people together in harmony. LMAO

Whats funny is that because of that fact that no evidence exists to demonstrate this violation of neutrality, anyone claiming so is in fact being ridiculous.

[Neo]

Hello ?

I know there are some of you reading/watching this thread. Feel free to comment, I basically gave everyone an open invite to post whatever they want -- you can even outright flame me if you wish and you won't be punished for it.

Are you telling me that only DE has any interest in this thread anymore?

Cmon, I was really hoping for some serious feedback here, nothing is going to change or get fixed if I don't know whats broken or what I've been doing wrong (percieved or not).

-Neo

[ScottieIWU]

My interest has declined in IR since DE's presence has increased unchecked. I should make a graph.

[Desert_Eagle]

Quit whining, nobody cares.

[Kingscrab]

My interest has declined in IR since DE's presence has increased unchecked. I should make a graph. I care! You can chart my disinterest too. That would be awesome. Make sure you use some blood red squiggly lines.

Death Eaglette: The Ann Coulter of the the left! Watch him soar, his liberal spew unchecked!

[Tharisfal]

GA or BI... who else?

[Desert_Eagle]

I care! You can chart my disinterest too. That would be awesome. Make sure you use some blood red squiggly lines.

Death Eaglette: The Ann Coulter of the the left! Watch him soar, his liberal spew unchecked!

Quit whining nobody cares.

[Neo]

My interest has declined in IR since DE's presence has increased unchecked. I should make a graph.

I care! You can chart my disinterest too. That would be awesome. Make sure you use some blood red squiggly lines.

Death Eaglette: The Ann Coulter of the the left! Watch him soar, his liberal spew unchecked!

And yet, I've been strictly moderating DE's posts (if not his threads, yet) as well as your own (kingscrab mainly, scottie usually doesn't resort to personal attacks).

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what exactly they want to be done in relation to Desert Eagle's threads.

Instead, most of you seem to be bitching.

EDIT: Decline in IR? IR has never been all that active anyways. To boycott IR because of 1 person seems kind of strange, especially since no one has, as of yet, told me what I should do with Desert Eagle.

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

Or what specific rule Desert Eagle has broken besides replying to flamebait.

Any rule I have broken was a reply to someone who also broke the rule.

The original complaints against me were not actual complaints about rule breaking. So far no evidence has surfaced.

Boycott IR, thats fine with me. We don't need your flamebait in here anyways.

[TinyDancer]

I think it has been universaly established that Iran is more neutral and less rude than you are.


That was fantastic.

Okay, I haven't been active too much in IR. People have a lot of trouble respecting other people's beliefs, and that got on my nerves. However, several posts by Neo were those that bothered me. As far as I'm concerned, when you become a mod, you cannot openly trash people's religions, opinions, etc. Telling people that everything they've believed for their entire lives, with all their hearts, is a bunch of bullshit, is inappropriate. Whether it's true or not, it's certainly not neutral.

I think Nuts would probably make a good mod, maybe even GrassDragon if he wanted to get active here again. He's one of the most level-headed, no-nonsense people I know. I think Neo can be a better mod though, if he puts his personal feelings aside. I don't want to give up on anyone.

As for Desert Eagle, I haven't seen any of that, so no comment.

Edit: Oh wait.

Any rule I have broken was a reply to someone who also broke the rule.

So that excuses it? Ever heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?" If someone else breaks a rule, no need for you to lower yourself to doing the same thing. Ignore it, let them dig a deeper hole for themselves.

[Kingscrab]

The original complaints against me were not actual complaints about rule breaking. Stop whining. Nobody cares.

[Morkeliph]

Okay people, let's all grow up here for just a few seconds. That means:

Desert_Eagle and Neo: Calm down a cool off for a second, even though you have been the obvious targets of a lot of trash talk.

Anti-Neo/DE People (you know who you are): Lay of both Neo and DE before someone gets seriously pissed or banned.

Now, lets talk about what we could actually do to solve this dilemma in IR. It appears to me that no matter who is the moderator for IR, some people are going to disapprove of their moderating. People didn't like Nuts and people currently are displeased with Neo, and I would suggest that if GenAl, myself, Scottie, Schwitzer or anyone else were made the IR mod, some people would be displeased. This is why I suggest a moderating team. Like I said earlier, if 3 people are designated moderators and a topic couldn't be closed without the consent of at least 2 moderators on the team, or a post couldn't be deleted without the consent of 2 or more mods on the team, then there would be a few positive results:

1) There wouldn't be any one person to be the scapegoat or target for everyone's disgruntlement.
2) There wouldn't be any dictator-esque censorship of particular points of view or tpoics of interest.
3) More people could be involved in the community and moderation which would increase the site's cohesion.
4) A term limit could be placed on a moderators service, of say 6 months, and after 6 months a new election for moderators could be held to diversify the forum a bit and keep everyone happy.
5) Communication between moderators would be necessary to open/close/delete threads which would result in more equitable and fair moderation in IR.

This is just a suggestion of my own that I think would help resolve this issue. Let us now please lay off of each other and talk civilized about this problem.

[Desert_Eagle]

We don't even have evidence that there is something wrong with the current moderation. All we have are baseless accusations. Therefore, I say until such evidence is presented, we're going to have to assume that the complaints are without merit.

[Morkeliph]

I think that fact that there are so many complaints alone is evidence that people are not satisfied with the moderating and thus, something is wrong.

[Neo]

That was fantastic.

Okay, I haven't been active too much in IR. People have a lot of trouble respecting other people's beliefs, and that got on my nerves. However, several posts by Neo were those that bothered me. As far as I'm concerned, when you become a mod, you cannot openly trash people's religions, opinions, etc. Telling people that everything they've believed for their entire lives, with all their hearts, is a bunch of bullshit, is inappropriate. Whether it's true or not, it's certainly not neutral.

Excuse me, but when I have I ever posted that?

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

Okay, I haven't been active too much in IR. People have a lot of trouble respecting other people's beliefs, and that got on my nerves. However, several posts by Neo were those that bothered me. As far as I'm concerned, when you become a mod, you cannot openly trash people's religions, opinions, etc. Telling people that everything they've believed for their entire lives, with all their hearts, is a bunch of bullshit, is inappropriate. Whether it's true or not, it's certainly not neutral.

Basically you can't be neutral if you have an opinion. In that case, nobody qualifies.

I think Nuts would probably make a good mod, maybe even GrassDragon if he wanted to get active here again. He's one of the most level-headed, no-nonsense people I know. I think Neo can be a better mod though, if he puts his personal feelings aside. I don't want to give up on anyone.

Under your definition Nuts is not neutral either.

So that excuses it? Ever heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?" If someone else breaks a rule, no need for you to lower yourself to doing the same thing. Ignore it, let them dig a deeper hole for themselves.

Agreed, but sometimes it's hard to help myself when I didn't see anything being done about it.

Note also that for someone to cite that would be a post hoc rationalization as these complaints were being leveled long before those posts.

I think that fact that there are so many complaints alone is evidence that people are not satisfied with the moderating and thus, something is wrong.

Well in that case, 90% of our soldiers in Iraq believe we are fighting in retaliation for Saddams role in 9/11. Therefore, we are fighting for Saddams role in 9/11, as this is evidence enough.

Right?

Also, 47% of Americans (majority) believe that man was created in his present form about 10,000 years ago, thus this is evidence enough that man and ape did not evolve from a common ancestor.

[Morkeliph]

Not to be aversive or overly critical, but please, lets stop talking about who did what and who's to blame but stay on topic and work towards a solution.

[Neo]

Okay people, let's all grow up here for just a few seconds. That means:

Desert_Eagle and Neo: Calm down a cool off for a second, even though you have been the obvious targets of a lot of trash talk.

Anti-Neo/DE People (you know who you are): Lay of both Neo and DE before someone gets seriously pissed or banned.

Now, lets talk about what we could actually do to solve this dilemma in IR. It appears to me that no matter who is the moderator for IR, some people are going to disapprove of their moderating. People didn't like Nuts and people currently are displeased with Neo, and I would suggest that if GenAl, myself, Scottie, Schwitzer or anyone else were made the IR mod, some people would be displeased. This is why I suggest a moderating team. Like I said earlier, if 3 people are designated moderators and a topic couldn't be closed without the consent of at least 2 moderators on the team, or a post couldn't be deleted without the consent of 2 or more mods on the team, then there would be a few positive results:

1) There wouldn't be any one person to be the scapegoat or target for everyone's disgruntlement.
2) There wouldn't be any dictator-esque censorship of particular points of view or tpoics of interest.
3) More people could be involved in the community and moderation which would increase the site's cohesion.
4) A term limit could be placed on a moderators service, of say 6 months, and after 6 months a new election for moderators could be held to diversify the forum a bit and keep everyone happy.
5) Communication between moderators would be necessary to open/close/delete threads which would result in more equitable and fair moderation in IR.

This is just a suggestion of my own that I think would help resolve this issue. Let us now please lay off of each other and talk civilized about this problem.

