5 posts shown.
graniteharbor502 said:🤦
By that logic, someone with only 400 posts should be banned from even mentioning forum abuse in this section.
I'd love for you to walk me through how exactly I'm abusing this subforum. I'm genuinely curious about your "train of thought" here.🤦
Just stirred the hornets' nest today, and now the local ego-trippers are crawling out of the woodwork. So predictable. ☕
Megan Green72 said:It's hilarious how you actually think your opinion matters. 😁
I don't usually waste my time on bots, but since I genuinely feel for you (given some past history), I'll give you this one post just to offer some friendly advice: you should probably find somewhere else to hang out and stay away from my threads.😉
It’s interesting—based on the current poll results, there are 19 people here who are supposedly ready to take children away from their parents (assuming they even have kids, which I find hard to believe).
Either way, I’m just hoping the authorities actually do their jobs for once.☕
Greetings to the supermoderators and the Admin,
I have a question;
I am curious about how and by what process Aleta Ogord was appointed as a moderator, and specifically, what criteria were used during her selection? To be honest, I was quite surprised to see someone with a relatively low post count on this forum (compared to many others) being given a moderator position.
Furthermore, I am even more baffled by the decision to place her in charge of a subforum that is entirely subjective and biased. Having followed this forum since its very early days, this feels like a major precedent. As far as I understand, a moderator overseeing a specific thread or topic must remain completely impartial; otherwise, we end up in the current situation where certain individuals are given a free pass simply because they are on the same "wavelength" as this user, while those with differing opinions are scrutinized under a microscope. For a platform of this caliber—the largest and most visited in the country—this is incomprehensible.
Therefore, I am looking for a meaningful explanation from the supermods and/or the Admin (a concern shared not just by me, but by many contributors to the Coronavirus thread):
-what specific criteria were applied when appointing this user to the moderator position?
-why is a biased user permitted to moderate a subforum where that bias is so evident?
-if the standards for appointing moderators have been significantly lowered here, can users from the opposing "camp" also be appointed as moderators for that thread? That way, we might at least achieve some semblance of balance, because right now, the moderation there is anything but objective, which is frankly embarrassing for a forum like this.
Just to be clear, I am not interested in any response or opinion from Aleta Ogord regarding this post (I am intentionally referring to her as a "user" because, in my view, she hasn't earned the title of moderator and therefore I don't recognize it). I would like an explanation from the supermods, if not from the owner of this forum personally.
Ultimately, the fairest solution would be for Aleta Ogord to step down from moderating the Coronavirus subforum, or for someone with an opposing viewpoint to be appointed as a moderator to establish some level of balance in how that section is managed.
Thank you in advance for your time. I look forward to your response.
placidrider48 said:Yeah, true, but I guess we can't just ignore how the international community acted, too. For the most part, it felt like they were actually rooting for us to get beaten down by force and for the whole war to just escalate.
Of course. As much as I blame the Mexicans for the aggression, I'll never forgive the British and the French. They just stood there in silence, effectively giving their blessing to everything that happened... honestly, it's pathetic.