New Senate moderator: Kimball_Kinnison

Sapient, will all due respect, I don't think you understand why I am annoyed by this.

I will admit that I am not competent enough to be a mod, and a lot of people aren't. But there ARE plenty of liberal posters who are, and there is already a conservative poster.

I blame Knightwriter, since I don't really know what Red's hand was in this. Even the APPEARENCE of impropriety should be eliminated.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney, I must say I am disappointed in you.

Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I can think of half a dozen other people who could also competently handle the job but who were a little more centrist or left of centre.

Now, luckily Knightwriter has proven to be fair and balanced (unlike Fox/Fake News), and I'm sure Kimball can do his job without letting it interfere.

First, thank you for your vote of confidence in me, even though you would prefer someone else.

However, for someone who has repeatedly been irked by the label of "liberal" when it has been thrown around in the Senate, I expected more of you than throwing around the "conservative" label.

I am conservative on some issues, but on others I am quite liberal (just aske my brother). In any case, though, my political, social, economic, or other views will not influence me in this. As a moderator, I have reviewed the guidelines given in the ModSquad and I promise to adhere to them comletely. I have been given a clear standard to follow and I will do so.

If you are ever concerned about my moderating, feel free to contact me directly. I respect your opinion, even when we disagree, and will value your input.

With that said, I believe that we should be able to let this matter drop completely.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Concerning the 'conservative' label, point taken, I was reserved about it in the first place, but did so for convenience. You are no more an all-time conservative than I am an all-time liberal.

And I never called into question your competency, nor did I even suggest you be removed.

I am just annoyed that this occurred in the first place. I think it's important because moderators serve a symbolic function as well, and it's important to have at least ONE openly left-leaning moderator instead of none.

 

It's not his opinions that landed it, it's the behaviors - a subtle, yet important distinction. The 3SA mods, myself included, disagree on just about everything under the sun. C'est la vie. But they are absolutely outstanding moderators.

 

While I?m sure all Senate mods are fair in moderating, the fact that they?re all of one side of the political spectrum could make it seems like there?s slight (and unintended) favoritism to one side. Political affiliation doesn?t play a role in any forum on the JC, except the Senate. While it should be nowhere near the major factor in deciding on a moderator, I think it should be considered amongst many other things in the future.

I have no problem with the current political affiliation of the current moderators, but perhaps that?s because I lean towards the right and often don?t read the heavily political threads.

 

From what I can remember about the discussion leading up to the promotion, it was all based on involvement, time online, behaviors, etc... I don't even remember political affiliation being mentioned.

 

Interesting, since Kimball claimed he did consider it.

Tell me, where ANY left-leaning posters even considered?

 

"Interesting, since Kimball claimed he did consider it."

Kimball didn't take part in the discussion of a new mod, as he obviously wasn't a moderator yet.

 

How could Kimball claim input to the process when it was a private forum decision occuring prior to the promotion?

 

Tell me, where ANY left-leaning posters even considered

Yes, there were. For various reasons, they weren't chosen.

Again, it's not the political views that do the moderating. It's the moderator's overall ability and character that do the moderating. While I'm not saying views don't matter at all, I am saying that views are secondary to being objective and moderating accordingly.

 

Interesting, since Kimball claimed he did consider it.

The thought had not even entered my mind until you decided to make an issue of our difference in beliefs. However, once the issue was brought up, I did consider it. I would be a fool not to.

After considering it for all of one moment, I took the only appropriate action: I made the decision that I will not allow beliefs to interfere with duties. I will not moderate anyone for their beliefs, only their actions. If you ever question that, feel free to PM me and I will explain my reasoning. If you still have a problem with my actions after that, talk to one of the admins.

In short, this is a non-issue. Why not wait and see what happens first?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Sorry, I meant to say KNIGHTWRITER said he considered it.

For various reasons. Yes, the veil of secrecy. Looks like the conservative mantra is already starting. (kidding.)

I already said I don't think it's a matter of competency. I know that I myself could never effectively moderate this board, but I know several who could.

The Senate is a different type of board than the others, where we talk about real life issues and tempers run high since we are discussing matters that are very personal to us.

I think at the very least, Kinghtwriter should have considered that or given it more weight than he did.

 

Welcome to being a moderator.

 

I think at the very least, Kinghtwriter should have considered that or given it more weight than he did.

How do you know I didn't give it more weight than you think I did?

You haven't yet mentioned the time and activity factor. Are you sure the people you think would be good moderators have been active enough to take that position?

