New Mod - Logroller

[Drummond]

Are you astonished because I made a decision that you think is harmful to the board, or because I chose someone that you don't particularly have a lot of love for?

What "I" want out of this board, and the freedoms I've afforded without crazy moderation, will NOT be changing. Even if between the worst of enemies, staff is not allowed to do anything I wouldn't do myself. To put it bluntly, I have ideas of where I would like to see the board go and how I would want it ran - and staff is an extension of that, to basically do what I would do.

People have been telling me for 10 years now how my patience and dedication to freedom of speech won't last. But it has. And it's not going to change. The day I become overbearing and more interested in moderating than provoking good discussion, I'll sell off or give the board away.

If I thought for a NYC second that Logroller would ever moderate unfairly, I wouldn't have asked him to come aboard. With that said, it can't fail. For starters, I wouldn't allow it too, as I love this place and will always stick to my principles. Secondly, and more important, give him a chance outside of a debate to see how he moderates. He's proved his fairness and maturity to me for a few years. Being polar opposites on some heated topics doesn't mean you guys can't agree on what is best for the board.

Your reply contains certain assurances. I thank you for them.

The fact of 'enmity', or even the extent of it, is not an issue as such. Granted, one could look at such an issue and be constrained in judgments according to their shallowness ... as much as anything else. But let me put these thoughts to you.

Firstly (and as Marcus has been at pains to point out, in his own way), this forum is understood to be yours, to run as you choose, as you see is best. Noted - accepted - none of that is the basis for quarrel.

Now, this following viewpoint you may regard as overly subjective if you wish ... but I happen to think I'm making a very valid case.

It is this: Left-wing thinking has never struck me as being particularly based in logic or fairness. It's about the acquisition of power, and, once acquired, how you apply it.

As an experiment, years ago, I contributed to a Left-wing discussion forum run out of the UK. It was not too dissimilar to this one, except of course that its debating directions were very firmly Left wing. So, what did I experience ? Apart from contention taken to a pitch that few would believe ... judgments, controls, were pitched to strongly favour Left-wing views. In essence, it was part-rational, but for the most part it was 'if you don't see things a certain way, there has to be something wrong with you'.

Its version of 'moderation', in the short time I was there, included PM's from no less than three Mods, each requiring me to argue a certain way. One of them kept up a dialogue with me for weeks on end, designed to deconstruct my arguments BEFORE I fully presented them.

Appearance of fairness evidently mattered to them. So long as it was heavily controlled along the way, of course.

[I feel a certain pride in my durability there. Yes, I actually lasted there for SIX entire weeks, before I was turfed off of there.]

Jim, I'm telling you this for a reason. My view is that the greater the opportunities given to those of a Left-persuasion to exercise control, so the greater the manifestation of its following a set agenda will be. I don't just believe that because I THINK I'm right .. I believe it because I've experienced it for myself.

You may believe in freedom of debate and of its being fairly balanced throughout. Jim; I absolutely promise you, those of the Left do NOT.

'Enmities' aren't really the issue. My view and belief is that the more a forum, ANY forum, is opened up to those from the Left, so the greater the incidence of agenda-setting will be as a consequence.

You say you've known Logroller for years, and it seems clear that you trust him to do a good job for you. OK, we'll see.

But I also believe I have legitimate concerns, Jim. And I do speak from experience.

[aboutime]

Your reply contains certain assurances. I thank you for them.

The fact of 'enmity', or even the extent of it, is not an issue as such. Granted, one could look at such an issue and be constrained in judgments according to their shallowness ... as much as anything else. But let me put these thoughts to you.

Firstly (and as Marcus has been at pains to point out, in his own way), this forum is understood to be yours, to run as you choose, as you see is best. Noted - accepted - none of that is the basis for quarrel.

Now, this following viewpoint you may regard as overly subjective if you wish ... but I happen to think I'm making a very valid case.

It is this: Left-wing thinking has never struck me as being particularly based in logic or fairness. It's about the acquisition of power, and, once acquired, how you apply it.

As an experiment, years ago, I contributed to a Left-wing discussion forum run out of the UK. It was not too dissimilar to this one, except of course that its debating directions were very firmly Left wing. So, what did I experience ? Apart from contention taken to a pitch that few would believe ... judgments, controls, were pitched to strongly favour Left-wing views. In essence, it was part-rational, but for the most part it was 'if you don't see things a certain way, there has to be something wrong with you'.

Its version of 'moderation', in the short time I was there, included PM's from no less than three Mods, each requiring me to argue a certain way. One of them kept up a dialogue with me for weeks on end, designed to deconstruct my arguments BEFORE I fully presented them.

Appearance of fairness evidently mattered to them. So long as it was heavily controlled along the way, of course.

