13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 5 '17 at 15:50 comment added Isaacson @Not_Here So I credited you with an expression of gratitude that was not there. How exactly is that insulting?
Aug 4 '17 at 19:33 comment added Not_Here The reason I read "undermine the long endorsement" is because it was not an endorsement of someone who wants to be a moderator, it was a statement of why I do not want to be a moderator.
Aug 4 '17 at 19:33 comment added Not_Here @Isaacson " I felt that a good deal of what had been written implied a sense of gratitude to anyone who was prepared to take all this on" this is exactly what my issue was with your comments. I do not for a second understand why you think that had any sort of large presence in my answer. There are two sentences that mention Philip. You read anything else into the answer that was not there; everything else in the body of that question is describing why I do not want to be a moderator and suggesting that other people feel the same. Anything else is your own reading.
Aug 4 '17 at 17:14 comment added Isaacson Either I'm really bad at writing clearly or there's some prejudicial interpretation of what people are expecting me to say. If the former then I must have had an extremely lucky run of editorial staff and clients thus far, in my career, if the latter then I'm not sure how I come back from that.
Aug 4 '17 at 17:07 comment added Isaacson @PhilipKlocking Yes, i'm very much getting that impression, the trouble is it was intended to have the exact opposite effect. I felt that a good deal of what had been written implied a sense of gratitude to anyone who was prepared to take all this on (yourself) and I didn't want my criticism of the answer itself to undermine that sentiment (with which I entirely agreed). I'm still reeling that anyone could read "I don't want to undermine the long thank you" as anything other than an endorsement.
Aug 4 '17 at 14:15 comment added Philip Klöcking Mod @isaacson: The objection is certainly valid in and of itself, as reflected in the fact that your second comment remained undeleted. I really think it comes down to the aggressive/derogative/offensive/whatever feeling of your (now deleted) first comment. I, personally, can relate much better to your valid objections, now that I am not distracted by unnecessary, problematic content.
Aug 4 '17 at 12:32 comment added user2953 @Isaacson well, yes, that you can discuss there. Just two thoughts: 1. Framing it as 'does not answer the question' makes it sound like you want to flag it as not an answer / disagree with the acceptance by the OP, which is, as I understand now, not what you mean. 2. Considering OP has accepted the answer it seems his question was answered, so perhaps yours is a different one ("is moderating harder on Philosophy.SE than elsewhere?", "why does a relatively small percentage of active users nominate?") and may be better as a separate question.
Aug 4 '17 at 8:57 comment added Isaacson To put it another way (as misinterpretation has been a significant problem in this discussion). Someone asks the question "Why do have so few candidates", someone answers "Because moderation is really hard", and people agree with that answer. I think "but hang on, moderation is hard on all sites what is it about Phil.SE particularly, and what can we do about it?". I put that thought in the comments and get reprimanded for being "offensive". Where am I supposed to put that thought?
Aug 4 '17 at 8:42 comment added Isaacson The corollary of all this is that we have a potentially serious situation where only one person has actually put themselves forward to moderate and we're not even having the "relevant discussion" because everyone is hiding behind the self-evidently insufficient explanation that moderation is 'quite hard' and my attempt to demonstrate the flaws in that argument are being shut down as confrontational.
Aug 4 '17 at 8:36 comment added Isaacson That's the point I was trying to make by suggesting that these same reasons are present on other sites without the same problem. We could construct a perfectly reasonable argument that Usain Bolt won the 100m because he had some training. Without training he certainly would not have won, but the point is that all the other runners had training too, so the reason is not sufficient. The answer (to my mind) simply said that moderating is hard), because it is hard on all sites, this cannot answer the question alone simply by logic, whether three people think it does is immaterial.
Aug 4 '17 at 8:35 comment added user2953 While that is a relevant discussion, that on whether a post answers a question in the strict sense is not..
Aug 4 '17 at 8:32 comment added Isaacson Thank you, I think I at least understand now what you are getting at and it is a perfectly reasonable position. I don't agree with it though. I think that us having only one serious candidate in a supposedly elective process is a problem, and what three people in the community "think" is the reason is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory investigation into the problem. I think it is and entirely necessary debate to question whether what people "think" the reason might be is, in fact, what it actually is.
Aug 4 '17 at 8:19 history answered user2953 CC BY-SA 3.0