The Second Debate - With Your Host, Slyfox696

[Dagger Dias]

Many would argue the forum would be improved if you'd leave. Are you willing to honor that request?

No. I considered it when the mudslinging had reached its worst during this election, as there is only so much verbal abuse someone can take before saying forget this. That would make me a quitter though. It's like with John Cena. He too gets mixed reactions and his haters will continue to hate no matter what he does. I'll just ignore those people and move on.

So you're saying you only want to work when you think there's something to be gained from it. That's not how being a moderator works. Lee noted it to me when he stepped down, that you would begin a thread starting spree and you did.

My thread creation during that time was me trying to stand out among the rest as the guy stepping up. If someone needed to step up, I wanted to be that guy. It wasn't just for that reason though. I also wanted to do my part to keep the section alive until it did receive a mod, whether that was me or not. I understand the point you are trying to make here. I could have been making threads there all along and not just when I was trying to earn mod status.

If you truly want to help the forums, why only do it when there's an open mod spot? It makes a person think there's an ulterior motive which you're not sharing.

I will admit I was trying to earn moderator status. The reason I started making more threads when a spot opened was indeed for that reason. However, since I am not a mod at the moment, I do not have any mod tasks that would take priority over posting. I like to post about all sorts of topics. If I do go bold, my posting sprees would be significantly smaller because my work in my section needs to be done first before I venture out into other sections to do any posting.

And yet, you've only started ONE thread in the WWE forum in the last 5 months. If the WWE section needs thread starters, why haven't you been doing it? Is it because there was no mod spot available?

It's Jack-Hammer's job right now, but if I got the spot I would form a tag team with him in the thread starting. I do not know if you guys do quotas or not, but if a topic was not up that was one he'd likely end up wanting to do, I didn't want to take any potential topics that could be used for meeting that quota. That, combined with the fact that without being a mod I would prefer to post instead of create threads. That is just me being honest there.

I did make a few threads in there during summer such as the one asking how far everyone thinks the original members of Nexus members will each get at this point, or the one where I asked for an analysis on Cena's career so far which I posted on the anniversary of his debut. I will admit that I could have made more and the number of threads I make needs to be rather high if I am going to be a discussion mod.

Basically what I'm getting from this is you like the Video Game section better, but thought you'd have a better chance to win a mod spot in WWE sections. Which I would think would make a voter strongly question whether or not you should be voted as a WWE mod, if you just aren't really into it.

That choice is up to them in the end. I would really like the opportunity to moderate either section. They are the two sections I enjoy posting in the most so at least from my perspective it's a win/win situation in regards to which one I got modded for. Regardless of if it's Video Games or WWE, my intention to place my section above all else, including posting, remains true.

 

[Slyfox696]

No. I considered it when the mudslinging had reached its worst during this election, as there is only so much verbal abuse someone can take before saying forget this. That would make me a quitter though. It's like with John Cena. He too gets mixed reactions and his haters will continue to hate no matter what he does. I'll just ignore those people and move on.

So then you're only willing to do what's best for the forum if it's what YOU think is best for the forum?

My thread creation during that time was me trying to stand out among the rest as the guy stepping up. If someone needed to step up, I wanted to be that guy. It wasn't just for that reason though. I also wanted to do my part to keep the section alive until it did receive a mod, whether that was me or not. I understand the point you are trying to make here. I could have been making threads there all along and not just when I was trying to earn mod status.

Exactly. And you admit you created the threads to earn mod status. So that brings me back to my original question.

Why do you really want to be a mod? It's not about helping the forum, you've now admitted you only want to help the forum when it's beneficial for you. Why do you really want to be a mod?

If I do go bold, my posting sprees would be significantly smaller because my work in my section needs to be done first before I venture out into other sections to do any posting.

So once you become moderator, you will no longer look to drive discussion?

 

[Slyfox696]

As the name of this thread implies, this debate is a lot more about me than the three of you. Why? Because I'm going to have to work with one of you, and I'm pretty picky about who we let on Staff. While you are most certainly trying to score points with voters, this debate is about me.

What does this mean for you? Well, it's fairly straightforward. I'll ask each of you the final question I have prepared for you. You will answer. You will not, however, call out the other candidates. Why? Because you've done that already, and quite frankly, all three of you were boring. So instead of letting the three of you debate each other, if I see bullshit in your post, I'm calling you on it. You then get to reply to me. Any candidate addressing any other receives an Infraction. Maybe two of them, depends what mood I'm in. Oh, and I suppose it goes without saying (though I will anyways), anyone who is not a candidate which posts in this thread will be subject to Discipline as well.

