Post 62 pretty much confirms I would probably be in a better position to influence whiteflame's decisions than RM, and the only real power of the president is persuasive power.
RM is probably one of the few other people on the site that has been in personal contact with me for a rather long period. He has exclusively done it through the site, but we've had similar discussions. I wouldn't set you two apart so far in that regard. I've known you longer, but that doesn't give you greater influence over me. If you want to claim that direct communication over a prolonged period = a better position to influence me, that's up to you, but you both have that.
I appreciate how you are navigating this situation. I've been in leadership positions as well, and have had to use similar diplomatic language.
Should a person who makes rational and fact based (either sources, etc) arguments about their support of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc be banned?
How do you reconcile differences that may be “derogotary” with pure differences. For example, if I say Blacks are dumber than whites because of their inherent brown structure and provide evidence, should I be banned?
*do or do you not* believe that white supremacy should be advocated for/debated on the site when it includes evidence?
Wylted is God's Righteous Man.
Should a person who makes rational and fact based (either sources, etc) arguments about their support of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc be banned?
How do you reconcile differences that may be “derogotary” with pure differences. For example, if I say Blacks are dumber than whites because of their inherent brown structure and provide evidence, should I be banned?
*do or do you not* believe that white supremacy should be advocated for/debated on the site when it includes evidence?
Now we are getting into psychology. My therapist seemed to notice this as well and asked my."Why don't you have any convictions"I don't, which is why I can change with the wind. The resolute part is something I do just for rhetorical purposes.Perhaps not having convictions will change though. I have one conviction and it acted like a light bulb going off in my head and I lot of things flowed from it.RM, God is real.Knowing this has unclouded my judgement in a lot of ways, and many things flow from this.
Especially not when you will bow your head like a good puppet when he tells you to.'puppet' is my words, yes, but you chose option 1 as your go-to every time correct?
No, I assumed in the scenario it was a one shot thing. In good negotiations though both parties are usually a bit unhappy, so all successful advocacy attempts will still lead a bad taste in your mouth.
Are you capable of proving your ability to use discretion. The ability to use discretion is important to a working relationship. Let's say you earn whiteflames trust and he starts leaning heavy on you as an advocate for users he interacts with less than you.A lot of those conversations may be very private and ugly facts about users could come out that was only the privy of mods. Say whiteflame concludes a particular case of harassment is not harassment and the user should go unpunished. You guys fight hard over it and he basically says "fuck you, not banning the harasser " . Your only two options are1. Drop your argument and let the harasser get away with itOr2. Air your personal grievances with whiteflame publicly and break his trust and ruin the relationship necessary for a working relationship.Will you and can you be trusted to take option 1.I know I have the ability to maintain that relationship with whiteflame and have previously proven it as I have interacted with him a lot off site and we have both told each other personal things, and both of us have seen each other never betray that trust. Can whiteflame trust you like he trusts me, so a working relationship is possible?
