rigorousintuition.ca

Thanks 23 and Simulist.

Chig, I'm certainly going to try!

I always loved your posts, Sunny. I am so glad to hear you are still around. I hold you in great affection.

It would be nice to see some more posting from you though.

Sunny, just wanted to say 'Thank You' for being such a model Moderator - it is such an important role in an online community, so hard to get the right balance and you have always shown great grace, patience and humour around the role. :waves:
S08 xx

Hey, sunny.

A quick, procedural question for you before you remove your moderator's hat.

Is it not unusual for a moderator, here, to preview a post between the time that the submit button is pressed and it appears on the Board?

TIA

If I may...

Your question is not very clear, but if you mean to ask if the mods can view your post at some point before it appears on the board proper, they cannot. So I would say, in answer to your question, yes, it would be highly unusual, in other words, impossible, afaik.

I hope that helps.

barracuda wrote:If I may...

Your question is not very clear, but if you mean to ask if the mods can view your post at some point before it appears on the board proper, they cannot. So I would say, in answer to your question, yes, it would be highly unusual, in other words, impossible, afaik.

I hope that helps.

It does help. And once again...



Can't help it. I grew up in the 60's.

It seems a tall order to replace Titania's elegantly subtle style in tending the unruly forest of RI, along with monitoring the occasional shenanigans and mischief makings by the various hobgoblins, imps and rascals. So thank you Sunny--please write more (but don't change your avatar!)

Hammer, Searcher, Cordelia--so sweet, thank you.

Could we have 'mods' who don't derail threads with ad hominem attacks for a change?
I think this a bare minimum requirement for mods.

Never Sunny and Chig who have been stellar.

But others have been problematic, to say the least.

I nominate Hugh.

barracuda wrote:I nominate Hugh.

Seconded! Time for a vote!

Hugh's suggested requirement is a righteous one.

And if he wants to show us how it's done, I'm all for it.

All in favor - temporarily distend your supernumerary flagella.

Hugh?!!??

Goddamn.

That's just so crazy it might even work!

Barracuda, I am in awe. I take my hat off to you.

On the other hand, I was going to say we need a moderator who is thoughtful, respectful of other viewpoints, conciliatory, and non combative in their typical forum interactions. I would not describe Hugh thusly. In fact, sometimes he pushes his luck, couching his arguments in highly immoderate terms. That of course, is exactly what makes his prose such a treat sometimes. And sometimes he gives very poor advice. Sorry Hugh, I do so love you, we have all learnt a great deal from you, I believe.

But perhaps some do still feel Hugh has suffered some unfair treatment in times past, and his appointment to moderator would perhaps clear the air on all that, so that we might put it behind us.

So, why not?

I vote with the well-fed fish.

barracuda wrote:All in favor - temporarily distend your supernumerary flagella.

I think Hugh'd make a safe choice. He's already shown his willingness and ability to follow a rule with which he disagrees (not mentioning 'keyword hijacking' more than once in a thread) which is a vital quality in a moderator. He's had more testing in that regard than any other candidate that comes to mind. I also agree with Hugh that preventing argument from turning into ad hominem attacks is a moderator's most important task.