ACCBoards

As Supermoderator? I realize I might be alone here but I'd like to see it. I believe it is time for different moderation here.

It is the height of hypocrisy, not to mention top-notch entertainment, for the don boscos, the sunnyheels, the mamasitas and their ilk to be calling for the ouster of the most evenhanded mod we've ever had, particularly since we heard no such outcry from them when the most peurile and partisan mod in board history, 79Devil, was blatantly using his mod powers to threaten those who dared best him and his lib pals in political debate.

some honest opinions here will be interesting. personally, there should be no "mod for life" position, particularly when one clearly has lost all objectivity, as TAG most certainly has, regardless of how he's ordained himself the wise, objective elder. naturally i think that loose rules are good rules, but that really has nothing to do with him, it's not of his creation.

Dang. Another something us Libruls will be blamed for.

(01-04-2010 04:46 PM)don bosco Wrote: [ -> ]As Supermoderator? I realize I might be alone here but I'd like to see it. I believe it is time for different moderation here.

There is very little moderation to step down from.

If you have complaints about actual moderation and not the posting of my political opinions, petition the Administrators.

Yours is thinly veiled effort to punish ideas which differ from your own, as I have not moderated anybody.

Mamasita, can you give us an example of where TAG using mod powers in a politically biased manner against someone on the left side of the political spectrum?

(01-04-2010 04:55 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2010 04:46 PM)don bosco Wrote: [ -> ]As Supermoderator? I realize I might be alone here but I'd like to see it. I believe it is time for different moderation here.

There is very little moderation to step down from. True.

If you have complaints about actual moderation and not the posting of my political opinions, petition the Administrators. Are you suggesting that I contact Kent then?

Yours is thinly veiled effort to punish ideas which differ from your own, as I have not moderated anybody. What exactly would be the punishment? I am not asking that you be banned or in any way silenced. Your accusation here is, however telling.

My take is that Tagterp has fallen victim to the Glenn Beck teabag craziness that has infected the American Right. That's not a good thing for a moderator because it's clear evidence of an imbalance. Still, the decision is in the hands and heart of Tagterp, and I would ask him to look at the situation from as distant a view as he can: Are your efforts contributing to the betterment of the board?

Ultimately, his service (or disservice) is not personal, it's collective, and he needs to judge his own performance toward the collective end.

(01-04-2010 05:01 PM)don bosco Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2010 04:55 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2010 04:46 PM)don bosco Wrote: [ -> ]As Supermoderator? I realize I might be alone here but I'd like to see it. I believe it is time for different moderation here.

There is very little moderation to step down from. True.

If you have complaints about actual moderation and not the posting of my political opinions, petition the Administrators. Are you suggesting that I contact Kent then?

Yours is thinly veiled effort to punish ideas which differ from your own, as I have not moderated anybody. What exactly would be the punishment? I am not asking that you be banned or in any way silenced. Your accusation here is, however telling.

You know exactly what you are doing and so do I. It is transparent. No high ground in this for you!

There is nothing but flatlands hereabouts these days anyway Tag.

Look at yourself.

Are your efforts contributing to the betterment of the board?

(01-04-2010 04:46 PM)don bosco Wrote: [ -> ]As Supermoderator? I realize I might be alone here but I'd like to see it. I believe it is time for different moderation here.

A.) Be specific as to why you feel a change is necessary.
B.) Does that include all other moderators that have been here awhile?
C.) Tag does an excellent job.
D.) Just my 2 cents, but seems to me if you "might be alone here..", you'd take this offline w/ Tag.
E.) If this flies, can we get the same term limits for congressmen and "sin-ators"?

(01-04-2010 05:04 PM)sunnyheel Wrote: [ -> ]My take is that Tagterp has fallen victim to the Glenn Beck teabag craziness that has infected the American Right. That's not a good thing for a moderator because it's clear evidence of an imbalance. Still, the decision is in the hands and heart of Tagterp, and I would ask him to look at the situation from as distant a view as he can: Are your efforts contributing to the betterment of the board?

