Easy.
"The ability to communicate within a moderation team chat (via Discord) in order to give input on all forms of daily decision-making. Except when completely untenable, the mod team will strive to ensure the President’s viewpoint is heard and honored."
The president gets a direct line to communicate with moderation, meaning they can encourage softer bans, or even no bans.
How does this "lessen" moderation?
Use that reading good ol' fashion reading comprehension you boast about and you should know.
You missed this:
Vetos may be overridden by a simple majority vote among the moderation team.
Key word "May". The mod team is a group that works together and discusses actions prior to taking them. The president will essentially be part of that team and will be influencing their decisions. The only reason they would veto a decision is if the decision was unreasonable and couldn't be agreed upon by the rest of the mod team.
Your presidential candidate is only vying for equal punishment or enforcement, not less. You are assuming the best, based on very little that he has actually said. You are making his case for him. Who cares what the rules do to the community, as long as they are enforced equally.
It isn't within the capacity of the presidential office to change the rules. What better can a president do than to advise and counsel for a uniform and quantifiable implementation and enforcement of the rules?
Ragnar has confirmed that he has the ability to use discretionary modding and applying of rules in our conversations before. Giving the president a direct line to communicate with the mod team opens the avenue for discretion in applying said rules when it comes to making decisions. If this was automatically being done the right way, their would be no need for the role. Mods are seeking to use the president role as a way to put a community elected offical in the team to help guide decisions. If you or your candidate don't see this as an oppertunity, 3RU7AL is completely wasting his oppertunity here.
I didn't say it wasn't, just that he isn't trying to lessen strict moderation, as say someone like wylted is trying to do.
The president cannot "lessen" (strict) moderation. The president can certainly counsel for it particularly in areas where it's quantifiable. Therefore it is crucial that the president commands the respect of the moderation team.
You are trying to argue semantically here, when we are essentially saying the same thing. Your rigid interpretation of text doesn't change the meaning of the bolded.
There's a lot more confidence in 3RU7AL carrying this out, than there is with Wylted.
Airmax is better than both individuals at this.
Okay you are saying he doesn't care about my vote, well I don't care if he doesn't care either.
Once again, how did you formulate this conclusion?
"No one can be responsible for your worries."
The person that wants to earn the most votes listens to the voterbase and their concerns if they wish to win. It is in your candidates best interest do the same.
If he wanted to win my vote or others shouldn't he be trying to answer these questions and be more transparent though?
Transparent? What hasn't 3RU7AL been transparent about?
Absolutely anything. Most of this information that had to come about from asking him questions, should have already been present in the OP of his thread. He gives the absolute bare minimun response in just about every answer, and has you as his henchman doing all the heavy lifting. What about any of that is transparent?
Even if not for me personally, so others can view the discussion and weigh in on this? I am expressing my opinion on why his campaign isn't better, and will continue to do so since he isn't actually addressing those concerns himself.
3RU7AL has expressed every intention he has within the context of the office's capacity. You, RationalMadman and Wylted are overestimating the capacity of the office. Why would he entertain or address that which lies outside the capacity of the office he would presume?
You are extermely under valuing the capacity of the position. The fact that you don't see this as an opertunity for site reform shows little vision, and I guess with such little vision I can see why you would vote for one of the least visionary candidates.
Interesting, me and RM disagree on a lot but that is abundantly clear. You have more faith in your candidate than your own candidate does apparently, otherwise he would be here fighting his own battles.
It's not a "battle"; it's a conversation. And if you have anything specific you wish to discuss with 3RU7AL, 3RU7AL has already expressed that he's more than willing to indulge:
Yet it was you who chose to debate with me based on a statement I made. It is you who I am now discussing things with. Not him. You are carrying the mantle here and doing the legwork of his campaign, not him.
If you want someone who is okay with over moderation
Please provide a receipt to this statement you allege 3RU7AL made.
and a dead website
Receipt?
Where is the reciept for him saying otherwise? You are the one saying the president's power is pretty insignificant, so if thats the case and all your current candidate wants to do is make sure things stay the same but are enforced equally, then over moderation and a dead website is just more of the same. It's not what he said, it's what he is not saying.
and won't bother to use literally the only useful ability the president has to fix that problem,
3RU7AL has already expressed his understanding of the role of President, which you have overestimated and extended beyond an advisory position.
You must underestimate what adivsors are capable of. Shall I refer you to the King of Rohan? That's a joke before you respond literally. But I stick to the point, that you really are devaluing how strong an advisory position actually is here.
stick with being the mouthpiece for your candidate who is apparently too noble and valiant to fight his own battles, or really even properly explain what he wants to do.
Once again, 3RU7AL has expressed his intentions within the context of the office's capacity.
You seem to be assuming a lot of what your candidate intends do to where he hasn't made that abundantly clear himself. You are seeing what you want to see in him, none of it based on reality.
Lucky he has someone like you to psychoanalyze the whole campaign for him since he refuses to do it. :)
No psychoanalysis necessary; just some good ol' fashioned reading comprehension and deduction.
Meanwhile other candidates don't require deduction to understand their platforms. This shouldn't be a puzzle where we have to try and figure out if the person running has good intentions with their role.