Everyone understand? If not, PM me, and I'll copy and paste this section back to you. Let's begin.


Question for Dagger

3. If anything has been made abundantly clear throughout this election, it's been that you will say anything you think people want to hear. You will say whatever you think will get you votes. In my opinion, that makes you a "Yes Man", someone who will go along with whatever those with power say, in order to move up and gain more power of your own.

I don't want a "Yes Man". I want an independent thinker, who has the gonads to stand up for something, even if they are the only person who feels that way. I want someone with a backbone, and I don't think that's you.

Explain to the voters why they should elect a "Yes Man".


Question for Coco

3. I think anyone who has taken even a moment to consider believes you won't stay on Staff long. Maybe you'll get bored with it in a week's time. Maybe a couple of months. Hell, perhaps you just piss too many people off, I don't know. You and I have already had issues, and we haven't even gotten to the voting portion of the election yet. I think 6 months on Staff would be considered a massive achievement for you.

Both Crock and Dagger are people I truly believe want to be a mod, and are not just doing it for the giggles. Explain why you should take a moderator spot away from people who actually want to be there, and are not just doing it for the "lulz".


Question for Crock

3. You've already admitted to being a try-hard. Everyone knows it, and you agree with it. In my experiences, try-hards are more likely to screw things up than they are to make them better. For example, I could easily see you going around giving out Warnings/Infractions to people who really don't deserve it. Then it's more work and more time for me to have to clean up your mess. Moderators' jobs are to make the life of the Administration easier, yet I could easily see you fucking it up and making mine more of a hassle. Why should the forums vote for someone who will screw things up worse than they help them?

 

[Dagger Dias]

So then you're only willing to do what's best for the forum if it's what YOU think is best for the forum?

Not at all. I want what's best for the forum and what I personally want may not always be what truly is best. You asked me if I would be willing to leave the forum if it was what was best. That's the one exception. I love this place too much to leave and if haters wanted me to, it's not going to happen. The only time I have ever left the forum for an extended period of time was in summer of 2010 when I was helping my wife plan our wedding and figure out how to fix our living situation within a couple of months when she was still in California and I was in Texas. Between that, working on my video game, and school, I litterally had no time for anything else. Real life took priority over the forum.

My real life still does come first, but I have my days off from work and a few hours per night that I can devote to posting, or moderating should I become a staff member. I will say this much though, since I do want what is best for the forum.... If I am unable to complete my mod tasks or if real life gets too crazy with eating up my time, then I would be willing to step down if I had no other choice. The last thing I'd want is to be just another bold name. I want to make a difference around here and be of help.

Exactly. And you admit you created the threads to earn mod status. So that brings me back to my original question.

Why do you really want to be a mod? It's not about helping the forum, you've now admitted you only want to help the forum when it's beneficial for you. Why do you really want to be a mod?

I never said I only want to help the forum when it's beneficial to me. I spend hours at this forum every single day, and I want to be more of an asset to this place. If I could use the time I spend posting moderating then I could be a big help in keeping this place running. I would be determined to be the best that I could be. It IS because I want to help out. I was always willing to step up, I just never got the chance. I've never moderated before and think it would be a cool experience.

So once you become moderator, you will no longer look to drive discussion?

Absolutely not. I will focus on my partcular section, as my highest priority. It needs to be free of infractable offenses. It needs to have threads generating discussion. Finally, these threads need to remain on topic. Once those tasks are seen as fulfilled for that day, I can venture out into other sections. Driving discussion whether that be by posting new threads, discussing these topics with the other posters, and then being on the lookout for offenses, these are the priorities I will need to be able to do each time I log in as a mod.

 

[The Crock]

Question for Crock

3. You've already admitted to being a try-hard. Everyone knows it, and you agree with it. In my experiences, try-hards are more likely to screw things up than they are to make them better. For example, I could easily see you going around giving out Warnings/Infractions to people who really don't deserve it. Then it's more work and more time for me to have to clean up your mess. Moderators' jobs are to make the life of the Administration easier, yet I could easily see you fucking it up and making mine more of a hassle. Why should the forums vote for someone who will screw things up worse than they help them?

There is absolutely no reason to worry about that. While I may be a try-hard, I'm no moron. I won't go around infracting/warning just for the sake of doing it. I will do whatever I can to be a great moderator and to make your job easier. I could understand why you would think I'd go and infract people to prove I was fit for the job, but that'd be a quick trip straight out of the Board Room. I certainly won't hesitate to discipline rule breakers, but I won't go after random people to put another notch in my belt, or anything of the sort.

I plan to take my job seriously, in no way would I abuse my powers.