Moderating a forum is not a democracy.

To wait for another person to get on before deleting a post that is already in violation of established rules is not going to help things.

There aren't any dictatorship censure activity going on. Except for what I am supposed to do with Desert Eagle's threads (apparently I am supposed to close and/or delete his threads).

I don't mind being the target, but I am getting tired of being attacked without anyone telling me what they feel should happen. I mean to bitch is one thing, but to bitch and offer no suggestions isn't going to help.

Let me reiterate:

IR is not going to be a democratically run forum. Get over it. Its a good idea in theory, but so was communism.

There are already established rules that people are not following. That is the major problem. Another problem is that I have been to lenient in terms of moderating IR.

And for the last time, I am not "with" Desert Eagle. I've deleted probably more of his posts and/or edited them and/or etc... then anyone else in the last few days.

-Neo

Not to be aversive or overly critical, but please, lets stop talking about who did what and who's to blame but stay on topic and work towards a solution.
Yes please. Desert Eagle stop. Just stop.

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

So basically

1) Even though no evidence has been presented that you are violating neutrality, you cave in to these baseless accusations

2) "Something must be done about Desert Eagle" even though nobody has demonstrated that he violated any forum rules by posting threads that some members don't approve of (which begs the question, why do they even reply to them?)

3) Desert Eagle must stop, but not the people who he is replying to. You know, the ones who are insulting him and creating threads designed to insult him, then have the audacity to assert that Desert Eagles threads (which are IR topics) should be closed.

[Prozerran]

We don't even have evidence that there is something wrong with the current moderation. All we have are baseless accusations. Therefore, I say until such evidence is presented, we're going to have to assume that the complaints are without merit.
You'd like that, wouldn't you? Don't try to take the high ground here and rally people to your cause. As I understand it, you have a reputation for being less than objective, and your posts are just as inflamatory as others here. The evidence has yet to be discussed, but I'm willing to hazard a guess that if someone would actually show some guts and put it all out on the table for discussion, this whole problem will dissipate. Were I involved in the discussion, I would post such evidence as I understand it, but I will remain neutral and allow others to state their case since I was indeed, not there.

Simply put, cool off until everyone has a chance to voice their positions. This should all come to light sooner or later.

[Neo]

So basically

1) Even though no evidence has been presented that you are violating neutrality, you cave in to these baseless accusations
I'm not caving in. I let this thread stay open because I truly wish to see what others think on the subject.

2) "Something must be done about Desert Eagle" even though nobody has demonstrated that he violated any forum rules by posting threads that some members don't approve of (which begs the question, why do they even reply to them?)
I never said something will be done to you, just that no one has actually offered me a suggestion as to what to do. Most people seem to just be complaining without offereing any real solutions minus maybe 2 or 3 of the IR Regs.

3) Desert Eagle must stop, but not the people who he is replying to. You know, the ones who are insulting him and creating threads designed to insult him, then have the audacity to assert that Desert Eagles threads (which are IR topics) should be closed.

This:

Well in that case, 90% of our soldiers in Iraq believe we are fighting in retaliation for Saddams role in 9/11. Therefore, we are fighting for Saddams role in 9/11, as this is evidence enough.

Right?

Also, 47% of Americans (majority) believe that man was created in his present form about 10,000 years ago, thus this is evidence enough that man and ape did not evolve from a common ancestor.

Does not belong in this thread. Stop.

-Neo

You'd like that, wouldn't you? Don't try to take the high ground here and rally people to your cause. As I understand it, you have a reputation for being less than objective, and your posts are just as inflamatory as others here. The evidence has yet to be discussed, but I'm willing to hazard a guess that if someone would actually show some guts and put it all out on the table for discussion, this whole problem will dissipate. Were I involved in the discussion, I would post such evidence as I understand it, but I will remain neutral and allow others to state their case since I was indeed, not there.

Simply put, cool off until everyone has a chance to voice their positions. This should all come to light sooner or later.
Would it be that hard for anyone to just say "I don't like DE, I don't like his viewpoints, and I think he should be banned".

Prozerran if you were truly neutral then you wouldn't have said so. You don't attack DE (For wanting evidence as to his enfractions) in one line, and then claim your neutral in another.

If you don't like him, say so. Stop dancing around the subject.

NO ONE WILL BE PUNISHED FOR WHAT THE SAY IN THIS THREAD

Baring you know, like if you spamed it with gay porn or some such stuff that xenon enjoys doing.

