Dogs, drs, ghosts, sports & resolutions

[DevilKitty100]

I really like the first and the last items in that list and and have a certain affinity for the other three. However, I'm wondering if our latest tempest in a teapot is going to result in any resolution. To wit:

Will Sprots be appointed as a moderator? A certain faction of us seem to think that's a really cool idea.......others think we're full of crap.

If that's deemed too much moderation, will rotations be possible?

Will guidelines be discussed and drawn up as to what moderators' duties are and are not?

Did we learn anything? Yes, I know it's kind of blown over and we've kind of kissed and made up but what happens when it all comes up again?

I like resolution.

[littlebeast13]

I'm going to edit that subject line because it makes absolutely no sense.....



lb13

[SportsFan68]

I think we have consensus; whether that will lead to the resolution I think it points to isn't up to me. Here's my thinking:

1. DK and others are very kind to think -- and state -- that gender balancing the moderator list by at least one will help allay our fears and annoyance. They are doubly kind to suggest that I be that one.

2. I believe that most posters are not interested in additional moderation; they appear to be interested in much less of the sort which they have been diligent and responsible enough to detail in the past couple days.

3. I believe that applying Occam's Razor to all of the input received in the past couple days will lead to the best possible resolution: Simply eliminate the "greenies" as moderators. This isn't punitive or retaliatory, nor does it judge the relative worth of any moderators or moderation. It simply says, we have enough moderation contained in our administrators. Let's recognize that, simplify, and move on to more interesting/relevant/engaging/pleasant/important and less divisive topics.

[Jeemie]

Life's messy.

Nothing ever gets resolved.

Things keep happening, and then you die.

That is all.

[MarleysGh0st]

3. I believe that applying Occam's Razor to all of the input received in the past couple days will lead to the best possible resolution: Simply eliminate the "greenies" as moderators. This isn't punitive or retaliatory, nor does it judge the relative worth of any moderators or moderation. It simply says, we have enough moderation contained in our administrators. Let's recognize that, simplify, and move on to more interesting/relevant/engaging/pleasant/important and less divisive topics.

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

[ulysses5019]

I really like the first and the last items in that list and and have a certain affinity for the other three. However, I'm wondering if our latest tempest in a teapot is going to result in any resolution. To wit:

Will Sprots be appointed as a moderator? A certain faction of us seem to think that's a really cool idea.......others think we're full of crap.

If that's deemed too much moderation, will rotations be possible?

Will guidelines be discussed and drawn up as to what moderators' duties are and are not?

Did we learn anything? Yes, I know it's kind of blown over and we've kind of kissed and made up but what happens when it all comes up again?

I like resolution.

I ain't kissing any of the moderators. Especially one that consorts with squirrels or squorrels.

[peacock2121]

3. I believe that applying Occam's Razor to all of the input received in the past couple days will lead to the best possible resolution: Simply eliminate the "greenies" as moderators. This isn't punitive or retaliatory, nor does it judge the relative worth of any moderators or moderation. It simply says, we have enough moderation contained in our administrators. Let's recognize that, simplify, and move on to more interesting/relevant/engaging/pleasant/important and less divisive topics.

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

It is not hers alone - I know I suggested it as well.

It doesn't matter if it is consensus or not - it really is up to Dave. It is his bored and his right to decide on his own, after considering all of the input. If anyone doesn't like what he decides, they can say more, in hopes of changing his decision. If one does not like his decision enough to influence their participation here - so be it.

I do like resolution, myself and would like to hear from Dave.

That is, of course, after he finishes all of whatever he does behind the scenes, that I will just watch from the corner, while looking cute.

[SportsFan68]

3. I believe that applying Occam's Razor to all of the input received in the past couple days will lead to the best possible resolution: Simply eliminate the "greenies" as moderators. This isn't punitive or retaliatory, nor does it judge the relative worth of any moderators or moderation. It simply says, we have enough moderation contained in our administrators. Let's recognize that, simplify, and move on to more interesting/relevant/engaging/pleasant/important and less divisive topics.