[I feel a certain pride in my durability there. Yes, I actually lasted there for SIX entire weeks, before I was turfed off of there.]

Jim, I'm telling you this for a reason. My view is that the greater the opportunities given to those of a Left-persuasion to exercise control, so the greater the manifestation of its following a set agenda will be. I don't just believe that because I THINK I'm right .. I believe it because I've experienced it for myself.

You may believe in freedom of debate and of its being fairly balanced throughout. Jim; I absolutely promise you, those of the Left do NOT.

'Enmities' aren't really the issue. My view and belief is that the more a forum, ANY forum, is opened up to those from the Left, so the greater the incidence of agenda-setting will be as a consequence.

You say you've known Logroller for years, and it seems clear that you trust him to do a good job for you. OK, we'll see.

But I also believe I have legitimate concerns, Jim. And I do speak from experience.

Thank You Sir Drummond. You managed to say, almost exactly what I was at a loss for saying. Probably due to my past experience where attempting to deal with others in explaining the UNFORSEEN consequences of certain actions.. is often ignored.
Of course. Those who always oppose making such statements based on experience. Always seem to find that invisible, but workable tact of pretending to be something, or someone they really are not. To achieve their ultimate goal.
Personally. Like you. I have experienced the betrayal, and guaranteed promises too many times to just shrug them off, and pretend they aren't real here.
Guess Jim will just have to learn, on his own. As I have stated before.
Since I, and WE are not capable, or knowledgeable enough to just enjoy the promised STATUS QUO being offered up.

[Thunderknuckles]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

[Kathianne]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

I think so, at least he has been. Yes, I've noticed changes in the last months, but am unsure if that is real change or just pissing some off. I've no doubt he'll be a fair moderator.

He's smart and I've known him many times to agree with part of something I said and disagree with others. He doesn't feel the need to agree in toto or slam because of one or two points.

He bothers to read what others write. That's very important, IMO.

[Drummond]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

Strangely enough, I don't find that to be very reassuring !

I can't speak for America, but where the UK is concerned, Libertarianism is seen as at least broadly Socialist. Granted, there has been debate about that. But, in the main at least, Libertarianism is perceived in that way.

One of the more notably Left-wing leaders the Labour Party ever had, described himself as a Libertarian. I refer to Michael Foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

... Foot became a journalist, working briefly on the New Statesman, before joining the left-wing weekly Tribune when it was set up in early 1937 to support the Unity Campaign, an attempt to secure an anti-fascist United Front between Labour and the parties to its left. The campaign's members were Stafford Cripps's (Labour-affiliated) Socialist League, the Independent Labour Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CP). Foot resigned in 1938 after the paper's first editor, William Mellor, was fired for refusing to adopt a new CP policy of backing a Popular Front, including non-socialist parties, against fascism and appeasement. In a 1955 interview, Foot ideologically identified as a libertarian socialist ...

[Thunderknuckles]

Libertarians in the US are different. They are fiscally conservative and socially liberal - which is where Log probably runs afoul with conservatives. Most importantly, however, they believe in small government. Government that does not intervene in people's lives and allows them to live their lives as they see fit.
I suppose when you consider that last part, Logroller might turn out to be the most useless Mod this board has ever had

[Thunderknuckles]

Logroller's member interview for anyone who wants to freshen up on his background:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...Logroller-quot

In it he clearly states he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[Drummond]

Logroller's member interview for anyone who wants to freshen up on his background:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...Logroller-quot

In it he clearly states he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

OK, I'll take a look ...

[logroller]

Can a mod change the title of this thread to whine about staff...

[aboutime]

Strangely enough, I don't find that to be very reassuring !

I can't speak for America, but where the UK is concerned, Libertarianism is seen as at least broadly Socialist. Granted, there has been debate about that. But, in the main at least, Libertarianism is perceived in that way.

One of the more notably Left-wing leaders the Labour Party ever had, described himself as a Libertarian. I refer to Michael Foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

Sir Drummond. You may not be aware of this but. We had a talk-radio personality named Neil Boortz who was a Die-hard Libertarian...to some extent. On his webpage, he also had a test visitors could use to determine their political leanings...so to speak.
I took that test three times, and with very little variation. I came up as a Libertarian as well.
Boortz and I disagree on the legalization of MJ and drugs. Which many Libertarians still believe is the right answer.
Otherwise. As a Libertarian. I found myself being labeled by others, much like conservative, republicans are always labeled. And I deny having any Liberal ideology to claim. WHICH is why I find myself in such disagreement with people like Logroller, and other members who claim to be somewhat conservative...to their own limitations.
Unlike many of them. I stand behind, and demand FULL compliance with our Laws, and Constitution. Which I have also discovered, isn't totally in agreement with many Libertarians...to many extents, or stretches of their Liberal Idiological claims as Libertarians.
Therefore. I find myself in disagreement with Log, fj, and several others whom..in the long run...are actually disguised RINO's.
(Republicans In Name Only) here in the USA.

