Clarification and Addendum to the "No Insults" Rule

[Moonbeam]

You know, I never viewed the ignore list like that. Very interesting way of looking at it...I like it. Of course, there will always be the people who post that member ZYX is on their ignore list, but I liken them to people who walk around with their fingers in their ears saying "nya nya nya, I am not listening to you".

The whole point of recent neurological investigations into the mental processes of conservative thinkers indicates that they have a built in ignore button that triggers autonomously when presented with data that threatens their core truthiness, namely, that they are unable to process information logically because of ego, that they have emotionally vested their personal sense of self worth in this or that delusion which they defend as if their life depended on it, which, from a psychoanalytical point of view it actually did. The adoption of a bigoted world view in childhood before the age of reason is a requirement if a child is to survive in a family of bigots. This ignore button is an instinctive avoidance of pain, a refusal to go into content that threatens, a clinging to a fragile life raft in a sea full of dangerous monsters.

And all of this happens below conscious awareness.

But because the sense of rightness possessed by bigots is related to the ego you will always find pride of ownership in the bigot for his bigotry, and a concomitant need for validation, a basking in self glory if you will, the need to project ones bigotry say on a forum for the excitement of showing off and garnering the praise of fellow bigots.

The bigot is mentally defective and possesses less than normal self respect. He is both angry and driven by this fact. He has a need he can't fill, a hole in his soul created in childhood when he died to his healthy self to survive with other bigots. This makes him mean and vindictive but it also makes him driven. He is looking for his real self. He wants to get back to the place he dies desperately to find himself, but without feeling any of the pain. This makes him or her a vicarious seeker of conflict, a person who creates what he fears, a person who wishes desperately to know but not know that he is sick by acting it out.

The bigot has a unconscious need to constantly recreate the emotional hell he once lived through, and this is what makes him or her so fun to deal with, a person who is dying to prove to himself he's an asshole while fighting it all the way down. A bigot is like a moth and a flame. He seeks the light of the candle and the death the flame will bring.

 

[cybrsage]

Maybe it would help if you look at it from a different angle. A great many of us actively try to counter misinformation. We like to point it out ASAP so less educated, easily manipulated people can see that the info is false before they latch on to it as fact and start spreading it around, continuing the cycle.

This is a very insightful post. Well said, I think you nailed it perfectly.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Maybe it would help if you look at it from a different angle. A great many of us actively try to counter misinformation. We like to point it out ASAP so less educated, easily manipulated people can see that the info is false before they latch on to it as fact and start spreading it around, continuing the cycle. Now, if someone comes in here and starts spouting lies and misinformation, refusing to acknowledge logic and reasoning, how does ignoring this troll remedy the situation? Would you allow someone to run wild on your technical forums posting false information? Why would you allow it here?

I am not talking about subjective opinions here, I am talking about documented facts.

+1

Exactly my point. We have trolls that come in and knowingly lie, and lie a lot. Being a technical website in general, why are we (as a community) allowing trolls to come in and consistently lie?

I pointed out several easily verifiable, 100% factual things that certain people continue to lie about (time and time again). Why should they be allowed to lie and possibly confuse people that are trying to learn?

We see all sorts of ridiculous untruths that trolls make up on the spur of the moment, and then get repeated ad nauseum.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe it would help if you look at it from a different angle. A great many of us actively try to counter misinformation. We like to point it out ASAP so less educated, easily manipulated people can see that the info is false before they latch on to it as fact and start spreading it around, continuing the cycle. Now, if someone comes in here and starts spouting lies and misinformation, refusing to acknowledge logic and reasoning, how does ignoring this troll remedy the situation? Would you allow someone to run wild on your technical forums posting false information? Why would you allow it here?

I am not talking about subjective opinions here, I am talking about documented facts.

You, for example, feel that you are logical and reasonable, but how logical and reasonable can you be if you insist that people who can't use logic and reason because of defective upbringing do so suddenly? You are asking pigs to fly. Not very reasonable in my opinion.

If you do not have an ego attachment to this or that you may approach the matter with reason. Folk can do that with numbers say. But I bet it would be possible to introduce so much pain to a child doing say 2 + 2 = 4 that he would never admit that again, ever. The field of mathematics might cease to exist for him. Politics is essentially emotional, is it not? What you are on about here is the damage liars do to the culture, the creation of more and more new bigots, and the dangers presented when blind people want to drive. The preference for truth over blindness is an emotional thing, is it not. You feel that something matters, and now you too, have an emotional need. You and the bigot are driven by a feeling of what is good. How are we any different, us rational people?