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

Why doesn't it belong in the thread? It's a valid debate tactic known as reductio ad absurdum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I stated that no evidence has surfaced. He claimed that the number of complaints was evidence itself. I demonstrated that to be absurd logic.

I never said something will be done to you, just that no one has actually offered me a suggestion as to what to do. Most people seem to just be complaining without offereing any real solutions minus maybe 2 or 3 of the IR Regs.

Why should anything be "done."

What should be "done" with Nuts? Even though he hasn't done anything, what should be done with him? Suggestions?

You'd like that, wouldn't you? Don't try to take the high ground here and rally people to your cause. As I understand it, you have a reputation for being less than objective, and your posts are just as inflamatory as others here. The evidence has yet to be discussed, but I'm willing to hazard a guess that if someone would actually show some guts and put it all out on the table for discussion, this whole problem will dissipate. Were I involved in the discussion, I would post such evidence as I understand it, but I will remain neutral and allow others to state their case since I was indeed, not there.

Simply put, cool off until everyone has a chance to voice their positions. This should all come to light sooner or later.

We are still waiting for that evidence. That is, if it even exists.

In fact, this thread is absolutely ridiculous until such evidence comes forward. It would be like putting someone on trial without any evidence, and then deciding on a judgement/verdict before the trial begins. This thread isn't even an IR topic, in fact this thread itself violates the forum rules!

[Basan]

I do care. And hence am posting. :P
Now for real, I do like how things go currently (with Neo). I just know that he'd be strict to all, no matter how acquainted he gets with that person and hence keeping the overall level for IR, dismissing this whole arguement of biased stances. Or Nuts too, 'cause I believe he would do a splendid job too... but since he isn't a mod already we'll have to handle with what we got so far. No resents meant there, Neo (read, just stating that I believe that he'd do an excellent job too). ;)

And in case anyone's wondering I was the one to have reported the inflamatory posts over that thread (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=16095), below my latest post, of which many of you seem to be complaining about. I just felt that it wouldn't soar into the skies after that sidetrack, but instead to the gutter. As it did, thus unfortunatly confirming my initial 'horrid' suspicions. (And that, before having the time to keep track of any real IR stuff to dig in there.) But I digress... and perhaps it would be best for me to portrait my absence from the area.
As of lately I've been keeping myself away from the IR for a couple fo reasons. Not having the time or free n' stable connection that would allow me to keep updated, 2nd beeing the multiquote feature still deceased and 3rd but not the least the triffles that have been witnessing on my brief spasms there. :( Finally have decided to take an action about it, and get back active on it, particularly now since have got a stable 'Net connection at home that allows me to take my time catching up with arguements there or pretty darn close to it. :)

So expect to see me 'round more often or so I hope (if not too tired).

[Neo]

Why doesn't it belong in the thread? It's a valid debate tactic known as reductio ad absurdum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I stated that no evidence has surfaced. He claimed that the number of complaints was evidence itself. I demonstrated that to be absurd logic.
Because this is not one of your anti-war, anti-bush, or anti-govt threads. You have enough of those to make your point on those topics. Leave it out of this one.

Why should anything be "done."

What should be "done" with Nuts? Even though he hasn't done anything, what should be done with him? Suggestions?
You are completely missing the point, as such nothing is, or will be done because no one has offered any real rule-breaking. The most I've gotten is that your threads are inflammatory and multiply rapidly.

And FFS chill on the wikipedia links.

-Neo

In fact, this thread is absolutely ridiculous until such evidence comes forward. It would be like putting someone on trial without any evidence, and then deciding on a judgement/verdict before the trial begins. This thread isn't even an IR topic, in fact this thread itself violates the forum rules!
Guess what? I'm a moderator. I can suspend the rules and allow a thread like this to exist.

It won't be closed. Stop pushing for it to be closed.

-Neo

[SarahK]

My interest has declined in IR since DE's presence has increased unchecked. I should make a graph.

I've found it hard to get interested at all - Most of it is simply his propaganda-spam.

[Neo]

I've found it hard to get interested at all - Most of it is simply his propaganda-spam.
And yet, instead of responding to, or trying to dispute his 'spam' you simply spam is threads with comments that amount to nothing more then "your anti-american" or "your a terrorist, or whatever, so why dont you join them?" or something like that.

SarahK I know that your new, but it would be best if you read the rules before participating -- and especially before commenting.

You may not like DE but that doesn't mean he should be silenced.

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

Because this is not one of your anti-war, anti-bush, or anti-govt threads. You have enough of those to make your point on those topics. Leave it out of this one.

Well since neither my nor his claim had anything to do with Bush, the Iraqi war, or the United States government, I'm not sure I understand your position.

