Don't wanna moderate...?

[Arantor]

So this is a situation I witnessed recently. Stop me if it sounds familiar.

Very new forum admin gets, by chance, a regular contributor. Offers to make them moderator. Contributor declines, doesn't want the hassle, just wants to contribute on their own terms. Admin makes them moderator anyway. For unrelated reasons, contributor leaves. Admin throws a hissy fit about disrespect and betrayal.

Putting aside the fact that the admin can't deal with people just leaving of their own accord, how does it work that someone given a responsibility they neither asked for, nor wanted, is somehow at fault?

 

[André]

So this is a situation I witnessed recently. Stop me if it sounds familiar.

🤭Now first of all let me state that i certainly do not intend to "stop" you, however this narrative does seem very familiar—and yet it is definitely not familiar in the way you're oh so subtly portraying here.

Very new forum admin gets, by chance, a regular contributor. Offers to make them moderator. Contributor declines, doesn't want the hassle, just wants to contribute on their own terms. Admin makes them moderator anyway. For unrelated reasons, contributor leaves. Admin throws a hissy fit about disrespect and betrayal.

Really? Could you explain how it is you supposedly "know" any others motivations?
Or is this simply your subjective interpretation projected onto of whatever may or may not have occurred?

Putting aside the fact that the admin can't deal with people just leaving of their own accord,

Pardon my skepticism of your virtuously signalled supposed "fact". Could you provide substantiation for your assertion please.

how does it work that someone given a responsibility they neither asked for, nor wanted, is somehow at fault?

Who claims this?—and how so would a conclusion as such be reached?

Additionally, could you explain what is meant by: "...given a responsibility...".

How does one "give" any-other "responsibility"?

Infact, it'd be helpful to know exactly what you consider the definition of "responsibility" too, if you wouldn't mind elaborating thanks.

Anyways, the fact—as you've demonstrated here—indicates your whole narrative as very likely to be presented disingenuously and particularly so framed as such to conceal what does appear as overwhelming biases and little adherence to basic logical processes.

Frankly it seems that you're actually seeking to employ a rhetorical manipulation tactic specifically for leading the unwary reader to automatically assume adoption of your own very clear—although, lmfao, ironically veiled—pseudo-"conclusion".

i am suggesting that the OP is not actually as it is being presented.

Are we to simply assume, without question, Arantor's own subjective framing of this "new forum admin" as inherently being at total fault?

As by doing so, are we not therefore simply to accept the implied disregard for our own formation of our own conclusions based on our own logical considerations of any objective evidences—beyond merely these "evidences" of which are at this point solely comprised of Arantor's gaseous words alone.

Is Arantor hoping readers won't be capable of discerning obvious logical fallacies which have been dressed up to appear as if to be "truthes"?

 

[Arantor]

Take it as a hypothetical situation for the purposes of discussion. Not every single debate needs to have the narrator questioned within an inch of their life because you don't like their politics or outlook.

 

[André]

Take it as a hypothetical situation for the purposes of discussion. Not every single debate needs to have the narrator questioned within an inch of their life because you don't like their politics or outlook.

Thank you for clarifying that the OP is meant as a hypothetical situation and not in the original framing which appears as if based on actual real world events.

i can appreciate your opinions, although i disagree with the implied assumptions—of which, with all due respect Arantor, these simply do not justify total disregard for the valid questions i have previously presented.

Or does the ignoring of my questions automatically negate the validity?
Is that how a "debate" functions?

 

[Arantor]

It was a hypothetical distillation of a real world event, that shouldn't change the format of discussion.

these simply do not justify total disregard for the valid questions i have previously presented.

Of course they do, you're questioning the hypothetical situation's hypotheticals with a bonus ad-hominem. A debate functions by starting from a premise and expanding on it, not questioning every detail of it to go 'aha, gotcha' which is clearly what your points were attempting to do.

So let me expand the hypotheticals - and while this is based on something that did happen, for the purposes of debate you *should absolutely not care* how I arrived at what I am presenting. It's simply not relevant, as much as you feel the need to try to make it so. For example, how I know the motivations of the parties involved - you can take it as read that I do, without me needing to justify how I know this to you - it's not relevant.

The person in the original situation was just a regular poster on a forum. Did a fair amount of posting, but still, regular person. They were approached by the admin with a 'would you like to be staff' which includes moderation by default. Said person make it very clear they didn't want to be staff. Outright "I'd rather not be staff" stated in conversation to the admin. Admin does it anyway.