 

[Dagger Dias]

If anything has been made abundantly clear throughout this election, it's been that you will say anything you think people want to hear. You will say whatever you think will get you votes. In my opinion, that makes you a "Yes Man", someone who will go along with whatever those with power say, in order to move up and gain more power of your own.

I don't want a "Yes Man". I want an independent thinker, who has the gonads to stand up for something, even if they are the only person who feels that way. I want someone with a backbone, and I don't think that's you.

Explain to the voters why they should elect a "Yes Man".

I believe in management structure. The Admins get the final say in decisions here, while I would only be a regular mod if I join staff. I respect the fact that Admins as well as G-Mods will outrank me. If they ask me to do something, I should do it. I also respect the fact that the other mods will have seniority over me. As the new guy I would respect my standing and not question the others unless I truly felt someone was wrong about something. However, if I feel that something is truly wrong, I'd stand up for myself or whoever is being treated wrong. There is a difference between respecting your superiors and blindly following orders like a "Yes Man". I respect my superiors and do what is asked, but if I am asked to do something that I do not agree with or feel would be wrong, then I'd discuss it with the others involved. Perhaps other solutions can be thought of. You said so yourself that you want someone who has the guts to share how they truly feel about something. I am not afraid of being honest about my thoughts.

I can seem like a "Yes Man" at times. I see that as a good thing though. I am a loyal team player and will do what is asked of me if I become mod, just like in jobs in the real world. Those who work well with their teammates and leaders are the ones who are likely to get more accomplished. The forum members should vote for me despite seeming like a "Yes Man" because I can get the job done.

 

[Coco]

Question for Coco

3. I think anyone who has taken even a moment to consider believes you won't stay on Staff long. Maybe you'll get bored with it in a week's time. Maybe a couple of months. Hell, perhaps you just piss too many people off, I don't know. You and I have already had issues, and we haven't even gotten to the voting portion of the election yet. I think 6 months on Staff would be considered a massive achievement for you.

Both Crock and Dagger are people I truly believe want to be a mod, and are not just doing it for the giggles. Explain why you should take a moderator spot away from people who actually want to be there, and are not just doing it for the "lulz".

Look at the positives:
1) I'm definitely an independent thinker.
2) I'm not a try-hard.

Looking past the perception that I'm in this for the lulz, something that mostly comes down to the assumptions of others and hasn't been proven, I reckon I'm everything you want in a mod. If people really want the best man for the job, then surely that's me. Isn't that the bottom line?

 

[Slyfox696]

There is absolutely no reason to worry about that. While I may be a try-hard, I'm no moron. I won't go around infracting/warning just for the sake of doing it. I will do whatever I can to be a great moderator and to make your job easier. I could understand why you would think I'd go and infract people to prove I was fit for the job, but that'd be a quick trip straight out of the Board Room. I certainly won't hesitate to discipline rule breakers, but I won't go after random people to put another notch in my belt, or anything of the sort.

I plan to take my job seriously, in no way would I abuse my powers.

No no, you completely misunderstood me. That mediocre poster thing is coming back to haunt you.

I didn't say you would give false Discipline because of an e-ego, I said you would do it because you would be incompetent at figuring out what should go or not, and so you would just do delete/infract everything. Since you're a try-hard, you'd want to make sure you were doing your job, but your judgment would be poor, causing me more work.

I believe in management structure. The Admins get the final say in decisions here, while I would only be a regular mod if I join staff. I respect the fact that Admins as well as G-Mods will outrank me. If they ask me to do something, I should do it. I also respect the fact that the other mods will have seniority over me. As the new guy I would respect my standing and not question the others unless I truly felt someone was wrong about something.

*yawn*

This is what I was talking about when I said you would say anything you think people want to hear.

However, if I feel that something is truly wrong, I'd stand up for myself or whoever is being treated wrong.

You think we treat people unfairly here?

There is a difference between respecting your superiors and blindly following orders like a "Yes Man". I respect my superiors and do what is asked, but if I am asked to do something that I do not agree with or feel would be wrong, then I'd discuss it with the others involved. Perhaps other solutions can be thought of. You said so yourself that you want someone who has the guts to share how they truly feel about something. I am not afraid of being honest about my thoughts.

Recent evidence says otherwise. In the JGlass thread, it went hundreds of posts until you responded. And then, when you did respond, your first sentence was:

I have not and will not, for that matter, be responding to JGlass' thread.

How is that displaying the backbone to stand up to someone you feel has wronged you? It took nearly a week for you to finally speak up in your own defense. Why did it take you so long? I can only assume because you thought if you responded, it would make you look like a "bad guy", which would then cause people not to vote for you.

You say you stand up for what's right and what you believe in, but recent evidence tells us otherwise. How do you explain the contradiction?

Look at the positives:
1) I'm definitely an independent thinker.
2) I'm not a try-hard.

I'd rather look for an answer to my question. You're dangerously close to violating the "you will not call out the other candidates" rule of this debate.

Looking past the perception that I'm in this for the lulz

A perception I think many have, and one you have even endeavored to foster.

something that mostly comes down to the assumptions of others and hasn't been proven

I would argue most of your comments throughout the election would be amble evidence to this assumption. Are you saying it is untrue?

I reckon I'm everything you want in a mod. If people really want the best man for the job, then surely that's me. Isn't that the bottom line?

It is, but if I were voting, I'd want the best man for the job, who will remain the best man for the job longer than a week. Any person who is only going to do their job for a week is not the best man for the job. If I were voting in this election, I'd want someone who will be committed to the position long-term, not just until they no longer think it's extraordinarily fun to be there.

Putting unforeseen emergencies aside, are you someone who will be committed to a moderator spot long-term, and not just until you're no longer enjoying the glow of the bold user name and wish to take part in the Staff Retirement package?

 

[The Crock]

I wouldn't do that. There's no point in doing the job wrong. If I was having a hard time grasping what's deletable/infractable and what's not, I would (at the very least) ask for some clarification. Although, I don't believe that will be a problem. Don't get me wrong, I won't instantly be a great moderator, but I plan on learning quickly and catching up to the rest of staff as soon as possible.

 

[Dagger Dias]

You think we treat people unfairly here?

The staff members don't. At least to my knowledge they do not. If someone on staff did anything I disagreed with I'd either contact them or mention it in the Board Room. Offensive things happen between regular members though, and if I saw something I believed was unfair I wouldn't just sweep it under the rug. It needs to be dealt with so those who were wronged will still feel comfortable posting here. Whether it be something as small as messaging the hurt individual with some words of encouragement or getting involved in the discussion myself, I would do what I felt was right.

How is that displaying the backbone to stand up to someone you feel has wronged you? It took nearly a week for you to finally speak up in your own defense. Why did it take you so long? I can only assume because you thought if you responded, it would make you look like a "bad guy", which would then cause people not to vote for you.

I was trying to be the mature one by ignoring it. It came off as them trying to anger me to the point where I'd lose it and post a rage-filled word fort, or a Verbal RKO as I jokingly call it. There was no point in me entering that thread, haters are going to hate no matter what I do. My focus was on the debate and I didn't want to get bogged down in all the useless drama. Others had advised me to avoid it and I took that advice until I was informed of how personal the attacks got. Still refusing to paint a target onto myself by entering that thread, I created a new topic where I placed my response. I'm not jumping into enemy territory. There's having a backbone and then there's stupidity. Dealing with drama by talking trash is a waste of time. Any issue someone has with me can be discussed in PM's. It's more mature that way anyhow and we are (for the most part) adults here.

You say you stand up for what's right and what you believe in, but recent evidence tells us otherwise. How do you explain the contradiction?

If it's just a few guys being annoying.... I am not afraid to stand up to them. However when dozens were all but crucifying me in that thread, I never gave in to their hurtful remarks with an angry response. I addressed each issue and did it politely. I feel that I handled the situation fairly maturely, and came out of it with my desire to win this contest being as strong as ever. Most people would have gone berserk and left. I didn't. In fact, I maintained my calm and got right back up. I will never give up and still want the opportunity to become the next mod.

 

[Coco]

A perception I think many have, and one you have even endeavored to foster.

I would argue most of your comments throughout the election would be amble evidence to this assumption. Are you saying it is untrue?

Am I?

It is, but if I were voting, I'd want the best man for the job, who will remain the best man for the job longer than a week. Any person who is only going to do their job for a week is not the best man for the job. If I were voting in this election, I'd want someone who will be committed to the position long-term, not just until they no longer think it's extraordinarily fun to be there.

Putting unforeseen emergencies aside, are you someone who will be committed to a moderator spot long-term, and not just until you're no longer enjoying the glow of the bold user name and wish to take part in the Staff Retirement package?

I want to say yes, but the truth is probably the opposite.

How's that for honesty?

At least it'll be a fun week.

 

[Slyfox696]

Am I?

Are you?

I want to say yes, but the truth is probably the opposite.

How's that for honesty?

I would say your honesty might be a warning sign for those who wish to vote for you. Then again, it might seem a refreshing change to have a candidate speak honestly about the fact they aren't sure what their future will hold.

I guess what it comes down to is voters weighing your honesty against if they want to elect a moderator they can be sure will be there for a long time to come.