Talk Elections

Since his approachment to moderating became a subject of severe discussion in various thread.


Somewhat approve. He's going too far when it's coming to "profanity" and sexual issues, but otherwise is pretty fair.

Strongly disapprove. It's time he resigns.

Strongly approve.

Strongly disapprove.

Wow, Inks is approaching Rick Scott's territory.

Let's face it: Some of you just want to turn this place into the red-headed little step-brother of Democratic Underground.

This used to be a lot more bipartisan of a place. Now one of the last Republican moderators is being targeted for assassination? Inks is fair. You will be happy to know that nobody has been more on my case than him with regards to my trolling. I deserved a lot of it. Inks cares about this place and does not want to see it sink into irrelevance, which is what will happen if some liberals on here have their way. Truth be told, my so-called trolling in the 2012 forum was in response to all of the Obama hackery I have witnessed over the past couple of years, which was reaching levels of absurdity by this summer. I am glad the Obama hackery has finally taken a hit because this place is US Election Atlas, not US Democratic LaLa-Land. If I wanted to read a bunch of delusional Democratic rantings with the stifling of dissent, I would go to Democratic Underground. I am glad the tide is turning, and hopefully the trend will continue so this place can regain its past glory.

That was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No, Inks is being targeted for removal by some Democrats simply because he is a Republican. It is that simple. They will not admit it, of course, and try to make it sound like it is something else. But the numbers do not lie...

 My post is reflecting upon how mad some quarters of this place have become. We cannot even have Republican moderators who care and do a good job without being hassled by partisans. Madness.

I'm pretty sure Phil has a beef with him, too.

I don't take kindly to moderators on a power trip. I don't care what avatar they sport, it shouldn't happen and the fact you're trying to turn this into some sort of persecution thing is really quite silly.

Stop trolling, Politico.

As I understand it, that is personal and obviously the exception.

Kalwejt and Mikado, two of his biggest defenders, are Democrats.

KeystonePhil, who has started a number of threads on the topic of Inks and his moderating, is a Republican.

You are wrong.

This is BS. Have you noticed, for example, that Democratic moderators are among his strongest supporters here? And many Democratic posters are favorable, including myself.

Stop trolling.

Phil is stuck in 2004, and has some sort of odd personal beef with Inks. Phil is one of the best characters on here, but he is not representative of what is happening here.

And some Democratic supporters on here do not cover up what is really up. Democrats are using this to try and get rid of one of the last GOP moderators. This place needs more GOP Mods, not less. Torie would be a good nominee. Clarence, too.

Yeah, because clearly we should be giving mod powers to people based on party- not qualifications.

An unpartisan site about US elections should have a committee in charge that is reflective of the American electorate, not the electorate of Los Angeles County. The site is swinging too far left, and the site is not getting better with this swing...

That's ridiculous.  I don't care if we have a panel of only Republican moderators or a panel of only Democratic moderators, as long as they were all chosen based on their qualifications and have proven that they can do the job fairly and without bias.

If you don't like this site because it is too liberal for you, then the logout button is just at the bottom of the page.

I like this site, but it used to be far better and far more bipartisan. I do not even see real arguments for why Inks should be removed. The guy cares and, I can assure you, is unbiased as evidenced by his equally painful treatment of me and Phil. All I can see is hating on him because he's a real Republican, really...

Strongly Approve

This site is too far left now? I missed that meeting.

It's been said twice now that two three of his biggest supporters are DEMOCRATS.  Phil, who has a huge problem with Inks, is a REPUBLICAN.

Stop making crap up.  There is no 'conspiracy' here.  Come on, don't turn this thread into another huge embarrassment for yourself like in all the others.

I disagree with some of Ink's decisions and to an extent with his approach to moderating.

But if there's one thing of which there's no doubt in my mind about, it is that he takes his job seriously and carries it out as objectively as he can. In this respect he is certainly one of the best moderators.

Strongly Approve

Still disapprove, due to censorship. Also, excessive infracting is basically trolling.

()

The problem there is that there are virtually no Republicans around here who are suitable, sufficiently active, and willing to do it.  We're having this very discussion right now in the Mod board, and the prime candidate thus far has an Independent avatar.

I sent Dave Leip an email requesting to be made a Mod, but no response so far

Ha ha, good one.

Mods for FC need to know the difference between fun, spam, and personal attacks.  Inks gets the jokes half the time.

I approve of Inks' performance. He seems like a great guy aswell, so I voted strongly approve.

Strongly approve.  He has infracted me a couple of times, but both times were deserved. I haven't had any infraction points in more than 6 months, but I really like Inks as a mod.

I bet your local Catholic priest is glad you're protestant, otherwise you'd show up to confession and confess to taking a crap.

A moderator getting this much disapproval must be doing something right. ;)

Inks is one of those completely incompetent in the moderating department.  Always the wrong decision, every time.

Enjoys power far too much. Nobody who wants to be a moderator that badly should ever be made one.

Probably true!

Somewhat approve.


I still say people should vote with their feet when it comes to this.  If you have a consistent problem with the way this (or any) message board is run, take your posts elsewhere.  It's not like this is the only freaking political based message board on the internet.  Or hell, if you think you'll miss some of the people here, go start your own and invite your friends.  It's easy, it's free, you get to be in charge (or you get to put nobody in charge if that's what you think works best....protip-IT DOESN"T!).  Bitching about moderators for YEARS makes you look like a whiney bitch with a victim complex, too ignorant to take your ball and go home/elsewhere.

Haha, I can see it now.  