I think if you look deeply you will see that love is what drives reason and fear is what drives rationalization and where you are on the spectrum is intimately connected to real self respect. I think the lover knows and needs nobody else to agree. The bigot wants to teach and the lover whats to share. And how you judge any of this is all done by feeling. Love is a truth beyond certainty and doubt.

 

[dank69]

You, for example, feel that you are logical and reasonable, but how logical and reasonable can you be if you insist that people who can't use logic and reason because of defective upbringing do so suddenly? You are asking pigs to fly. Not very reasonable in my opinion.

If you do not have an ego attachment to this or that you may approach the matter with reason. Folk can do that with numbers say. But I bet it would be possible to introduce so much pain to a child doing say 2 + 2 = 4 that he would never admit that again, ever. The field of mathematics might cease to exist for him. Politics is essentially emotional, is it not? What you are on about here is the damage liars do to the culture, the creation of more and more new bigots, and the dangers presented when blind people want to drive. The preference for truth over blindness is an emotional thing, is it not. You feel that something matters, and now you too, have an emotional need. You and the bigot are driven by a feeling of what is good. How are we any different, us rational people?

I think if you look deeply you will see that love is what drives reason and fear is what drives rationalization and where you are on the spectrum is intimately connected to real self respect. I think the lover knows and needs nobody else to agree. The bigot wants to teach and the lover whats to share. And how you judge any of this is all done by feeling. Love is a truth beyond certainty and doubt.

I understand that love conquers all. But, to clear up my intent, I do not intend to make irrational people rational. I do not intend to make the unreasonable, reasonable. I just want to point out lies and label them as such to try to stem the tide of misinformation, as they say.

 

[Moonbeam]

I understand that love conquers all. But, to clear up my intent, I do not intend to make irrational people rational. I do not intend to make the unreasonable, reasonable. I just want to point out lies and label them as such to try to stem the tide of misinformation, as they say.

I got the impression you wanted to apply what is applied in technical forums that deal with technical, and presumably objective data that can easily be pointed to, to a forum run basically on emotion where people have totally different opinions on what is data, how to read it, what it means, etc, and that the way you wanted to apply it was for the mods to stop people from expressing known falsehoods. I simply think that what is a falsehood is exactly the issue. Folk with objective data and folk with truthiness are both, I think, quite certain and yet completely differ.

 

[dank69]

I got the impression you wanted to apply what is applied in technical forums that deal with technical, and presumably objective data that can easily be pointed to, to a forum run basically on emotion where people have totally different opinions on what is data, how to read it, what it means, etc, and that the way you wanted to apply it was for the mods to stop people from expressing known falsehoods. I simply think that what is a falsehood is exactly the issue. Folk with objective data and folk with truthiness are both, I think, quite certain and yet completely differ.

I agree interpretations of data is subjective, but the data itself is not. As an example I will make up a completely hypothetical situation.

Let's pretend one of our members starts a thread that lists empirical data that expressly refutes a popular claim that the other side likes to repeat. I will just make up a situation and grab random numbers out of the air to illustrate my point.

Maybe the claim could be that Obama has drastically increased government spending. Maybe the data could show that Obama has increased spending at an annualized rate of 1.4% and maybe that would mean he has increased spending at the lowest rate of any president since, say 1950. Please remember that these are completely hypothetical numbers pulled straight from my ass and any resemblance to actual threads is completely coincidental. I shouldn't even have to say that because everyone knows that Obama IS a tax-and-spend Democrat so such numbers CANNOT be real, but some gullible members might not know so it is best for me to err on the safe side.

Now, the groundwork has been laid for our hypothetical thread and let's pretend it has been posted. Let's look at some possible replies and think about how they should be handled.

If a member were unable to refute the stated point of the thread, so decided instead to post about other related points where Mr. Obama looked worse, maybe like trying to focus on the deficit or revenues instead of spending, would you consider that off-topic?

