Just a suggestion.

No_Mind
We select people because we assess that they are the best person available who is willing and able to do the role.No_Mind wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:47 amWhile I welcome that Sam is the new moderator .. maybe DW needs some diversity in its 9th year .. an Asian mod (Sarath possibly .. he almost lives here .. might as well mod while he is here) .. maybe a female mod (unless there already is one .. I do not think so ..) .. a black mod maybe (unless there already is one)
Just a suggestion.
I've explained here why I think that's unreasonable, and should be left to the individual to decide.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:11 amPlease use the real names and photos of the moderators. This should be non negotiable, IMO.
Because it's not...lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:47 amYou left out political persuasion of the moderator as a factor???
I agree.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:24 amI've explained here why I think that's unreasonable, and should be left to the individual to decide.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:11 amPlease use the real names and photos of the moderators. This should be non negotiable, IMO.
Just to be clear, this is a matter of opinion, not fact. Even though it may be a very strong opinion, it is still just that.as such factors neither enhance nor diminish their capability to moderate a Buddhist forum.
I don't use my name because the internet is full of dangerous people. It has nothing to do with avoiding accountability. Making difficult decisions day after day, having members hold unreasonable grudges against you (forever) for enforcing the rules, etc. puts enough of a stigma to my name. I can't run from that. I can't request a name change. Real name or not I'm still going to have to deal with that aspect of the role as a mod. So I have no idea what you think your suggestion would accomplish.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:11 amPlease use the real names and photos of the moderators. This should be non negotiable, IMO.
At the sister forum, some posters have a very strong opinion about this, such as Malcolm and Grigoris, believing that everyone should post under their real name and with their real picture. I'll have to look up some posts where they explain that.
In this context, what statements do you think would count as facts, rather than very strong opinions? Certainly, a belief that diversity is equal to tokenism would, or could, lead the holder of that belief to think that Retro's statement was fact. But that doesn't mean that such a belief is the only support for Retro's statement.BKh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:37 amJust to be clear, this is a matter of opinion, not fact. Even though it may be a very strong opinion, it is still just that.as such factors neither enhance nor diminish their capability to moderate a Buddhist forum.
If one believes that diversity = tokenism, then that is probably an underlying belief that would lead one to think that the quoted statement is fact.
I'm sure their reasoning on the topic is second to none.
E.g.:
And the rest of the thread ...https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 37#p385437
I regard the input of anonymous users who are unknown to me with only slightly more regard than the ramblings of the town drunk.
/.../
When we know who a person is, what they do, who their teachers are, there is more basis for trust in what they say.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests