Hopper
Banned
I have had a number of questions about the "moderating" system on this board in the past, but have never really received any answers. Not that I'm entitled to them--that's a matter of opinion, I suppose--but I don't feel like I'm overstepping any bounds if I ask.
As a prelude, I am going to criticize Kicky. Partly because it helps set the scene, and partly because I just enjoy doing it. Let me amelioriate some of what follows by noting, at the outset, that Kicky seems to have gotten progressively better with time, as far as some of these criticisms go.
My personal view has been that Kicky has traditionally projected one of the most blustering, bullying, pretentious and smug personalities on this board. I know others who whole-heartedly agree. He likes to, or at least used to like to, act as though his opinions are sancrosanct gospel and that it is utterly blasphemous, not to mention completely stupid, to even dare question him.
He likes to provoke, and seeks to provoke, so that he can have an opportunity to display what he perceives as his unparalled brillance for all to see, and to humilate those who dare oppose him. No matter how soundly he may be out-debated, he will inevitably claim complete victory and express his total disdain for anyone who has disputed his omniscience.
Such an approach is bound, even designed, to create "adversaries," who Kicky then believes he must thereafter belittle and demean at every opportunity. Then he becomes a moderator.
As such, he is presumably asked to "vote" on which posters are to be admonished, expelled, etc. As I understand it, in law, judges are ethically required to "recuse" themselves from judging any case where they have even the appearance of a personal interest in the outcome. I wonder if the Jazzfanz admins ever feel so compelled.
I don't know exactly who I am addressing this to. Whether it's Kicky himself (and I welcome his response), Jason, other mods, or just board members in general who may want to share their perceptions and opinions. Just sumthin I felt like typin, I guess.
As a prelude, I am going to criticize Kicky. Partly because it helps set the scene, and partly because I just enjoy doing it. Let me amelioriate some of what follows by noting, at the outset, that Kicky seems to have gotten progressively better with time, as far as some of these criticisms go.
My personal view has been that Kicky has traditionally projected one of the most blustering, bullying, pretentious and smug personalities on this board. I know others who whole-heartedly agree. He likes to, or at least used to like to, act as though his opinions are sancrosanct gospel and that it is utterly blasphemous, not to mention completely stupid, to even dare question him.
He likes to provoke, and seeks to provoke, so that he can have an opportunity to display what he perceives as his unparalled brillance for all to see, and to humilate those who dare oppose him. No matter how soundly he may be out-debated, he will inevitably claim complete victory and express his total disdain for anyone who has disputed his omniscience.
Such an approach is bound, even designed, to create "adversaries," who Kicky then believes he must thereafter belittle and demean at every opportunity. Then he becomes a moderator.
As such, he is presumably asked to "vote" on which posters are to be admonished, expelled, etc. As I understand it, in law, judges are ethically required to "recuse" themselves from judging any case where they have even the appearance of a personal interest in the outcome. I wonder if the Jazzfanz admins ever feel so compelled.
I don't know exactly who I am addressing this to. Whether it's Kicky himself (and I welcome his response), Jason, other mods, or just board members in general who may want to share their perceptions and opinions. Just sumthin I felt like typin, I guess.
