New Mod - Logroller

[jimnyc]

I remember growing up with that song, endlessly on Mom's radio. I had hoped that it disappeared back in the 70's! LOL

"There's no crying in baseball" - Tom Hanks

And no crying at DP either.

[aboutime]

I remember growing up with that song, endlessly on Mom's radio. I had hoped that it disappeared back in the 70's! LOL

"There's no crying in baseball" - Tom Hanks

And no crying at DP either.

Thought you'd like this one too!

[Drummond]

Are you astonished because I made a decision that you think is harmful to the board, or because I chose someone that you don't particularly have a lot of love for?

What "I" want out of this board, and the freedoms I've afforded without crazy moderation, will NOT be changing. Even if between the worst of enemies, staff is not allowed to do anything I wouldn't do myself. To put it bluntly, I have ideas of where I would like to see the board go and how I would want it ran - and staff is an extension of that, to basically do what I would do.

People have been telling me for 10 years now how my patience and dedication to freedom of speech won't last. But it has. And it's not going to change. The day I become overbearing and more interested in moderating than provoking good discussion, I'll sell off or give the board away.

If I thought for a NYC second that Logroller would ever moderate unfairly, I wouldn't have asked him to come aboard. With that said, it can't fail. For starters, I wouldn't allow it too, as I love this place and will always stick to my principles. Secondly, and more important, give him a chance outside of a debate to see how he moderates. He's proved his fairness and maturity to me for a few years. Being polar opposites on some heated topics doesn't mean you guys can't agree on what is best for the board.

Your reply contains certain assurances. I thank you for them.

The fact of 'enmity', or even the extent of it, is not an issue as such. Granted, one could look at such an issue and be constrained in judgments according to their shallowness ... as much as anything else. But let me put these thoughts to you.

Firstly (and as Marcus has been at pains to point out, in his own way), this forum is understood to be yours, to run as you choose, as you see is best. Noted - accepted - none of that is the basis for quarrel.

Now, this following viewpoint you may regard as overly subjective if you wish ... but I happen to think I'm making a very valid case.

It is this: Left-wing thinking has never struck me as being particularly based in logic or fairness. It's about the acquisition of power, and, once acquired, how you apply it.

As an experiment, years ago, I contributed to a Left-wing discussion forum run out of the UK. It was not too dissimilar to this one, except of course that its debating directions were very firmly Left wing. So, what did I experience ? Apart from contention taken to a pitch that few would believe ... judgments, controls, were pitched to strongly favour Left-wing views. In essence, it was part-rational, but for the most part it was 'if you don't see things a certain way, there has to be something wrong with you'.

Its version of 'moderation', in the short time I was there, included PM's from no less than three Mods, each requiring me to argue a certain way. One of them kept up a dialogue with me for weeks on end, designed to deconstruct my arguments BEFORE I fully presented them.

Appearance of fairness evidently mattered to them. So long as it was heavily controlled along the way, of course.

[I feel a certain pride in my durability there. Yes, I actually lasted there for SIX entire weeks, before I was turfed off of there.]

Jim, I'm telling you this for a reason. My view is that the greater the opportunities given to those of a Left-persuasion to exercise control, so the greater the manifestation of its following a set agenda will be. I don't just believe that because I THINK I'm right .. I believe it because I've experienced it for myself.

You may believe in freedom of debate and of its being fairly balanced throughout. Jim; I absolutely promise you, those of the Left do NOT.

'Enmities' aren't really the issue. My view and belief is that the more a forum, ANY forum, is opened up to those from the Left, so the greater the incidence of agenda-setting will be as a consequence.

You say you've known Logroller for years, and it seems clear that you trust him to do a good job for you. OK, we'll see.

But I also believe I have legitimate concerns, Jim. And I do speak from experience.

[aboutime]

Your reply contains certain assurances. I thank you for them.

The fact of 'enmity', or even the extent of it, is not an issue as such. Granted, one could look at such an issue and be constrained in judgments according to their shallowness ... as much as anything else. But let me put these thoughts to you.