If a member were to not fully read the sources and misinterpret the data as using 'gotcha' logic when the article expressly states that those factors have indeed been accounted for, I'd call that iffy. Maybe the poster didn't know, maybe he did and tried to deceive. First one is free. What if the inaccuracy was pointed out to the poster and the poster then kept repeating the lie? Could we consider that trolling? Willful ignorance? Outright lying? What if 10 more members entered the thread without reading the entire thing and they all post the same false claim? Should that behavior be worthy of a warning, and a mod edit to point out the error of his ways for all to see (if the member refuses to retract his false claim)? Not a vacation. Not a point on their license. Just an edit to make it visible that the post was garbage.

 

[Idontcare]

Maybe it would help if you look at it from a different angle. A great many of us actively try to counter misinformation. We like to point it out ASAP so less educated, easily manipulated people can see that the info is false before they latch on to it as fact and start spreading it around, continuing the cycle. Now, if someone comes in here and starts spouting lies and misinformation, refusing to acknowledge logic and reasoning, how does ignoring this troll remedy the situation? Would you allow someone to run wild on your technical forums posting false information? Why would you allow it here?

I am not talking about subjective opinions here, I am talking about documented facts.

If someone is knowingly posting misinformation then that is actionable, sanctionable, as it violates the posting guidelines - P&N and technical forums alike.

That said...I have only had a handful of "posting misinformation" posts reported to me for moderator interaction.

If you are battling it out with your favorite archenemies on a political subforum then expect them to put up a fight, but don't expect the mods to waiting in the wings on pins and needles for you to "nail them" and then we swoop in to sanction the perp.

I don't lurk in these forums, the fanboy rage (as we'd label it in the tech forums) goes to 11. What I do is respond to the 911 calls (reported posts that members care to report) and from there I investigate the thread and history to whatever extent I feel is sufficient in bringing me up to speed on the issues.

It is no different than law enforcement. The prosecuting attorney doesn't eat dinner with you and your family, doesn't come to your BBQ cookouts, doesn't go bowling with you and your buds...but when one of your buds sleeps with your wife and you go ape an stab him on poker night I do have to come in and sort of get to know the situation before I start pressing charges.

If no one reports you stabbing your buddy for sleeping with your wife then I never know it happened, what's happens in vegas blah blah blah.

But here's the deal, I totally get the whole "someone's wrong on the internet" allure. I see it in the tech forums, I see it in L&R, I see it here in P&N. It is innate to human nature.

The thing is I can't make the world/forum safe for the crusaders of information as they strike out to smite the infidels of misinformation. There are too many infidels and not enough moderators.

(see right there is a very politically charged topic - the crusades and the religio-political motivations that fomented them)

So if you see yourself as an individual that must log into the forums and seek out misinformation to combat it then (1) go on you for that, please keep it up :thumbsup:, and (2) expect some blowback and an uphill battle there Sisyphus, because there is no end to the number of people you are going to find to be wrong on the internet.

But when it comes to people who are intentionally posting misinformation, if you have nailed them and they simply won't cry uncle, report the post and bring in the calvary (that would be me, myself, and my trusty horse aptly named I) and we'll see if we can't right the injustice of the day.

However, if you don't report it then you can't really expect me, or any other mod, to ever become aware of it. Vegas and all that. We just don't sit out in the desert night after night to see who is burying bodies and what not.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree interpretations of data is subjective, but the data itself is not. As an example I will make up a completely hypothetical situation.

Let's pretend one of our members starts a thread that lists empirical data that expressly refutes a popular claim that the other side likes to repeat. I will just make up a situation and grab random numbers out of the air to illustrate my point.

Maybe the claim could be that Obama has drastically increased government spending. Maybe the data could show that Obama has increased spending at an annualized rate of 1.4% and maybe that would mean he has increased spending at the lowest rate of any president since, say 1950. Please remember that these are completely hypothetical numbers pulled straight from my ass and any resemblance to actual threads is completely coincidental. I shouldn't even have to say that because everyone knows that Obama IS a tax-and-spend Democrat so such numbers CANNOT be real, but some gullible members might not know so it is best for me to err on the safe side.

Now, the groundwork has been laid for our hypothetical thread and let's pretend it has been posted. Let's look at some possible replies and think about how they should be handled.

If a member were unable to refute the stated point of the thread, so decided instead to post about other related points where Mr. Obama looked worse, maybe like trying to focus on the deficit or revenues instead of spending, would you consider that off-topic?