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

Here's my thinking: I believe that "I think," "I think," "I believe," "I believe," and "here's my thinking" add up to a conclusive reply to that question.

[peacock2121]

Oh - I did not suggest that Ed lose his moderatorship - so I really didn't suggest what sprots said.

I suggested the bob's be taken away.

Again - totally up to Dave.

and somehow, in my mind, LB should have more of a say too.

[littlebeast13]

Oh - I did not suggest that Ed lose his moderatorship - so I really didn't suggest what sprots said.

I suggested the bob's be taken away.

Again - totally up to Dave.

and somehow, in my mind, LB should have more of a say too.

While I will have my input should Dave decide to make some kind of decision on all of this, I agree 100% that the decision is all up to him......

lb13

[MarleysGh0st]

3. I believe that applying Occam's Razor to all of the input received in the past couple days will lead to the best possible resolution: Simply eliminate the "greenies" as moderators. This isn't punitive or retaliatory, nor does it judge the relative worth of any moderators or moderation. It simply says, we have enough moderation contained in our administrators. Let's recognize that, simplify, and move on to more interesting/relevant/engaging/pleasant/important and less divisive topics.

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

Here's my thinking: I believe that "I think," "I think," "I believe," "I believe," and "here's my thinking" add up to a conclusive reply to that question.

OK, you and pea and--does your faction have a name? The Antimoderation Party?

But you did start your post with "I think we have consensus" so I wanted to distinguish from what is consensus and what is not.



Did Fanny post something and then delete it? Or did a moderator do it? Or was I just seeing things?

[Sisyphean Fan]

3. I believe that applying Occam's Razor to all of the input received in the past couple days will lead to the best possible resolution: Simply eliminate the "greenies" as moderators. This isn't punitive or retaliatory, nor does it judge the relative worth of any moderators or moderation. It simply says, we have enough moderation contained in our administrators. Let's recognize that, simplify, and move on to more interesting/relevant/engaging/pleasant/important and less divisive topics.

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

You left out the part of her post that said

I think we have consensus; whether that will lead to the resolution I think it points to isn't up to me. Here's my thinking:

The portion I bolded answers your question before you even get to the section you quoted.

She is not alone, I posted pretty much the same thing yesterday. Saying nothing against any of the moderators, just questioning whether moderators were actually needed above and beyond the three administrators. I believe you responded that Eternal Vigilance Against Spam (EVAS) must be 24/7.

[Sisyphean Fan]

OK, you and pea and Fanny and--does your faction have a name? The Antimoderation Party?

But you did start your post with "I think we have consensus" so I wanted to distinguish from what is consensus and what is not.

I am not a part of any 'faction', especially an Antimoderation one. I have stated time and time again that I had absolutely no problem with the spoiler editing that started this new round of brouhaha.

Not thinking 6 are necessary when 3 are sufficient is not Antimoderation. It's moderation in all things, including moderation.

[MarleysGh0st]

I believe you responded that Eternal Vigilance Against Spam (EVAS) must be 24/7.

I did not quote Senator Goldwater (or, uhhh, Thomas Jefferson), but that was my response.

[peacock2121]

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

Here's my thinking: I believe that "I think," "I think," "I believe," "I believe," and "here's my thinking" add up to a conclusive reply to that question.

OK, you and pea and--does your faction have a name? The Antimoderation Party?

But you did start your post with "I think we have consensus" so I wanted to distinguish from what is consensus and what is not.



Did Fanny post something and then delete it? Or did a moderator do it? Or was I just seeing things?

Faction - wtf?

really, what the fuck!?

[Sisyphean Fan]

Did Fanny post something and then delete it? Or did a moderator do it? Or was I just seeing things?

I deleted because after it posted I saw peacock correct herself in that she did not suggest that same thing. So I reposted explaining what I had said rather than just an added "me too" post when it didn't really apply.

I must have deleted right before lb posted his, otherwise it wouldn't have deleted.