Firstly (and as Marcus has been at pains to point out, in his own way), this forum is understood to be yours, to run as you choose, as you see is best. Noted - accepted - none of that is the basis for quarrel.

Now, this following viewpoint you may regard as overly subjective if you wish ... but I happen to think I'm making a very valid case.

It is this: Left-wing thinking has never struck me as being particularly based in logic or fairness. It's about the acquisition of power, and, once acquired, how you apply it.

As an experiment, years ago, I contributed to a Left-wing discussion forum run out of the UK. It was not too dissimilar to this one, except of course that its debating directions were very firmly Left wing. So, what did I experience ? Apart from contention taken to a pitch that few would believe ... judgments, controls, were pitched to strongly favour Left-wing views. In essence, it was part-rational, but for the most part it was 'if you don't see things a certain way, there has to be something wrong with you'.

Its version of 'moderation', in the short time I was there, included PM's from no less than three Mods, each requiring me to argue a certain way. One of them kept up a dialogue with me for weeks on end, designed to deconstruct my arguments BEFORE I fully presented them.

Appearance of fairness evidently mattered to them. So long as it was heavily controlled along the way, of course.

[I feel a certain pride in my durability there. Yes, I actually lasted there for SIX entire weeks, before I was turfed off of there.]

Jim, I'm telling you this for a reason. My view is that the greater the opportunities given to those of a Left-persuasion to exercise control, so the greater the manifestation of its following a set agenda will be. I don't just believe that because I THINK I'm right .. I believe it because I've experienced it for myself.

You may believe in freedom of debate and of its being fairly balanced throughout. Jim; I absolutely promise you, those of the Left do NOT.

'Enmities' aren't really the issue. My view and belief is that the more a forum, ANY forum, is opened up to those from the Left, so the greater the incidence of agenda-setting will be as a consequence.

You say you've known Logroller for years, and it seems clear that you trust him to do a good job for you. OK, we'll see.

But I also believe I have legitimate concerns, Jim. And I do speak from experience.

Thank You Sir Drummond. You managed to say, almost exactly what I was at a loss for saying. Probably due to my past experience where attempting to deal with others in explaining the UNFORSEEN consequences of certain actions.. is often ignored.
Of course. Those who always oppose making such statements based on experience. Always seem to find that invisible, but workable tact of pretending to be something, or someone they really are not. To achieve their ultimate goal.
Personally. Like you. I have experienced the betrayal, and guaranteed promises too many times to just shrug them off, and pretend they aren't real here.
Guess Jim will just have to learn, on his own. As I have stated before.
Since I, and WE are not capable, or knowledgeable enough to just enjoy the promised STATUS QUO being offered up.

[Thunderknuckles]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

[jimnyc]

Your reply contains certain assurances. I thank you for them.

The fact of 'enmity', or even the extent of it, is not an issue as such. Granted, one could look at such an issue and be constrained in judgments according to their shallowness ... as much as anything else. But let me put these thoughts to you.

Firstly (and as Marcus has been at pains to point out, in his own way), this forum is understood to be yours, to run as you choose, as you see is best. Noted - accepted - none of that is the basis for quarrel.

Now, this following viewpoint you may regard as overly subjective if you wish ... but I happen to think I'm making a very valid case.

It is this: Left-wing thinking has never struck me as being particularly based in logic or fairness. It's about the acquisition of power, and, once acquired, how you apply it.

As an experiment, years ago, I contributed to a Left-wing discussion forum run out of the UK. It was not too dissimilar to this one, except of course that its debating directions were very firmly Left wing. So, what did I experience ? Apart from contention taken to a pitch that few would believe ... judgments, controls, were pitched to strongly favour Left-wing views. In essence, it was part-rational, but for the most part it was 'if you don't see things a certain way, there has to be something wrong with you'.

