2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[Graham Banks]

How else do you want to nominate the moderators ? I mean which or how shall these voters vote if they do not know who wants to run ????

I could be wrong, but it sounds as though the FG wants to choose them from those who bother to supply a CV.

[towforce]

How else do you want to nominate the moderators ? I mean which or how shall these voters vote if they do not know who wants to run ????

I could be wrong, but it sounds as though the FG wants to choose them from those who bother to supply a CV.

The requirements for candidates were given: link.

[mclane]

How else do you want to nominate the moderators ? I mean which or how shall these voters vote if they do not know who wants to run ????

I could be wrong, but it sounds as though the FG wants to choose them from those who bother to supply a CV.

The requirements for candidates were given: link.

And is the founders group fulfilling the definitions?
„Moderator candidates should present a proper CV, education, academic experience, work experience, responsibility positions, achievements. We also do not want psychopaths, narcissists nor liars nor manipulators.
You want to “moderate” the forum? Okay, prove your suitability. Never seen it done yet.“

[Viren]

This feels like intentionally making the process insanely convulted... nobody would ever write up and provide all this information. Why doesn't the FG do it first to show how it's done. If even they are uncomfortable to share this level of information, why on earth would a moderator candidate.

[AndrewGrant]

Seems pretty clear that our glorious leaders have no intent on running any fair elections. First they hold out and delay the process as long as possible; Then they start throwing around false bans against those who they disagree with; And now we have some disgusting attempt at credentialism. Next we'll just get to select between Kang and Kodos.

Yes, Andrew, I understand you ascribe terrible bad motives to those you don't like

It’s likely we won’t be using the nomination popularity parade process.

Looks like I might have done a proper ascribing.

[Rebel]

Seems pretty clear that our glorious leaders have no intent on running any fair elections. First they hold out and delay the process as long as possible; Then they start throwing around false bans against those who they disagree with; And now we have some disgusting attempt at credentialism. Next we'll just get to select between Kang and Kodos.

Yes, Andrew, I understand you ascribe terrible bad motives to those you don't like

It’s likely we won’t be using the nomination popularity parade process.

Looks like I might have done a proper ascribing.

You keep assuming and you are wrong.

[AndrewGrant]

Looks like I might have done a proper ascribing.

You keep assuming and you are wrong.

No assumptions here, friend. I've added emphasis to the original post for your clarity.

[towforce]

To meet the criteria of not being a psychopath, a narcissist, a liar or a manipulator, presumably a candidate will need to visit a psychiatrist and to then share the assessment on this forum.

Maybe change the criteria from "not at all" to "below average", since these things tend to be a sliding scale rather than binary.

[towforce]

I know I've been ruled out of standing (and being allowed to vote), but I was curious to see whether I meet the personality-traits requirements for the moderation position:

Me: Ask me 5 questions, then give me an assessment on whether you think I would score highly for any of the following character traits: psychopathic, narcissistic, dishonest or manipulative.

ChatGPT: I can help explore personality traits and tendencies through a constructive and ethical lens. Please note that my assessment will be speculative and based on your responses, not a clinical evaluation or diagnosis. Here's a set of five questions to understand your attitudes and behaviours:

(1) When making decisions, especially ones that affect others, do you prioritize your own goals or consider the needs and feelings of others?

(2) Have you ever told a lie or bent the truth to achieve something important to you, even if it might hurt someone else? How often does this happen?

(3) How do you typically handle criticism or feedback about yourself, especially if it feels unfair?

(4) Do you enjoy or feel accomplished by influencing or controlling others’ actions or decisions? If so, in what context?

(5) How would you describe your level of empathy? Can you easily relate to and care about others' emotions and perspectives?

Once you've answered, I'll provide an assessment based on the traits you mentioned.

Me:
1. I would prioritise my own goals, but there would be a limit on how much I would be prepared to hurt the feelings of other people in order to achieve them - especially if the effects were likely to be long lasting.
2. There have been times when I've stretched the truth to achieve a goal, but I don't do this often, and there were rarely, if ever, long term damages to other people.
3. I handle feedback well. If the feedback is unfair, then I would be most likely to ignore the person who gave it in future.
4. I do not feel accomplished by controlling other people except when it is my job to do so, I have helped them to improve themselves, or it is my job to control them.
5. My ability to empathise is strong: I am able to understand other people's behaviour well. However, I don't very often choose to use this capability.

ChatGPT: Based on your responses, here's my assessment of the mentioned traits:

Psychopathic tendencies: Low likelihood. You show an awareness of the potential harm your actions could cause others and set limits to avoid lasting negative effects, which reflects consideration and emotional regulation.

Narcissistic tendencies: Low to moderate likelihood. While you prioritize your own goals and are selective about engaging with those who provide unfair criticism, your responses don't indicate a strong sense of entitlement or a need for admiration, which are hallmark traits of narcissism.

Dishonesty: Low likelihood. Although you've admitted to occasionally stretching the truth to achieve a goal, this appears to be rare and generally without significant consequences. Your self-awareness about the impact of dishonesty suggests integrity is important to you.

Manipulative tendencies: Low likelihood. While you acknowledge a capacity to influence others when required, you frame it in the context of professional responsibilities or self-improvement, not as a personal habit for gain or control.

Overall, your responses reflect someone who is pragmatic and goal-oriented but maintains a conscious effort to balance self-interest with the well-being of others. You seem to have a strong understanding of your own behavior and motivations, which contributes to a balanced personality.

[chrisw]

I know I've been ruled out of standing (and being allowed to vote), but I was curious to see whether I meet the personality-traits requirements for the moderation position:

Actually, you ruled yourself out by not completing the real name field within the two weeks period allowed. You knew this perfectly well (you've been in this thread enough times) and that electoral rules are there to be fair on all and not treated subjectively or special cased. Plenty of people updated their data. You didn't. Your choice. Stop whining.

Four I, me, myself and I in your first sentence by the way, followed by a long tract all about you.