[Kathianne]

Sir Drummond. You may not be aware of this but. We had a talk-radio personality named Neil Boortz who was a Die-hard Libertarian...to some extent. On his webpage, he also had a test visitors could use to determine their political leanings...so to speak.
I took that test three times, and with very little variation. I came up as a Libertarian as well.
Boortz and I disagree on the legalization of MJ and drugs. Which many Libertarians still believe is the right answer.
Otherwise. As a Libertarian. I found myself being labeled by others, much like conservative, republicans are always labeled. And I deny having any Liberal ideology to claim. WHICH is why I find myself in such disagreement with people like Logroller, and other members who claim to be somewhat conservative...to their own limitations.
Unlike many of them. I stand behind, and demand FULL compliance with our Laws, and Constitution. Which I have also discovered, isn't totally in agreement with many Libertarians...to many extents, or stretches of their Liberal Idiological claims as Libertarians.
Therefore. I find myself in disagreement with Log, fj, and several others whom..in the long run...are actually disguised RINO's.
(Republicans In Name Only) here in the USA.

Not being snarky. Can you explain what you mean by the bolded? 'die hard' and 'somewhat' confuse me.

From what I know of libertarians, you don't fit into the definition, I hope that's a comfort.

[aboutime]

Not being snarky. Can you explain what you mean by the bolded? 'die hard' and 'somewhat' confuse me.

From what I know of libertarians, you don't fit into the definition, I hope that's a comfort.

Kathianne. Really? A learned woman like yourself, not knowing what the expression 'die-hard' would be used for? If that confused you. You may just be a Libertarian who endorses, and agree's with legalizing drug usage. Is that close?

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. You may not be aware of this but. We had a talk-radio personality named Neil Boortz who was a Die-hard Libertarian...to some extent. On his webpage, he also had a test visitors could use to determine their political leanings...so to speak.
I took that test three times, and with very little variation. I came up as a Libertarian as well.
Boortz and I disagree on the legalization of MJ and drugs. Which many Libertarians still believe is the right answer.
Otherwise. As a Libertarian. I found myself being labeled by others, much like conservative, republicans are always labeled. And I deny having any Liberal ideology to claim. WHICH is why I find myself in such disagreement with people like Logroller, and other members who claim to be somewhat conservative...to their own limitations.
Unlike many of them. I stand behind, and demand FULL compliance with our Laws, and Constitution. Which I have also discovered, isn't totally in agreement with many Libertarians...to many extents, or stretches of their Liberal Idiological claims as Libertarians.
Therefore. I find myself in disagreement with Log, fj, and several others whom..in the long run...are actually disguised RINO's.
(Republicans In Name Only) here in the USA.

We are very much on the same page, Aboutime. For myself, I identify Conservatism with strong pro-Law and Order application. After the UK's Winter of Discontent, when our Unions were running riot, it was Mrs Thatcher's passing of stringent legal controls which saved our bacon ..

Any passing Libertarians might be 'amused' to note that I've zero tolerance for drugtaking (except when medically prescribed, of course) and for legalisation attempts. No .... Libertarianism is just one rather small step away from anarchy, in my book. I will always oppose it.

[SassyLady]

We are very much on the same page, Aboutime. For myself, I identify Conservatism with strong pro-Law and Order application. After the UK's Winter of Discontent, when our Unions were running riot, it was Mrs Thatcher's passing of stringent legal controls which saved our bacon ..

Any passing Libertarians might be 'amused' to note that I've zero tolerance for drugtaking (except when medically prescribed, of course) and for legalisation attempts. No .... Libertarianism is just one rather small step away from anarchy, in my book. I will always oppose it.

I do not hang out on a regular basis with "druggies", but I have friends that smoke pot. Do they do it around me? Absolutely not. Just because I don't agree with someones political philosophies doesn't mean I don't like or respect them for other contributions they make. I prefer to not be that narrow minded.

Am I a libertarian? No. But I do agree with some of their ideas, just not enough to actually think of myself as a libertarian. I would never see myself as an anarchist, but I would fight the government if I felt they were taking away my rights. Just not as radically as most.

[revelarts]

Isn't Logroller more of a Libertarian?

Wait, isn't he a pot head conservative too? or is that just me and FJ?
seriously , Log , if i can try to generalize your political POV.
ummm
I'd say moderate conservative/libertarian with a good dollop of environmental globalist governance wedged in there in some freaky way somehow.

I'm sure not the way you'd put it, but is that fair?