Person leaves on not so great terms, cue wall of text from the admin accusing them of all kinds of betrayal, not least of which an entire paragraph was spent on a 'all I've done for you' monologue specifically about being 'given the rights and privileges' of staffdom. From the wall of text and what I've seen of other interactions of these people, I can take it as read that the admin is somewhat new to being admin (though they elsewhere admitted this themselves) and makes the common newbie mistake of being guarded and jealous about their members. I have seen the pattern of offering staff privileges to people many, many times in my forum life, and unless the person actually wants it, it is going to end badly. Thus the basis for my 'conclusion' as you put it, because this is not new to me to have observed this. This is also why I didn't present 'evidence' because it's not the first time I've seen this, it won't be the last, and 'evidence' just gives a level of depth and context that isn't relevant to the starting point.

But of course, you knew that already and wanted to catch me out in a gotcha moment.

 

[André]

It was a hypothetical distillation of a real world event, that shouldn't change the format of discussion.

How so?

Of course they do, you're questioning the hypothetical situation's hypotheticals with a bonus ad-hominem.

Well if this were true, then why persist in such evasive rhetoric?

Why not address the validity or invalidity of the questions content?

A debate functions by starting from a premise and expanding on it,

Agreed.

not questioning every detail of it to go 'aha, gotcha' which is clearly what your points were attempting to do.

😃If you say so.

So let me expand the hypotheticals - and while this is based on something that did happen, for the purposes of debate you *should absolutely not care* how I arrived at what I am presenting. It's simply not relevant, as much as you feel the need to try to make it so. For example, how I know the motivations of the parties involved - you can take it as read that I do, without me needing to justify how I know this to you - it's not relevant.

Thank you for expanding your hypotheticals again, however your subjective rhetoric here is blatantly illogical.

Look mate just because you seem to consider yourself as inherently "authoritative" and apparently beyond reproach,...it doesn't equate to your being right—nor does it grant you any authority to determine what any other thinks and it definitely doesn't equate to justification for your arbitrary redefinition of whatever you feel like whenever it suits you.

The person in the original situation was just a regular poster on a forum. Did a fair amount of posting, but still, regular person. They were approached by the admin with a 'would you like to be staff' which includes moderation by default. Said person make it very clear they didn't want to be staff. Outright "I'd rather not be staff" stated in conversation to the admin. Admin does it anyway.

Person leaves on not so great terms, cue wall of text from the admin accusing them of all kinds of betrayal, not least of which an entire paragraph was spent on a 'all I've done for you' monologue specifically about being 'given the rights and privileges' of staffdom. From the wall of text and what I've seen of other interactions of these people, I can take it as read that the admin is somewhat new to being admin (though they elsewhere admitted this themselves) and makes the common newbie mistake of being guarded and jealous about their members. I have seen the pattern of offering staff privileges to people many, many times in my forum life, and unless the person actually wants it, it is going to end badly. Thus the basis for my 'conclusion' as you put it, because this is not new to me to have observed this. This is also why I didn't present 'evidence' because it's not the first time I've seen this, it won't be the last, and 'evidence' just gives a level of depth and context that isn't relevant to the starting point.

🙄Ugh,...sure, whatever you say then.

But of course, you knew that already and wanted to catch me out in a gotcha moment.

😑Look you can assert whatever you like mate. Good luck with that.

 

[Ravenfreak]

I've never seen this before, however it's an odd situation. There's no reason to promote a member to staff if they don't want to be promoted. Then to throw a fit about the staff member not being active is childish. IMO that person shouldn't even own a forum if they behave in such a manor.

 

[Reverie]

I recall this happening often back in the day where people would be promoted but they made it clear they either didn’t want it or they knew they wouldn’t be active. Admin was just trying to get some popular names on staff. Its a toxic way of doing business. I never saw admins react the same way, however I did see them try and get sympathy and it was a way to get other people to become staff since “so and so” just left them.

 

[ClicketyKat]

I used to be on a huge Christian forum and one morning I woke up and was promoted, but I had already been on staff, so I guess that was okay?

I don't think it's right to just force being on staff to anyone. The admin in the OP was wrong to impose that on the person and he was the one who started with the disrespect. The person had set a boundary and the admin ignored it, so for the person to leave, that is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Shortie]

This is actually shocking but I have known some admins become quite bossy I guess that is how I would put it when it comes to running a forum. This sounds like one of those very scenarios for sure.

I do not believe in forcing responsibilities on members of a forum at all, if they are asked and they state they can not do it, then it should be left at that and you should accept that. Anyone who does have the time and would like to help would take up the offer.

Being like this will only result in a bad reputation for them and their forum and that never ends well.