Moderators

[Jonathan Cohen]

Does this forum currently have an active moderator other than Sandy Larsen? What is the ongoing role of Mark Knight and Kathy Beckett in forum moderation? I, and others here, would like to know the actual process by which warnings and posting suspensions are given. Do the moderators vote? Can one overrule the other?

[Ron Bulman]

Kathy has retired, for reasons unbeknownst to me.  I hope she is well, she helped me get back on the site when my laptop died and I had lost my password.

I was asked by Mark and Sandy to become an administrator, as a result.  I felt unqualified regarding my technical expertise, which I still do.  Though I consider it an honor to become so given the origin from John Simkin, James Gordon and more.  

You sir, seem a bit provocative in your nature, argumentative, a good reason to resign from having to deal with such.

But, a reason not to as well.  Four complaints in four days by you, about others.  Reason to wonder about motives?

[Sandy Larsen]

Mark Knight, Ron Bulman, and myself are currently the active members of the admin staff. I am currently more active than Mark at moderating, and Ron is in training.

We discuss and take votes on the more important issues, like making forum rules, banning members, and issuing large penalties. We don't vote on smaller penalties, but we have guidelines that we follow for consistency sake.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

BTW, taunting and harassing other forum members is one of the more serious rule violations.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

When Jonathan Cohen started harassing me intensively about a week ago, I went to his profile page to see if he was harassing others the way he was me, and sure enough, all of his posts are just one-liner harassment quips that he lays on people like a slap in the face. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of crap.

Edited January 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Reason to wonder about motives?

Are you saying you have reason to question my motives for filing reports about objectionable posts? Would you care to elaborate?

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mark Knight, Ron Bulman, and myself are currently the active members of the admin staff. I am currently more active than Mark at moderating, and Ron is in training.

So at this time, the forum membership at large had/has no formal say in who is chosen as a moderator?

[Benjamin Cole]

In my experience it is best to ignore some commenters. EF-JFKA allows you to put the noisome on ignore, meaning their posts are not visible.  

For example, I have one individual, known as "The Great Posterior Orifice of EF-JFKA," on ignore. 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So at this time, the forum membership at large had/has no formal say in who is chosen as a moderator?

 

All three of us in the admin staff are moderators.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

All three of us in the admin staff are moderators.

And my question is, who chooses the admin staff, and how? Does the wider forum membership have any say in this process?

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And my question is, who chooses the admin staff, and how? Does the wider forum membership have any say in this process?

 

Current members of the admin staff invite another forum member, as necessary, to become a junior member. For example, Ron Bulman replaced Kathy Beckett when she resigned.

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Current members of the admin staff invite another forum member, as necessary, to become a junior member. For example, Ron Bulman replaced Kathy Beckett when she resigned.

So the answer is, yes, this process is a closed loop for anyone who isn't "invited" to become "admin staff" and that forum membership at large has no say whatsoever in who said admin staff is or how they are chosen.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So the answer is, yes, this process is a closed loop for anyone who isn't "invited" to become "admin staff" and that forum membership at large has no say whatsoever in who said admin staff is or how they are chosen.

This forum was long-known as the Simkin forum, after its founder, John Simkin. I was an active moderator for a decade or so. I became a member because John Simkin, in LBJ fashion, asked me if I would become one, and then announced it before I could say yes. So...the forum at large has never had a vote on the moderators. Nor should it have, IMO. The moderator's job is to keep this from becoming an insult farm, and to occasionally control content. Now, this last bit is the tricky one. Some have left this forum because they didn't like being confronted by the same old Oswald did it arguments, or the evidence wasn't faked arguments, and wanted to be on a forum of like minds. These forums have usually withered and died. It's hard to discuss things--and educate the readers--when everyone agrees. No, the content that should be moderated, and frequently is moderated, is content involving ethnicity and sexuality. Over the years, there have been numerous threads started on the sexual deviancy of (fill in the blank), that come across as offensive and distracting, and lower the level of discourse. Most of these threads were made to disappear by the moderators. If you wanna spend your days gossiping about incest and rape go somewhere else. Similarly, numerous threads have been started claiming some ethnic group was behind the assassination. These mostly target Jews. This topic is hard to navigate because most would agree that Israel's possible involvement is within bounds. But discussions of this subject almost always lead to someone claiming all Jews are loyal to Israel and Jewish researchers can't be trusted, etc. So many of those threads get shut down. In any event, being a moderator isn't, and shouldn't be, a popularity contest. 

 

[Michael Griffith]

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Similarly, numerous threads have been started claiming some ethnic group was behind the assassination. These mostly target Jews. This topic is hard to navigate because most would agree that Israel's possible involvement is within bounds. 

I think most rational, educated people, especially those who know anything about Israel's early history, would agree that "Israel's possible involvement" is an absurd, fringe, far-fetched proposition that is well beyond the bounds of respectable discussion. 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think most rational, educated people, especially those who know anything about Israel's early history, would agree that "Israel's possible involvement" is an absurd, fringe, far-fetched proposition that is well beyond the bounds of respectable discussion. 

 

I prefer to go by the evidence rather than by what people might consider to be far fetched. LNers don't believe in a conspiracy and a coverup because -- to them -- they are far fetched concepts. Pat Speer doesn't believe there was a gaping wound  on the back of Kennedy's head, and goes so far as to believe in mass hallucination among witnesses, because -- to him -- photographic alteration is a far fetched concept.

Forum members have made fun of me because I believe that LHO was groomed to be a Russian-speaking spy beginning at age 13. That may sound far fetched to some, but the evidence for it is extensive.

So if some member thought he had the evidence to show Israel was behind the killing of Kennedy, I wouldn't stop him from presenting it.

 

[Douglas Caddy]

I have been a member of the forum since 2006. In my opinion forum members should be thankful and appreciative that we have always been blessed with outstanding moderators who are consistently fair and professional in carrying out their responsibilities.

Forum members have another reason to be thankful and that is Jonathan Cohen is not a moderator and will never be one.

Edited January 12 by Douglas Caddy