If a member were to not fully read the sources and misinterpret the data as using 'gotcha' logic when the article expressly states that those factors have indeed been accounted for, I'd call that iffy. Maybe the poster didn't know, maybe he did and tried to deceive. First one is free. What if the inaccuracy was pointed out to the poster and the poster then kept repeating the lie? Could we consider that trolling? Willful ignorance? Outright lying? What if 10 more members entered the thread without reading the entire thing and they all post the same false claim? Should that behavior be worthy of a warning, and a mod edit to point out the error of his ways for all to see (if the member refuses to retract his false claim)? Not a vacation. Not a point on their license. Just an edit to make it visible that the post was garbage.

Just as soon as you get through proving your numbers were right after hours of exhaustive posting, you will then learn that while your right in this small sliver of life, your numbers actually don't mean anything. A person a long time ago before the internet was invented discovered and wrote, that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You can't make a person with a brain defect see that he has one.

 

[boomerang]

I like these threads. It really solidifies in my mind who the control freaks are.

To address the original issue, that being the over allocation of resources to the P&N forum, if it's possible to keep the whiners out, keep them out, problem solved. I'll bet a small minority are creating the majority of the problems. That's what I've seen as I've gone through life.

Instead of trying to make everyone comply with virtually unenforceable rules to satisfy folks who are never going to be satisfied until the forum hums along at their perceived vision of perfection (everyone thinks like them and is in total or near total agreement) broom out the whiners and complainers. If people can't understand the nature of human beings, if they can't deal with differing opinions, if they feel their viewpoint is the only correct one, (with their skewed facts that aren't skewed of course because they believe them), if they can't learn to walk away, if they can't learn when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, if they must win all the time, if they have no tolerance for an opinion other than their own, if they can't laugh at themselves and if they appear incapable of growing a thicker skin, lock them out.

It's just an internet forum.

 

[dank69]

Just as soon as you get through proving your numbers were right after hours of exhaustive posting, you will then learn that while your right in this small sliver of life, your numbers actually don't mean anything. A person a long time ago before the internet was invented discovered and wrote, that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You can't make a person with a brain defect see that he has one.

I know exactly what you are saying. Take, for instance, how I've already told you that I am not trying to change anyone's mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

I know exactly what you are saying. Take, for instance, how I've already told you that I am not trying to change anyone's mind.

I was under the impression you wanted to change the mods minds from how they do things now to labeling some outrageous lie a lie when it doesn't work that way now. I'm thinking there's little point to doing it for reasons the mods have presented.

 

[fskimospy]

I hope this thread is a good object lesson on why these rules are a waste of time.

 

[dank69]

I was under the impression you wanted to change the mods minds from how they do things now to labeling some outrageous lie a lie when it doesn't work that way now. I'm thinking there's little point to doing it for reasons the mods have presented.

I'm sorry, yes, I was suggesting that. I didn't realize you were talking about the mods when you were talking about people with brain defects. D:

 

[cybrsage]

I'm sorry, yes, I was suggesting that. I didn't realize you were talking about the mods when you were talking about people with brain defects. D:

Wow, calling out the mods as people who have brain defects is pretty harsh.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sorry, yes, I was suggesting that. I didn't realize you were talking about the mods when you were talking about people with brain defects. D:

I believe we are basically on the same side, that logic and reason and truthfulness not truthiness should prevail in arguments of a political nature. Where I thought we might differ, let me say this differently, were we might also be the same is in a desire that such standards be maintained. I have that desire but I have no faith in it. I see is as a kind of ego need, a lack of confidence in the truth of what I believe and a need to bolster it. Somebody is wrong on the internet and I don't want to let it go.

So when I saw that what you wanted was some kind of truth label applied by the mods I saw that as just such an aim. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent but that's how it seemed to me. I thought that what you were asking is for the mods to do what you could not, define the truth with a label for your satisfaction, for your opinion of who knows what, for your idea of what is reason and what is lie. I recognize that desire, I think, and I do not like it. I see it as a desire for authority and intolerance of different thinking. I would likely support it if I didn't know that the folk you want labeled have a brain defect they had no choice but to have in order to survive.

In short, I see you as asking the mods to take your side, to put on them the job of forcing the brain damaged to wear the label you create, of making them pay with labels what they cannot help.

I see that as my job, to tell them they think defectively and to tell them why. I label them as brain defective and only I have the responsibility to make that case.