 

Tell me, where ANY left-leaning posters even considered

Yes. KnightWriter and I actually discussed that consideration quite early in our discussions, along with the other characteristics we sought. Posters from all over the political spectrum were discussed. That KK was chosen, a member who does not appear contrarian to our viewpoints, does not mean that our dialouge overlooked (or intentionally ignored) that factor.

 

Well heck, if we have four of them time wouldn't be as big of a factor, right?

The fact is, mods should at least take some scrutiny, and this is the first action I've seen that led me to question the mods in the Senate.

I was not upset over the fact that we didn't have a progressive mod in the beginning, as Knightwriter and Seven did there jobs without malice or prejudice. But I certainly find it hard to believe that not a single liberal poster could match the credentials of Kimball.

Maybe it's just me. I disagree with Kimball, Knightwriter, and Red-Seven on plenty of issues, part of me just wants a mod who actually supports and believes how I believe, instead of an inordinate amount of people on the other side.

And Knigthwriter, how can I be sure if all this information is kept 'secret' by the mods?

 

In any promotion, there is always disagreement and those who feel someone was more or less deserving. It's the nature of life.

 

Well heck, if we have four of them time wouldn't be as big of a factor, right?


The more moderators you have, the more difficult it is to coordinate things with fellow forum moderators. I moderated the place by myself for several months, and then brought in Red, which was a huge help. I'm not sure how three will work out, but hopefully it'll be okay. Other, much larger forums like the EUC, JCC and Literature forums have four or less moderators, and as long as that's the case, we're not going to have four moderators.



And Knigthwriter, how can I be sure if all this information is kept 'secret' by the mods?

Because I've given you my word about it, and I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it.

Such information is not freely disclosed, nor will it be.

 

Sapient: So is complaing to your hearts content.

Knightwriter: I think you misunderstood. I was referring to this statement Are you sure the people you think would be good moderators have been active enough to take that position?

I for one have always been annoyed with the way moderators are chosen on this board, I'll be the first to admit that.

Finally, Knightwriter, your whole reason for not adding a fourth mod seems to be that you don't want one because it's not how other boards are. Why should that affect your decision? The SIZE and ACTIVITY of a thread do not determine everything, the nature of it should play a larger factor.

Look, you brought in Red, and Kimball, people who BOTH lean towards your viewpoints and such. Is it any wonder why I question Kimball's promotion? At least Red is more moderate.

I guess I just feel you are being biased, and as moderators you should try to avoid even the appearence of impropriety.

 

"I for one have always been annoyed with the way moderators are chosen on this board, I'll be the first to admit that."

What system would you suggest?

"I guess I just feel you are being biased, and as moderators you should try to avoid even the appearence of impropriety."

Have KW or Red-Seven ever been biased when it comes to locking a thread for political reasons?

 

I think the secrecy and arrogance have a lot to do with it. I have been around for awhile I have seen a lot of fights over mods.

My other beef. How come in an international board that deals with world issues, we have not one non-American mod?

This is important, and indicitive of why you need to have some outside input in deciding who to be the new mod. First you pick two people who more or less agree with you (or at least don't violently disagree with you,) and then you ALSO only pick American mods?

Don't we need some moderating for those after hours? I know that I generally don't post during peak hours as I am a late night person.

And no, until this incident, I have never believed KW or Red to be biased. However, I am pretty sure this position filling has at least SOME subconcious bias going on.

 

Finally, Knightwriter, your whole reason for not adding a fourth mod seems to be that you don't want one because it's not how other boards are. Why should that affect your decision? The SIZE and ACTIVITY of a thread do not determine everything, the nature of it should play a larger factor.


On the JC, size and activity most certainly are major factors. Has been for a long time, and probably will be for the forseeable future. Small forums generally do not warrant more than one or two moderators, while larger forums generally need several moderators to keep up with things.

 

So how does having a fourth mod HURT things?

 

My other beef. How come in an international board that deals with world issues, we have not one non-American mod?

Uh, wha?

We have so many non-American Mods that it boggles my mind...

EDIT: On reflection, you may have been referring to only the Senate. In which case, I remind you that you can feel free to go to ANY mod if your normal Mods are offline...

 

In the Senate, he means.

With the informed users we have discussing international events and subjects, and a variety of opinions around the world, I certainly don't think that it was necessary to find someone outside of North America. Non-North American opinions and perspective are voiced quite eloquently at times, and although the majority of users are Americans, I think we have a higher foreign representation in the Senate than the JC as a whole.

Geography only came into the thought process in terms of coverage, not bias/competency/perspective.