Me:  "Father xxxx, I must confess I couldn't hold it any longer and I had to go to the bathroom.  My apologies, sir, because I didn't call it a BM, I called it [insert expletive].  I just had to go, though.  Is there any path to forgiveness?"  

Father xxxx: "My son, there is forgiveness, step into my chamber."  

Me:  "Ruh-roh, now I've gone and done it..."

So, then, what does bitching about people who bitch about moderators make one look like?

:)

Indeed, if I start posting on the subject as often as they do let me know.

I somewhat disapprove if forced to actually care about it, but I don't, thankfully, do anything to actually get in his cross-hairs around this part of the forum anyway.

I dislike it when he moderates based on his own personal distaste for something instead of moderating based on, you know, actual rules. Otherwise he's fine. He also tries to hold moderators to a higher standard, which is probably his best aspect.

Obvious solution: BushOK for moderator!

;)

Approve

People who complain all the time about evil moderators should keep in mind a couple of things (because maybe they are the problem, and not the moderators):

- Tone down your rhetoric
- Be civil
- Nobody forces you to be here, and if you want to be part of this forum you have to accept that there are moderators who can infract you
- If you can't stand the moderators on this board, leave. 

What? I'm no good for you people?! :(

As long as he doesn't give me those points, I don't really care.

Somewhat disapprove. He might be well-intentioned, but his moderation policy is extremely misguided.

(and I'd like to point out that I have sided with the moderators during most of this forum's anti-mod polemics)

I wouldn't mind taking over the spot of the next moderator to resign.

he's a caricature of a bad moderator.

Of course! Inks seems to be doing most of the "work" while you just goof off and have fun. :P

I strongly disagree that any of the moderators are biased, or that there is agitation to remove them, for ideological or partisan reasons. I have never observed that. Sure, they are human, and may at the margins be influenced by the personality of a poster - but not the color of his avatar or ideology.

...

I'm  very pro-Inks generally, and neutral on his moderation. There are better mods, there are worse mods... on this forum and the net in general.

I actually have more problems with The Mikado's moderation, to be honest.

Sam gave Phil a new signature quote.......ugh.

Had a lot of turn downs eh? I mean, I can think of some suitable candidates myself.

I don't think the color of an avatar is of particular importance myself. If it became obvious that a mod was operating with a partisan or ideological bias, rather than enforcing the Terms of Use, the posters here would not tolerate that for long - including myself. But I have not ever seen that happen myself, as noted above. The charges I have seen of partisan or ideological mod bias have been in my opinion singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive.

Politico's pathetic attempt at politicizing the moderation issue is truly despicable.

Strongly approve. He seems to be more faithful in his enforcement of the ToS than most everyone else. Perhaps he's a little strict, but stict enforcement is much, much better than selective enforcement.

wasn't Bushie the one who came up with the current infractions system?!  Just one more idea from Bushie and the Forum will cease to exist, at least for most of us.

is this not the very antithesis of the above supposed virtues (?)

If moderators get to make their own ToS, shouldn't they be elected?

Eh, the ToS is a bit of a joke.

Most are.  A touch of common sense, mixed with a splash of maturity and courtesy is all that's required for this cocktail.

Personally I prefer petrol.

:D

He's a likable guy, but he's not that great a mod. We need some yellow avatars to be mods :D

I don't have a problem with any of the mods or how they enforce the rules. Inks does a great job.

The ToS fobids sexually oriented material. While Inks' wording in that post is not very good, joking about having sex with a 16-year old would be a violation. It's not something followed very closely on here, but the ToS does say that so Inks can infract it.

Then, I'll have to rethink the plans for my next 8 threads.

Ultimately, that's what it comes down to.  And Dave's objections to profanity are applicable to this issue too.  It's not good if a school sees a post like that while one of their students is on the forum.

No kid who sees a swear word on the internet is going to have a massive moral breakdown. In fact, most of them probably already know the word anyway.

Strongly approve

the problem is that there is loads of "sexually oriented material" posted every week that goes unmoderated

Oh it definitely is, which makes it hilarious when some of the moderators get all uppity about enforcing it very literally as if it is the word of God, and then will, on other issues, just sort of let it slide.


"Sexually oriented material" now apparently equals talking about sex? This is exactly what I mean when I hate on the arbitrary nature of ToS enforcement. People weren't posting NSFW pictures or links to porn sites, which is what "material" would be. "Material" doesn't mean conversation. If we're taking this definition, virtually any discussion of sex on this site ever suddenly falls under this umbrella!

Even setting aside the fact that the "think of the children" argument is some sort of magical fantasy scenario that I highly doubt actually happens in many cases at all, the idea that a kid would get in trouble for reading some random off-color remark about having legal sex with someone, but apparently this entire thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148797.0) (which includes a more explicit sexual joke by Mikado than the infracted sexual joke by opebo certainly was) is completely in line, is a f**king joke. There is no rational explanation for this and the precedent it sets and every single person on the Mod team knows it.

If that's referencing me, I've never advocated that the ToS should always be upheld 100% literally all the time.

Nobody had reported the thread...

My biggest problem is he cares more about very mild profanity that offends basically no one under 50 and that I've heard at church events and work meetings before rather than actually offensive things like those disgusting unfunny "letter" threads that used to heavily infest the board (yes they were eventually cracked down upon but not until after they were everywhere.)

I think jmfcst would be a good replacement if we want to have a Republican moderator.

Current Standing:

35.71% approve
55.71% disapprove
8.57% neutral

He reminds me of the Pharisees who were upset by Jesus Christ.

Who's Jesus in this picture?

Anyone you've ever infracted.

Remember Jesus said "What you have done to the least of these, you have done to me."

That one doesn't really apply...