Perhaps I have annoyed you by challenging what I thought I saw in your aim. You sound like you got a bit mean. Hehe. I wasn't saying you can't change their minds because they are brain damaged, but that it isn't fair to them to ask them to apply the truth that you see to others. I think you assume your truth is so obvious that such a job is easy. Everything I read from IDC and what I feel myself, tells me otherwise. About the greatest danger I can think of to humanity is enforced certainty and of that I am damn certain, so you can believe as you want.

 

[cybrsage]

I see that as my job, to tell them they think defectively and to tell them why. I label them as brain defective and only I have the responsibility to make that case.

When you tell someone they have a brain defect because they hold a different view than you hold, you are insulting them.

 

[jackstar7]

When you tell someone they have a brain defect because they hold a different view than you hold, you are insulting them.

And yet, I don't think he's ever made the case that the defect is caused by holding a different view than him. Instead he's tried to explain the environmental/cultural causes that lead to such a defect existing and how it should not be a source of derision for those affected by it.

Those with the defect really have enough of a struggle maintaining their own sense of self while constantly having to fend off a reality that does not comply with the world as they've been made to understand it. It's a psychological war waged over the value of the self.

 

[cybrsage]

And yet, I don't think he's ever made the case that the defect is caused by holding a different view than him. Instead he's tried to explain the environmental/cultural causes that lead to such a defect existing and how it should not be a source of derision for those affected by it.

Those with the defect really have enough of a struggle maintaining their own sense of self while constantly having to fend off a reality that does not comply with the world as they've been made to understand it.

Actually, he created a thread about how republicans have a brain defect and that coservatism is a disease needing cured and is what is wrong with the world.

This is what I would call an important study, not so much for what it tells us about opposition to homosexuality, as important as that may be, but about what it tells us about human consciousness and what I've of late referred to as the conservative brain defect.

And I would also suggest that finding a cure for this disease is mankind's number one challenge but we can't even see it as our greatest problem.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2242428&highlight=republican+brain+defect

He was even forced to change the thread title, which was about how Conservatives all have Brain damage.

Obviously he does not consider himself one of those with brain damage, since he is the one noticing it in everyone who disagrees with him.

 

[jackstar7]

Obviously he does not consider himself one of those with brain damage, since he is the one noticing it in everyone who disagrees with him.

I recall him confessing to the possibility that he is projecting his own failings. Maybe I've just been reading different posts.

 

[cybrsage]

You could be correct, his posts are typically over 200 words each, so it is possible I missed it. However, he has repeatedly said he feels it is his job to tell people who disagree with him that they have a brain defect.

So, I admit it is a possibility he said such in one of his winding posts.

 

[dank69]

I believe we are basically on the same side, that logic and reason and truthfulness not truthiness should prevail in arguments of a political nature. Where I thought we might differ, let me say this differently, were we might also be the same is in a desire that such standards be maintained. I have that desire but I have no faith in it. I see is as a kind of ego need, a lack of confidence in the truth of what I believe and a need to bolster it. Somebody is wrong on the internet and I don't want to let it go.

So when I saw that what you wanted was some kind of truth label applied by the mods I saw that as just such an aim. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent but that's how it seemed to me. I thought that what you were asking is for the mods to do what you could not, define the truth with a label for your satisfaction, for your opinion of who knows what, for your idea of what is reason and what is lie. I recognize that desire, I think, and I do not like it. I see it as a desire for authority and intolerance of different thinking. I would likely support it if I didn't know that the folk you want labeled have a brain defect they had no choice but to have in order to survive.

In short, I see you as asking the mods to take your side, to put on them the job of forcing the brain damaged to wear the label you create, of making them pay with labels what they cannot help.

I see that as my job, to tell them they think defectively and to tell them why. I label them as brain defective and only I have the responsibility to make that case.

Perhaps I have annoyed you by challenging what I thought I saw in your aim. You sound like you got a bit mean. Hehe. I wasn't saying you can't change their minds because they are brain damaged, but that it isn't fair to them to ask them to apply the truth that you see to others. I think you assume your truth is so obvious that such a job is easy. Everything I read from IDC and what I feel myself, tells me otherwise. About the greatest danger I can think of to humanity is enforced certainty and of that I am damn certain, so you can believe as you want.

Let me start off by saying you haven't annoyed me at all.