[MarleysGh0st]

Faction - wtf?

really, what the fuck!?

Lighten up, pea.

We're debating an issue, trivial as it may or may not be, and while there may be a hundred BBs expressing two hundred different opinions, I'm just saying there are, in general, loosely defined, approximately two different sides to the opinions here.

[SportsFan68]

Are you claiming consensus for this suggestion or is it yours, alone?

Here's my thinking: I believe that "I think," "I think," "I believe," "I believe," and "here's my thinking" add up to a conclusive reply to that question.

OK, you and pea and--does your faction have a name? The Antimoderation Party?

But you did start your post with "I think we have consensus" so I wanted to distinguish from what is consensus and what is not.



Did Fanny post something and then delete it? Or did a moderator do it? Or was I just seeing things?

This invites discussion of arcane subtleties that take an hour to resolve and in the end accomplish nothing because by the time you've discussed it all, you're no longer talking about what you're talking about. For clarification purposes only, in the hopes of ending this dead end:

1. To me, "I THINK we have consensus" translates to "Everything I've read in the past couple days indicates what I perceive to be a general level of agreement on." As T. says, I THINK that word doesn't mean the same thing that you think it means.

2. There is no faction. I may have hurt myself (and myself alone) jumping to conclusions about general agreement, but this leap to "faction" is not supported or supportable. That is a compliment. That is VERY nonliteral.

3. I have no idea what you're talking about WRT Fanny. She is not a part of any faction. There is no faction.

[MarleysGh0st]

There is no faction.

Fine, there is no faction.

How about a bloc, body, coalition, party, sect, set, side or wing?

[MinisterOfPropaganda]

3. I have no idea what you're talking about WRT Fanny. She is not a part of any faction. There is no faction.

As Minister of Propaganda, I am pleased with your speaking skills, and wish to offer you a job working for Big Brother....

[SportsFan68]

Marley wrote:

We're debating an issue, trivial as it may or may not be, and while there may be a hundred BBs expressing two hundred different opinions, I'm just saying there are, in general, loosely defined, approximately two different sides to the opinions here.

I believe (it is my humble opinion that) there are two more in general and loosely defined, and equally valid, sides:

1. The group which doesn't care at all.

2. The group which cares only insofar as there is an opportunity for smartassery.

[Sisyphean Fan]

There is no faction.

Fine, there is no faction.

How about a bloc, body, coalition, party, sect, set, side or wing?

I vote for party!

With no moderation. Because when it's time to party, party hard.

Spoiler

And lest it be construed that I'm actually suggesting a no moderation group, I just posted this so I could reference Andrew WK.

[SportsFan68]

3. I have no idea what you're talking about WRT Fanny. She is not a part of any faction. There is no faction.

As Minister of Propaganda, I am pleased with your speaking skills, and wish to offer you a job working for Big Brother....

I accept! Finally, a job utilizing my not inconsiderable talents and proclivities!

And if I could think of any, I'd substitute a bigger word for talents too!

[minimetoo26]

Marley wrote:

We're debating an issue, trivial as it may or may not be, and while there may be a hundred BBs expressing two hundred different opinions, I'm just saying there are, in general, loosely defined, approximately two different sides to the opinions here.

I believe (it is my humble opinion that) there are two more in general and loosely defined, and equally valid, sides:

1. The group which doesn't care at all.

2. The group which cares only insofar as there is an opportunity for smartassery.

Make it four. Add:

3. Those who think it is Dave's decision, and Dave's alone.

4. Those who will shout until they get their way.

Okay, five:

5. Those who won't come NEAR this thread with a 10-foot pole.

The Fractious Factions!

[Sisyphean Fan]

3. I have no idea what you're talking about WRT Fanny. She is not a part of any faction. There is no faction.

As Minister of Propaganda, I am pleased with your speaking skills, and wish to offer you a job working for Big Brother....

I accept! Finally, a job utilizing my not inconsiderable talents and proclivities!

And if I could think of any, I'd substitute a bigger word for talents too!

How about loquacious?