The simple fact is that no evidence has been presented. Someone tried to claim that a certain number of complaints is evidence. I falsified that claim via reductio ad absurdum.

You are completely missing the point, as such nothing is, or will be done because no one has offered any real rule-breaking. The most I've gotten is that your threads are inflammatory and multiply rapidly.

In that case, why is this thread still open? After 6 pages not a single shred of evidence has surfaced that would corroborate or verify these claims. You claim your waiting for the evidence, did it occur to you that such evidence might not exist, and that this thread is nothing more than flamebait? Consider the OP and the first page. They have all had ample time to state their case and yet refused to do so. Why is that? Why did they resort to flaming instead, and turn this into a flame thread?

Could it be that this might have been their intent?

And FFS chill on the wikipedia links.

Why? Whats wrong with wikipedia?

Guess what? I'm a moderator. I can suspend the rules and allow a thread like this to exist.

It won't be closed. Stop pushing for it to be closed.

I know your a moderator, I know you can suspend rules, and I'm not "pushing for closing."

I'm stating the facts, can I state facts for you?

The facts are as follows:

1) No evidence has surfaced. Though there is no doubt in my mind that some people in here were actually searching for evidence for the last 30 minutes but were unable to find any (I won't name names, just the people I saw viewing this thread but never made a reply) who probably won't mention the fact that they looked for evidence and could not find any.

2. Based on the OP (which was curiously edited later) and the posts which followed, we can safely assume this thread was designed to personally attack both me and you.

3. You continue to allow people to post in this thread even when they refuse to give evidence. Often these posts are characterized by flaming and insults. This in turn compels me to reply to them, which diverts the thread, turning it into a flame war which I believe the OP intended as do other posters.

If the thread were strictly about the evidence, I would have no need to reply because none exists. This thread would die if that were the case.

[SarahK]

I made at most 3 posts here like that (that got deleted) and they definitely had better grammar than "your a ...", guessing that's to try and make me look bad since the actual content got deleted. -_-

Yes I have read the rules now, I didn't at first I admit (didn't really notice, having clicked through straight into a topic from members lounge at first) - I'm not saying he should be "silenced" at all, just it would be better if nearly all of the topics were not his, with blatantly opinionated topic titles/poll choices more than often - for example on a recent one about drugs "No" [agreeing with him] "Yes (I'm ignorant)" [if you don't have the same opinion as him :rolleyes:]

Why? Whats wrong with wikipedia? Wikipedia CANNOT be used as a source for anything in the least controversial. For scientific things or stuff about television programmes, games etc it's fine, but nearly all political stuff on there is biased one way or another by people that have edited the page with their own agenda (I wouldn't be surprised if you do this just before posting links, really).
(http://www.wikipediareview.com)

[Desert_Eagle]

1. You have the option of not replying to my threads.
2. I demonstrated why "no" is necessarily an ignorant position. Feel free to refute, though.

edit: I'm going to excercise my right to create more threads at my discretion, right now.

[GenocideAlive]

OK, well, anybody reading this with the power to do so may lock this thread at any time.

This thread has been pretty much been trashed by a number of immature individuals that can't contribute to something without attempting to belittle or undermine someone else in the process. I wanted to have something civil and reasonable, and this is just out-of-control flaming.

[Desert_Eagle]

Sure you did. Thats why you edited your OP and made this post:

Additionally, please do not address or rebutt any claims at innocence Neo has staked no matter how ridiculous.

Neos claim that he is innocent until some kind of evidence surfaces is ridiculous.

[AJ]

Geez.

Before I say anything else, I want you all to know I think it rather funny that you're pushing for Schwitzer or BI to be a moderator in here, since both are global moderators and could stick their heads in here whenever they please.

As to the increased moderation from Neo, I support that. I think that among the different forums on WB, IR is probably the toughest. I don't really wish to see this sort of argument carry on, as it has been on-going for some time now.

I will look into the appointment of an additional moderator, and perhaps consider reworking some of the rules to make them more obvious, though as they are you all should understand what/how you are expected to perform in this forum. I've seen your suggestions and read your replies, so please, try and relax for a couple days and let me look things over -- and I'll come to a solution that will hopefully appease the majority of you.

[Schwitzer]

G'day!

I'd just like to mention that I think the appointment of another active IR moderator would be a very good idea. Intellectual Roundtable can be a very intense forum to moderate - I know. It's a lot for a single person to handle.

As some of you are aware, if you ever feel that there has been an inappropriate application of moderation, you should contact one of the global moderators, or AJ.