I take offense when someone tells me that I must not be suited for this job because I want it so badly. And yes, I wanted to be a moderator. I applied on my own accord. I've been wanting to be a moderator on this site since shortly after I joined two and a half years ago. To be honest, it had gotten to the point that if I DIDN'T get a moderator position, then I probably would've left the place altogether. I hadn't been around much when I applied anyway. I wanted to be involved with helping to make the forum a better place than it was.
Then you need to grow a pair, Meg. It is not all about you and I expect the vast, vast majority of the board (including Nick) had no idea that you wanted to be a mod - so why the hell take his comment personally?
Also, on a side note, I did know you wanted to be a mod and I was extremely pleased for you when I saw your name on that list - since you've been a mod though I have seen almost exactly fuck all of you. You hardly ever post and (apart from this thread) I've not seen you come in to a thread
as a mod at all - and even here you came in to defend
yourself and have stuck around to argue the 'site(s) that defame' rule. Now maybe I have missed something, but there has been plenty of controversy since you and the others joined the team and I've seen everyone but you moderating the board. I know stuff goes on that I do not see, I don't always agree with the actions of the others that I have seen - but I have seen them, Meg.
I find it rather presumptuous of you to come to this conclusion.
Oh bollocks! Come on - do you think we are all thick. That's the most obvious conclusion there is. I know there have been two blogs recently, that I have heard about, that attacked a specific member (each) but this is clearly the Size Matters rule. Just call it what it is. And midseye's point above is totally valid. Being vague about it makes it impossible to enforce
The presumptuous part is assuming that we put that stipulation in the ToS simply because of the *other* site. That simply isn't true. If you or anyone else chooses to believe that, then feel free. However, I know otherwise. :wink:
Well - that's really helpful, Meg - that really makes the board a better place. More 'cloak and dagger the mods know stuff you don't neener-neener' attitude. Why not explain to us why 'that simply isn't true'?
I could understand 'no linking to
content that defames LPSG and/or its members' - that would cover those recent childish blogs and anything silly mentioned elsewhere about LPSG. But this rule uses the word 'sites' - which is a very broad brush, too broad, to echo mindseye once again. Freddie has clearly said above (and other mods have said in the past) Rob_E wants no links to Size Matters. Fine, that is his right, that's totally fine - but you need to call it what it is; no links to defaming content and no links to that one site no matter what the content. That's not hard.
That's your presumptive style and it's in error.
It was also a joke, Mary Jane. Cool your paws
Just because *snip* not a lock.
You would have done better with me if you hadn't attempted to explain it. Now I just see back-scrabbling and am starting to think there really is something behind it all.
Secondly, the mod board decisions are by consensus. Many of the United States Supreme Court decisions are 5 to 4 decisions.
Funniest. Analogy. EVER. :lmao: