Why are the "Dear Ones" sending everyone to JOB? - page 13

New comment
 

Moderators are reacting and getting into discussions for nothing.

They sit on their necks. I, for one, would be eager for any voluntarism,

if Svetka's the boss.)

 
Oper:

Moderators are reacting and getting into discussions for nothing.

This thread is specific, as it happens. As long as the discussion does not turn into an altercation, it will be useful.

We will take your advice in the other threads, especially as the rules require it.

 
So that's why they gave the rights of public moderators - to have someone to "kick" out of boredom :-)), while everyone was picking on "MQ" for any reason, now there are public "candidates to beat" :-))
 

Horror

Problems in the genetics of the post-Soviet space, for decades we have been made equals, without initiative, obedient and silent. The result is a low capacity for self-organization, to the point of protesting "how can this guy be my boss?

"how can this guy be my boss? We ate a lot of salt together."

"We'd rather be in the shit, we'll talk about it for weeks, but we'll never notice how much cleaner it's gotten, because we don't know how many stupid ads and shits we've had in the meantime."

But nature heals itself, genes mutate and I want to believe that our children will not have such discussions.

 

to Mathemat & granit77

Thanks for the thoughtfulness. All the general phrases you've said suggest that our understanding of moderators' tasks converges in principle. I have no doubt that the desire to solve these tasks in the best possible way in each of the moderators is quite sincere. But the devil, as you know, is in the details.

I have no complaints against anyone. And I have no one to complain about. And this is not a criticism. I'll say it again. My long and tedious post was about one thing in particular. I take Victor's phrase "Intermittent aggravations are just evidence of the normal course of the process" to mean something completely different. Exacerbations from time to time indicates quite the opposite, that the style of communication between moderators and rank and file leaves much to be desired. Much better. This thread has demonstrated this quite clearly. If this style were more constructive, correct, respectful and tolerant, much could have been achieved without the use of force. And these methods themselves would not require excessive harshness.

And don't make me out to be an opponent of moderation. Over the many years here in more liberal times, I myself have repeatedly called for moderators to restore order. But the axiom remains the same: a moderator cannot, in his communication, adhere to the same style as the rude person he bans. Does anyone think otherwise ?

 

let me ask you again.

Why the phrase "Yeah... Wood is cut, wood chips fly." and then trying to figure out whether it violates the rules, and the legality of its subsequent removal is so annoying to moderators?

By the very question of eligibility?

And a ban for that?

 
Sorento:

let me ask you again...

I will try to answer you, if the question is so important to you. I didn't have time to look through the thread before it was moderated, so I can only guess who was worthy of what. These were the first days for the new moderators. There was a barrage of protest from people who did not accept the new system in principle. Even your quote has plenty of material to back this up. The staff moderators, who were watching our attempts to restore order, stepped in and banned the instigators along with the sympathizers. A week later the ban was lifted on the sympathisers. I think it was the right thing to do in the current climate.
 
Mischek:

But nature heals itself,

I remembered an anecdote (to lighten the mood):

a question for Armenian radio: -is there a man's friendship?

The answer is: -there is, but sooner or later nature will take its course ...

 
Mischek:

But nature heals itself, genes mutate and we want to believe that our children will not have such discussions.


The genome changes very slowly. We are talking about thousands of years. A marked shift in phenotype due to selection can occur over a period of time of the order of a few hundred years, but if you "let go", it will come back. Conventionally speaking, genetically we are our ancestors from 1300 - 1500 AD, but selected like gherkins and stuffed into cities :)

 
gip:


The genome changes very slowly. We are talking about thousands of years. A noticeable shift in phenotype due to selection can occur over a period of time on the order of a few hundred years, but if you 'let go', it will come back. Conventionally speaking, genetically we are our ancestors from 1300 - 1500 AD, but selected like gherkins and stuffed into cities :)


For the sake of brevity, let's translate into mashkas . Some are fast, some are slow, so don't oversimplify and you won't lose the point.
1...678910111213141516
New comment