I did, and I thought I had your approval to do so when you said you wouldn't be likely to be the mod, but when you withdrew your approval I stopped making light of myself. I am compelled to disagree with your idea that moderating a living Scored community for 5 years is doing nothing.
I recall there being discussion about how we didn't need mods to get roundtables going and anybody could do it, but now you want a position of giving prior approval to do something that previously could be done by anyone without prior approval?
I see that I misapplied your comment about me to u/Graphenium because you're generating so many pings. Not only that but it's called "derailing" when you fly off on a tangent in a completely different thread, especially if you use the same comment multiple times.
You suggest we "make a pool" for discussion, proposing "Rules" (like a mod) such as "Expose shills" (meta), adding "I don't review this forum daily" (which you later castigate others about not doing enough of) and "If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic" (which u/Graphenium does and you castigate him for).
I support your idea by being the only one to propose a topic, and I note the mod absence before anyone this cycle, "maybe we need a new mod".
You reply "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" and "I am an absolute idiot in moderation" (proposing the idea of you as mod before I propose me as mod) and "I can do the work - no problem for me, actually I like doing a lot of work... But if you can explain your words to a person, who was never a moderator" (though you are a Scored mod, and later say you have multiple communities but you only have one).
I continue deferring who the mod could be and explain how mods use stickies as you request.
You compliment me (is this simping?), "It's great that you're humble, but we need ideas! Honestly! Any idea is good", you notice "it's the only idea that is discussed" (the only answer to your question): then you give the big spitball (trial balloon), "this place has none active moderators... One solutions could be for you to create your own page and moderate it as well as you can, another would be to call for a community that would visit a forum and place certain people, that you trust, as moderators... If you want to create your own community, I will help with everything that I have. But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions. If you have an idea for a new commity, you have my full support! Many will benefit from such a place!" There you even ask me to select plural moderators and you offer to work for me but you don't apply it to modding this community for some reason, even though you discuss the idea of yourself modding this community.
I finally take your bait, "Well .... there are many ways to go with this .... This is also a situation where I'd consider moderating if the community would have me, because there isn't much burden there and I wouldn't promise anything other than objectivity .... I'll write something brief at Meta to see where it goes." Note that it's completely dependent on community approval, not appointment. At Meta I write among other things "Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help".
You seal the deal: "Anyone here up to a vote? We need a moderator and u/SwampRangers offers his help. We have been without posts that unite our thinking for very long... We need a moderator urgently! Please cast your vote! It's ok if it is for yourself even .... You say you made 3 but you give up on your ego and promote a 4th one - not done by you... Respect for that! Honestly! I will visit them all, we need to expand! Hope others visit them too! .... You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even." You were speaking of simping?
So I promoted the two of us after you hypothesized yourself as mod first and after you proposed we two fix the lack of moderation.
Everything that came after that is all downhill from that deal. There had already been rival names suggested: I said in my reply to your vote "I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod". A primary burr in your saddle was that I defended Will as harmless and wouldn't commit to ban him without giving him warnings. You didn't like my view on math, or forum-sliding, or Robert's Rules. Once you realized I wouldn't do everything you wanted, pfft. And bang bang.
Now you're saying you exposed some scheme of mine, which reads at first like projection. I see no crime whatsoever in the idea occurring to me that I might want to mod and my then discussing the subject neutrally, and, after you describe the hypothetical of you modding, my offering my services. But God will judge all schemes.
Further, by my saying I would go to Meta and your not saying anything about it, the maxim of the law is that silence betokens consent. So you approved. Struck, because you were offline; so what you approved of was us fixing the lack of moderation generically.
I did, and I thought I had your approval to do so when you said you wouldn't be likely to be the mod, but when you withdrew your approval I stopped making light of myself. I am compelled to disagree with your idea that moderating a living Scored community for 5 years is doing nothing.
You did that 1 day after I wrote this post and WITHOUT MY APPROVAL.
You did that only to promote yourself using my post.
Woo hoo, look who knows so much.
I recall there being discussion about how we didn't need mods to get roundtables going and anybody could do it, but now you want a position of giving prior approval to do something that previously could be done by anyone without prior approval?
The irony thickens.
You're just butthurt because I exposed your schemes.
Copy 1 of ?
I see that I misapplied your comment about me to u/Graphenium because you're generating so many pings. Not only that but it's called "derailing" when you fly off on a tangent in a completely different thread, especially if you use the same comment multiple times.
The sequence was:
You suggest we "make a pool" for discussion, proposing "Rules" (like a mod) such as "Expose shills" (meta), adding "I don't review this forum daily" (which you later castigate others about not doing enough of) and "If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic" (which u/Graphenium does and you castigate him for).
I support your idea by being the only one to propose a topic, and I note the mod absence before anyone this cycle, "maybe we need a new mod".
You reply "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" and "I am an absolute idiot in moderation" (proposing the idea of you as mod before I propose me as mod) and "I can do the work - no problem for me, actually I like doing a lot of work... But if you can explain your words to a person, who was never a moderator" (though you are a Scored mod, and later say you have multiple communities but you only have one).
I continue deferring who the mod could be and explain how mods use stickies as you request.
You compliment me (is this simping?), "It's great that you're humble, but we need ideas! Honestly! Any idea is good", you notice "it's the only idea that is discussed" (the only answer to your question): then you give the big spitball (trial balloon), "this place has none active moderators... One solutions could be for you to create your own page and moderate it as well as you can, another would be to call for a community that would visit a forum and place certain people, that you trust, as moderators... If you want to create your own community, I will help with everything that I have. But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions. If you have an idea for a new commity, you have my full support! Many will benefit from such a place!" There you even ask me to select plural moderators and you offer to work for me but you don't apply it to modding this community for some reason, even though you discuss the idea of yourself modding this community.
I finally take your bait, "Well .... there are many ways to go with this .... This is also a situation where I'd consider moderating if the community would have me, because there isn't much burden there and I wouldn't promise anything other than objectivity .... I'll write something brief at Meta to see where it goes." Note that it's completely dependent on community approval, not appointment. At Meta I write among other things "Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help".
You seal the deal: "Anyone here up to a vote? We need a moderator and u/SwampRangers offers his help. We have been without posts that unite our thinking for very long... We need a moderator urgently! Please cast your vote! It's ok if it is for yourself even .... You say you made 3 but you give up on your ego and promote a 4th one - not done by you... Respect for that! Honestly! I will visit them all, we need to expand! Hope others visit them too! .... You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even." You were speaking of simping?
So I promoted the two of us after you hypothesized yourself as mod first and after you proposed we two fix the lack of moderation.
Everything that came after that is all downhill from that deal. There had already been rival names suggested: I said in my reply to your vote "I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod". A primary burr in your saddle was that I defended Will as harmless and wouldn't commit to ban him without giving him warnings. You didn't like my view on math, or forum-sliding, or Robert's Rules. Once you realized I wouldn't do everything you wanted, pfft. And bang bang.
Now you're saying you exposed some scheme of mine, which reads at first like projection. I see no crime whatsoever in the idea occurring to me that I might want to mod and my then discussing the subject neutrally, and, after you describe the hypothetical of you modding, my offering my services. But God will judge all schemes.
Further, by my saying I would go to Meta and your not saying anything about it, the maxim of the law is that silence betokens consent. So you approved.Struck, because you were offline; so what you approved of was us fixing the lack of moderation generically.