Its version of 'moderation', in the short time I was there, included PM's from no less than three Mods, each requiring me to argue a certain way. One of them kept up a dialogue with me for weeks on end, designed to deconstruct my arguments BEFORE I fully presented them.

Appearance of fairness evidently mattered to them. So long as it was heavily controlled along the way, of course.

[I feel a certain pride in my durability there. Yes, I actually lasted there for SIX entire weeks, before I was turfed off of there.]

Jim, I'm telling you this for a reason. My view is that the greater the opportunities given to those of a Left-persuasion to exercise control, so the greater the manifestation of its following a set agenda will be. I don't just believe that because I THINK I'm right .. I believe it because I've experienced it for myself.

You may believe in freedom of debate and of its being fairly balanced throughout. Jim; I absolutely promise you, those of the Left do NOT.

'Enmities' aren't really the issue. My view and belief is that the more a forum, ANY forum, is opened up to those from the Left, so the greater the incidence of agenda-setting will be as a consequence.

You say you've known Logroller for years, and it seems clear that you trust him to do a good job for you. OK, we'll see.

But I also believe I have legitimate concerns, Jim. And I do speak from experience.

Thanks for the well thought out post. I'll try to reply the best I can.

This board has never been about me, and my way or the highway. I've done my best over the years to include staff on decisions AND the entire community on some decisions. Yes, it is my board, but I try to always do what is best for the community as a whole. None of the shenanigans you endured elsewhere will be applied here, whether it may feel that way or appear that way at times.

There will always be fairness in moderation here and NO ONE will ever tell others how they should post. Take away the individuality and I'm not surprised boards that employ that crap will fail.

While things aren't perfect here, do you think I've been anything but fair to you guys? And I believe you broke the 6 week barrier here too! Nothing is going to change. The rules remain the same. The debates will be the same. No one is going to be unfairly moderated or eaten alive because Log became a moderator.

We could have 19 leftie moderators and then me - and things still wouldn't change. The board is what it is, so long as I own it, and won't be changing.

Oh, and I don't think Log is a leftie!

[Kathianne]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

I think so, at least he has been. Yes, I've noticed changes in the last months, but am unsure if that is real change or just pissing some off. I've no doubt he'll be a fair moderator.

He's smart and I've known him many times to agree with part of something I said and disagree with others. He doesn't feel the need to agree in toto or slam because of one or two points.

He bothers to read what others write. That's very important, IMO.

[jimnyc]

Thank You Sir Drummond. You managed to say, almost exactly what I was at a loss for saying. Probably due to my past experience where attempting to deal with others in explaining the UNFORSEEN consequences of certain actions.. is often ignored.
Of course. Those who always oppose making such statements based on experience. Always seem to find that invisible, but workable tact of pretending to be something, or someone they really are not. To achieve their ultimate goal.
Personally. Like you. I have experienced the betrayal, and guaranteed promises too many times to just shrug them off, and pretend they aren't real here.
Guess Jim will just have to learn, on his own. As I have stated before.
Since I, and WE are not capable, or knowledgeable enough to just enjoy the promised STATUS QUO being offered up.

Couldn't you guys perhaps stop judging my board based on past bad experiences?

I think I've been nothing but fair with all of you, even those that disagree with this decisions. You're all still here posting. The worst anyone has seen has been a small handful of thread bans, and maybe some posts clipped and moved to the cage. At least save your ammo and let me have it when you actually see anything unfair.

[Kathianne]

Couldn't you guys perhaps stop judging my board based on past bad experiences?

I think I've been nothing but fair with all of you, even those that disagree with this decisions. You're all still here posting. The worst anyone has seen has been a small handful of thread bans, and maybe some posts clipped and moved to the cage. At least save your ammo and let me have it when you actually see anything unfair.

I agree. With the ability to 'thread ban' one really has to work at being 'banned' for even 24 or 48 hours. I've not seen any thread bans being issued without cause. We all know the rules, we all know the requests made over and over again.

On another board I visit, the original poster can actually thread ban other members, those that often derail for instance. While I can see a very good app for such, as a fair minded person I don't think other voices should be silenced without earning it. Each time.

[Drummond]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

Strangely enough, I don't find that to be very reassuring !

I can't speak for America, but where the UK is concerned, Libertarianism is seen as at least broadly Socialist. Granted, there has been debate about that. But, in the main at least, Libertarianism is perceived in that way.

One of the more notably Left-wing leaders the Labour Party ever had, described himself as a Libertarian. I refer to Michael Foot.

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

... Foot became a journalist, working briefly on the New Statesman, before joining the left-wing weekly Tribune when it was set up in early 1937 to support the Unity Campaign, an attempt to secure an anti-fascist United Front between Labour and the parties to its left. The campaign's members were Stafford Cripps's (Labour-affiliated) Socialist League, the Independent Labour Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CP). Foot resigned in 1938 after the paper's first editor, William Mellor, was fired for refusing to adopt a new CP policy of backing a Popular Front, including non-socialist parties, against fascism and appeasement. In a 1955 interview, Foot ideologically identified as a libertarian socialist ...

[revelarts]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

Wait, isn't he a pot head conservative too? or is that just me and FJ?
seriously , Log , if i can try to generalize your political POV.
ummm
I'd say moderate conservative/libertarian with a good dollop of environmental globalist governance wedged in there in some freaky way somehow.

I'm sure not the way you'd put it, but is that fair?

[Thunderknuckles]

Libertarians in the US are different. They are fiscally conservative and socially liberal - which is where Log probably runs afoul with conservatives. Most importantly, however, they believe in small government. Government that does not intervene in people's lives and allows them to live their lives as they see fit.
I suppose when you consider that last part, Logroller might turn out to be the most useless Mod this board has ever had

[Thunderknuckles]

Logroller's member interview for anyone who wants to freshen up on his background:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...Logroller-quot

In it he clearly states he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[Drummond]

Thanks for the well thought out post. I'll try to reply the best I can.

This board has never been about me, and my way or the highway. I've done my best over the years to include staff on decisions AND the entire community on some decisions. Yes, it is my board, but I try to always do what is best for the community as a whole. None of the shenanigans you endured elsewhere will be applied here, whether it may feel that way or appear that way at times.

There will always be fairness in moderation here and NO ONE will ever tell others how they should post. Take away the individuality and I'm not surprised boards that employ that crap will fail.

While things aren't perfect here, do you think I've been anything but fair to you guys? And I believe you broke the 6 week barrier here too! Nothing is going to change. The rules remain the same. The debates will be the same. No one is going to be unfairly moderated or eaten alive because Log became a moderator.

We could have 19 leftie moderators and then me - and things still wouldn't change. The board is what it is, so long as I own it, and won't be changing.

Oh, and I don't think Log is a leftie!

Thanks for your assurances. I'm going to take you at your word and see what happens.

Bear in mind this, though. I gave you one example of how a Leftie forum operated. I could cite you another of a further forum - yes, that one American - that, in the name of freedom of speech, exercised very little moderation. It was joined by, and became 'dominated' by, a large contingent of Right-wing contributors.

I was recommended to that site by an American lady, and debated there, quite happily, for a couple of years. Then ... WHAM !! ... along came 2004, US election year, and suddenly a mass of Left-wing trolls descended on to the site. Their activities were disgusting. Debate became nearly impossible. Whole threads became nothing but cesspits of abuse. Many of us Right-wingers battled on, but eventually jumped ship. We felt we had to.

The Left does have its agenda, and once it digs its heels in to a site, it either 'terraforms' it into something it can use for itself, or, it goes on a wrecking spree.

So, that all said .. I thank you for your assurances, Jim (... and if you doubt that my account is accurate, I'll happily identify the site to you in a PM ..).

[Drummond]

Logroller's member interview for anyone who wants to freshen up on his background:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...Logroller-quot

In it he clearly states he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

OK, I'll take a look ...