Conservatives of Wrong Planet

Post Reply New Topic

What are qualification and other factors to take into consideration? I don't really understand what is so hard about it unless it's being blocked...

The very fact that people make so many mistakes suggests that it's hard.

I think the most important things are activity, personality, communication skills, past behaviour, and intelligence. Now personally I feel under-equipped but I'm also pretty sure I'm better than a lot of the options.

Issues are often quite complex and long-running. A good mod should be able to keep track of a long-running issue and provide an appropriate response to a conflict that arises. You need to judge when to act and when to just dismiss the reports. You need to be able to defuse an argument rather than escalating it. It's best if you don't have a significant history of causing trouble and alienating people.

That's why I've always thought that Janissy would be perfect, and Cornflake was pretty much perfect too. Would aghogday have been just as good? Mootoo?

So then how'd you get picked?

I've had multiple mods tell me they are understaffed and that too much is asked of them, if that's the case then add a new mod and I don't think there would be any shortage of volunteers. Those mods also gave a different reason for why these spots don't get filled however. Fill the spot and if doesn't work out, then vote to remove them or something, seems pretty simple.

While the word chosen for the illustration, "idiot" was the same as the one in the incident you are thinking of, the example was generic and not meant to be a comment on that specific issue.

I think part of the problem is due to initially inadvertent offensiveness. I've noticed conservative members make statements that are incredibly offensive to a group of people but when others try to explain why those statements are offensive, the conservative members will just repeat their previous statements without stopping to try to understand things from the other point of view.

Specifically, I've witnessed a lot of offensive statements about transgender people. It's clear that the posters don't even realize how offensive they're being. So other members attack what those posters are saying.

It's ok to attack a belief. If someone believes gay people shouldn't get married, you can attack that belief. If your belief is due to your religion, then be prepared to have your religion attacked as well.

There are plenty of conservative posters who make well-reasoned logical arguments that are based on facts. But there are a larger number of people I've seen who just post arguments that are full of holes (and really aren't even valid arguments). Their citations (if they even post them) are usually from illegitimate or fake news sites that seem to exist solely to push a certain point of view.

Generally when liberals post faulty arguments that aren't based on facts, it's about gun control or something else that doesn't actually contain bigotry against another group of people. So they don't foment as much of a negative environment, even if what they're saying is wrong. There's a difference between attacking someone's beliefs (such as their religion or politics) and attacking a person for who they are (such as their sexual orientation or gender identity).

Fascinating...

You said it far better than I could have. Thanks...

Funny story: Some years ago we had a moderator go rogue and run off to a troll site with a copy of the mod logs, and wouldn't you know it but I was in some of the files. That got messy.

I also don't see where it says here that it is ok to harass another member by sending them PM's calling them a "Crazy b***h". Do I need to get my glasses on? Is it somewhere in microscopic print and I'm just missing it?

I take that back - you called me an "Evil b***h". And I sure the hell know that I'm not EVIL! : - P