I agree, so I was surprised that, despite it being said, you would ask again for Virt to host the election and figure out how it will play out. Because that would be moderation playing an active role in this and acknowledging the legitimacy of the position which is not consistent with the stance of moderation at this point
I have not heard anyone other than you say it would not be a legitimate position. I think this supports my theory there is a desire for a monopoly of power. Clearly it is meant to be a legitimate role with no formal powers.
When Virt originally said this your immediate response was to say: "I would actually not accept what Virtuoso said." So you are explicitly diametrically opposed to the President not having a role within the moderation team.
This is what I would use my imaginary powers to try and achieve. The moderation team as is, is terrible. If I were interviewing these people I would never hire them for the job. I don't see reducing the standards merely because it is an unpaid position. There are people of higher quality willing to take the position. Previously you had a person who sat in Mcdonalds all day and typed on his computer. Now you have somebody who stocks shelves at a grocery store and is bullied by everyone in his personal life. These are not the type of people who should be in positions of authority. Any of these people taking any of my previous leadership positions would not have achieved great results like me.
The standards should be, anybody you would not hire in the real world for a leadership position, you should not hire here. I would push for a democratization of moderation power because of how poorly Mike has chosen. If he were more competent in his hiring processes, I would oppose that. MY statement that the creation of a presidential position not having a dual goal of becoming a moderator is accurate. My goal is to usurp power and then democratize it until Mike learns better judgement or gets lucky with one of his moderator decisions.
Yes, my authority to clear the reports board of religious forum users frivolously reporting each other endlessly. Please don't take that away from me.
This is why it is so silly for you to be adamant that the democratization of power is bad and to be so insistent to monopolize it. I assume it is an ego thing. "Only I am responsible enough to sift through reported posts in a competent way".
I think you're just mad that I was put here based on merits, rather than having to lie and scheme my way into it.
Scheming is how you display superior competence in strategizing solutions when in a position decided by voters. A person who can run the most effective campaign is also going to be a superior strategist in creating solutions for a country. The lying part is bullshit. I commonly take a worse strategic position by saying honest things. I can afford to do so because of my superior strategic ability in other areas. When a small handful of people choose for a position you prove merit through your resume. SO it is just 2 different ways to display merit. The people who chose you for that position may have chosen you because of your merit but if so than it was just a lucky guess, they are too incompetent to actually make a wise decision, and even in choosing other people for moderation positions, I know for a fact they did not ask for or receive resumes. They went by gut. I have been successful in every leadership position I have ever been in, whether that is leading a team to victory in survivor or having jobs where I bring my division to the top in their district. Were they really seeking somebody based on merit, you would have lost.
Anybody looking for a successful campaign to the future presidential position should contact me, and I will once again prove my merit by winning. If I have to, I will create my own campaign, but as long as a candidate I approve of an who will listen to me approaches, I will get them the win here