Ultimately, his service (or disservice) is not personal, it's collective, and he needs to judge his own performance toward the collective end.

that's why i PMed him asking him to seriously consider his role, to which he scoffed. i have no problem contacting kent, even if TAG is now trying to take on the role of martyr. again, he doesn't need to be punished, he's just in no way suited to be holding some position of authority here, not as one who unnecessarily exacerbates situations. he made it ugly, if anyone goes back and rereads the exchange between goldie and i, and of course i haven't heard a peep from her, which is just too bad as it was an earnest exchange between two posters to which she then got stuck in the middle. perhaps TAG doesn't think his role has anything to do with the betterment of the boards.

A: Specifically I believe that Tag's strong partisanship of rightist ideology while holding the ability, power if you will, to ban (whether exercised or not, it is there) is inappropriate.
B: All other moderators have essentially abdicated their posts. Wonder why?
C: See A above
D: I would prefer a transparent and community discussion
E: Why not.

(01-04-2010 05:04 PM)sunnyheel Wrote: [ -> ]My take is that Tagterp has fallen victim to the Glenn Beck teabag craziness that has infected the American Right. That's not a good thing for a moderator because it's clear evidence of an imbalance. Still, the decision is in the hands and heart of Tagterp, and I would ask him to look at the situation from as distant a view as he can: Are your efforts contributing to the betterment of the board?

Ultimately, his service (or disservice) is not personal, it's collective, and he needs to judge his own performance toward the collective end.

Atleast here ^ is an opinion with some thought. I appreciate that approach and the sensitivity used. Actually, I respect it.

When I was approached and asked to be a Moderator these many years ago, I told the Administrator I would not post and was told that moderators post their opinions just like another poster.

And that is what I have done for 10 years or so. That some do not agree or like my opinions, I am not surprised as we are polarized here as is the Country politically. That people get over charged, I understand that people through darts at one another, I let it go as a moderator. sunnyheel you spelled it out in the other thread, I have a laissez faire approach, I tell the posters say what is on their minds, and I recognize that what is said can be taken personal by those to whom a criticism is directed. My advice is to grow thicker skin.

You see the minute a lefty mod or a righty mod intervened, you peeps call the bias card out, are convinced the only reason this or that happened is because of philosophical bias on the part of the moderator. Now, when you are not moderated at all, several of you are still not satisfied. Now it is because I am an active proponent of a conservative philosophy, bosco conjures this test of confidence!

Okay, do what you will, but until sonofanalum says good bye to me, I remain.

What, exactly has he done to warrant this? Has he banned anyone? Has he deleted/edited posts? If you want to accuse someone of being biased and abusing his power surely you have examples.

This is, when we come right down to it, a demand from the leftists that TAG be a leftist too.

Send in the clowns!!1

There are, then, no moderators as best I can see. Then you have nothing to do but ban spammers. Be my guest.

That will be fine with me. You have the respect that you have earned from me.

(01-04-2010 05:21 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2010 05:04 PM)sunnyheel Wrote: [ -> ]My take is that Tagterp has fallen victim to the Glenn Beck teabag craziness that has infected the American Right. That's not a good thing for a moderator because it's clear evidence of an imbalance. Still, the decision is in the hands and heart of Tagterp, and I would ask him to look at the situation from as distant a view as he can: Are your efforts contributing to the betterment of the board?

Ultimately, his service (or disservice) is not personal, it's collective, and he needs to judge his own performance toward the collective end.

Atleast here ^ is an opinion with some thought. I appreciate that approach and the sensitivity used. Actually, I respect it.

When I was approached and asked to be a Moderator these many years ago, I told the Administrator I would not post and was told that moderators had could post their opinions just like another poster.