I will try to be more clear about my intentions and motivations. IDC has already stated that if someone thinks there is some misinformation being spread all they have to do is report it. I was unaware of this and that is all I was really asking for. Well, I would like clear logical fallacies to be actionable as well, but I won't be holding my breath on that one. I only ask for this because when a member calls out someone for posting misinformation it carries very little weight to someone not familiar with this forum, if they even manage to read through to the posts refuting said misinformation. Having the proper label applied within the offending post makes it clear to all immediately, before that lie can begin to sink in to new, misguided skulls.

Finally, it is not about being right or wrong, or seeking validation. It is about keeping the integrity of the discussion above a certain level. Is it so bad to not want this forum to be universally accepted as the shithole of the internet?

 

[Moonbeam]

When you tell someone they have a brain defect because they hold a different view than you hold, you are insulting them.

I presented new research of comparisons between liberal and conservative brain function and the implications those differences manifest in thinking. I presented some of that research in a couple of threads but I am not going to exhaustively restate the results here. But one of the conclusions was that conservatives have defective reasoning, that they function out of ego attached commitment to truth they simply feel to be true rather than truth arrived at by reason.

This is the scientific results of the research. You are insulted by it as predicted by the research, it attacks the notion of your truthiness being anything but truth and just fiction. You take it upon yourself to be insulted by factual evidence arrived at by scientific analysis of liberal and conservative brains and how they process differently. We could doubtlessly say that liberal brains are defective because they do not react to fear to the degree that conservative brains do and that they are also defective because they can logically reason, that they don't automatically have bigotry buried in their guts like all sane people should.

But unfortunately, unfortunately for you of course, the world pretends to value reason even if a great number can't.

Furthermore, it is not a matter at all as to who disagrees with me. If I have a brain defect, according to the research, I won't see it any more than you do. I may be wired like a conservative. But when I present the scientific data and you tell me I insult you, it is you, not me, who acts within the parameters of conservative thinking. You deny just as predicted. So you identify yourself as meeting the conditions of what conservatives do when presented with facts that offend their ego loved delusions. You tell me I am insulting you because I disagree with you. But you have simply disagreed with scientific data that says conservative brains will disagree with this if it affects their egos.

Furthermore, I have stated over and over that you can't help this because you have a brain defect. I am not insulting you but excusing you from responsibility. I am telling your ego to relax, that you aren't guilty of anything. Your ego makes a fool out of you and it's not necessary. You are your own enemy, not me. I don't need for you to feel stupid for me to feel smart. I don't feel smart, for one thing, and happy even as dumb as I am. But I do like science and I do like the truth as best as I can make it out.

So if you properly identify a problem with conservative thinking you do it as a scientific fact in which no insults can be found and no motive that it is payback for thinking differently is present. Your inability to shake the feeling you are being insulted is part of your brain defect. Naturally, I don't expect you will change that opinion anytime soon and it's not your fault that you can't. I am simply happy to point out the real facts where I can regardless of results.

 

[Moonbeam]

dank69: Finally, it is not about being right or wrong, or seeking validation. It is about keeping the integrity of the discussion above a certain level. Is it so bad to not want this forum to be universally accepted as the shithole of the internet?

No it's not bad. I believe everybody, almost everybody but very sick people, want to do what is good and believe that what they believe is that good. As I said, all, lots of evil, is done in the name of good intentions. That is why, of all the opinions in the world that I am suspicious of and responsible for, are those very ones I own. And I don't think in terms of how shitty the forum may be. Comparisons are judgments and I don't like to judge. If I walk through shit I'm still me for whatever that's worth. It could be a value added coating for all I know.

 

[Idontcare]

I'm sorry, yes, I was suggesting that. I didn't realize you were talking about the mods when you were talking about people with brain defects. D:

There is one school of thought out there which holds that any mod who wants to mod P&N surely must have some manner of brain defect or defects, the only question being whether or not it has been diagnosed yet

Seriously though, jot down the pro's versus con's of being a mod here. If you can come up with three reasons under the pro's column then please pm me because that makes you over-qualified as a candidate mod and we are always looking for fresh suckers faces in the mod corps :whiste:

(my pro's column lists (1) it beats being over-bled by leaches, (2) everyone loves you if you are a mod, (3) all your peers in the mod ranks love you for your super-awesomeness as a mod, and (4) it beats being over-bled by leaches...I had 4 on my list, we do count redundant entries, which made me over-qualified for super-mod so they appointed me to admin )