And that is what I do. That some do not agree or like what I say, I am not surprised as we are polarized here as is the Country politically. That people get over charged, I understand, that people through darts, I let it go. sunnyheel you spelled it out in the other thread, I have a laissez faire approach, I tell the posters say what is on their minds, and I recognize that what is said is taken personal by those to whom the attack is directed. My advice is to grow thicker skin.

You see the minute a lefty mod or a righty mod intervened, you peeps call the bias card out, are convinced the only reason this or that happened is because of philosophical bias on the part of the moderator. Now, when you are not moderated at all, several of you are still not satisfied. Now it is because I am an active proponent of a conservative philosophy, bosco conjures this test of confidence!

Okay, do what you will, but until sonofanalum says good bye to me, I remain.

As I said, that is your right. Your service is appreciated, and you deserve to participate on your terms. However, you have still not answered the question: does your participation serve the betterment of the board?

Please state how you, as moderator, will act to serve the board's interests and what you see as those interests.

IMO, this place has degenerated badly, and you're the only active moderator. Place yourself in the Chairman's shoes: does this moderator deserve to keep his position? What can be changed to right the course of the institution?

For the most part folks behave around here. Sure there are dust ups now and then. Folks tend to get pissed and leave. Why dont you moderate Padre. Or maybe Sunny???? Would that make you feel more comfortable?

Even better: make me a Mod. I volunteer. Yall know my leanings and perhaps I could help "balance" things out. (Fair & Balanced ya know).

I am a moderator at a much larger set of message boards (Radioreference.com) and have experience in this field.

Let Tag stay and make me a Mod.

Thoughts/Prayers/Laughter?

Quote:IMO, this place has degenerated badly, and you're the only active moderator.

Happens after every election IIRC.

(01-04-2010 05:30 PM)NCTM Wrote: [ -> ]Even better: make me a Mod. I volunteer. Yall know my leanings and perhaps I could help "balance" things out. (Fair & Balanced ya know).

I am a moderator at a much larger set of message boards (Radioreference.com) and have experience in this field.

Let Tag stay and make me a Mod.

Thoughts/Prayers/Laughter?

What will you do to make this a better place M?

(01-04-2010 05:28 PM)rickheel Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part folks behave around here. Sure there are dust ups now and then. Folks tend to get pissed and leave. Why dont you moderate Padre. Or maybe Sunny???? Would that make you feel more comfortable?

For the most part, this place is vacant and portrays a persistent mean-spiritedness whenever politics is discussed. Yet, it can not exist without politics. Thus, to survive, the antagonists must learn to be civil and constructive. That takes active moderation.

As far as I can tell, only hardcore righties, not hardcore lefties, ever get asked to moderate. If that's not the case, I would accept an invitation to moderate, for a finite period, on the understanding that my role would be to enforce the only rule that needs to be enforced: no personal attacks. If you can't stay on subject and not on the back of the subject-maker, you can't stay.

I have no illusions about this prospect.

(01-04-2010 05:17 PM)don bosco Wrote: [ -> ]A: Specifically I believe that Tag's strong partisanship of rightist ideology while holding the ability, power if you will, to ban (whether exercised or not, it is there) is inappropriate.
B: All other moderators have essentially abdicated their posts. Wonder why?
C: See A above
D: I would prefer a transparent and community discussion
E: Why not.

And you would not be surprised to here me say you entire effort here is based on philosophical differences and has not a single thing to do with moderating. You offer a cunning and vacuous case! Mmy commentary on opinions posted came as a poster.

Other moderators including those on the left and the right have moved on because they had jobs, other family issues, or got fed up with taking the time to work through the likes of this effort.

Explain exactly what you mean by "transparent and community discussion" as you do not foster same here. It is you doing this thread (where is the 'community' in this effort), it was you who gathered folks over at the alternative UNC site for discussions about how to cause an upheaval over here (some 'transparency' advocacy). You have been given alot of room in your non-community drive-by comments, viewed by me and others as more like pin pricks then useful communal discussion.

When Bane or sonofanalum say I am not longer needed as a Moderator, then that is that, not because of your Rove-like efforts here.