|
I guess this is a question more out of curiosity: Why do you suppose Simon Templeton or the moderators (Barry, Kathleen) not share their inputs regarding metaphysical stuff on this site or whether do you think it would be great if they shared their inputs ocassionally? After all, Simon Templeton has said before that he had answered personal e-mails time to time ocassionally in the past here and the last part of Psitek says it all : After all, if the Law of Attraction really works then why would we need to ask you for money to keep these sites going? We would just attract whatever finances we needed ourselves, wouldn't we?And that's exactly what we do. Thus what I felt was Simon Templeton and the moderators probably have a lot more experience than most of us when it comes to spiritual and metaphysical stuff and it would be great to hear their perspectives on certain topics occassionally, don't you think so ? Of course Simon or any of the moderators can feel free to also answer to this thread :-)
showing 1 of 3
show 2 more comments
|
The question has been closed for the following reason "No longer relevant" by Barry Allen 20 Jun '13, 09:36
|
I realized in the early days that a moderator openly participating in Inward Quest using a moderator account would cause problems because, among other things, it might influence voting on the site (negatively or positively) and it might lead to others confusing a moderator's personal opinions with official site statements. So I brought in an unwritten rule that this is not allowed. There is no rule preventing any moderator participating in Inward Quest using a different anonymous non-moderator identity. But it would defeat the reason for the original rule for me to acknowledge whether or not this happens and, even if it happens, which accounts are being used, if any. This also means that if any current site user is ever promoted to moderator status, which might have to happen one day as IQ continues to grow in popularity, it would have to be under a separate account and they could never get any public credit for their behind-the-scenes efforts. If the idea of being an IQ moderator still appeals to any current long-term user of Inward Quest then please send an email to simon.templeton@psitek.net . You won't receive any acknowledgement from me, so don't expect one, but I'll keep it on file. If more moderators are ever needed (this is currently undecided) and your past participation on the site suggests that you might be suitable then I'll be in touch. Don't forget that anyone on IQ with sufficient points can unofficially help us run the site anyway just by fixing question titles and tags, correcting misspellings, pointing out duplicates, editing and reformatting questions/answers, or just reporting spam/abusive postings by clicking the Report This Question/Answer link available under every post. We receive these reports immediately and they are very useful to us, even if they turn out to be false alarms. @Simon Templeton that does explain it as what some others have mentioned before.. but personally I just felt that moderators wouldn't probably care much about their own karma points in the first place, but like answer some questions occassionally just to share their experiences
(12 Mar '12, 07:19)
kakaboo
3
@kakaboo: By referring to voting I am not referring to how many karma points a moderator has, I am talking about affecting the quality of the information on the website. Higher-voted answers are automatically given more prominence on the website. So if an answer is judged better or worse because a moderator wrote it, instead of on its own merits as an answer, then that is bad for Inward Quest
(12 Mar '12, 08:19)
Simon Templeton ♦♦
|
|
I would not mind getting their input. I am on this site to learn. I tend to agree with Wade about a conflict of interest, but to alleviate that they could or should be using assumed pseudonyms so as not to reveal their real identity. I really thought Mr. Templeton was doing that already, maybe I am wrong. I remember reading an answer once and it did sound like it came from Mr. Templeton. I don't want to mention the pseudonym in here, b/c I don't want to expose anyone's disguise. Ha good point Purple Rose! For all we know they are! The joke would be on us then not knowing! lol :-)
(12 Mar '12, 00:03)
Wade Casaldi
|
|
I understand why this can not be done. If a bond is made between admin and person in the actual threads, and the admin must act upon the wrongdoing of others, it is seen to be unfair and bad. I understand why this is done and respect it very much. Love to all admins here. I love u all for helping this place run as it does. Thank u all. love n light rob |
|
I think because it would be a conflict of interest. If they answered every question they would be much higher than even Stingray and it would seem they put this up for their own egotistic fulfillment. I believe this way they are truly giving something from sincerity for everyone to enjoy. I do admit it would be interesting to have their opinions on questions though. :-) |
|
I could be saying a no-no here, or perhaps I'm simply misinformed, but I was under the impression that the moderators actually had their own accounts (unmarked) and they did participate on here. They are after all human. It actually is a very common practice in situations where admins might be regularly interacting with other people as 'normal' users, such as consumers on a hobby forum. I moderated some boards (some for business and some just because of personal interest) and we always kept our admin accounts completely anonymous because of the line between business and personal causing other people to react differently due to predispositions. Just a guess though. If not, it would be interesting to hear from them. =) |
|
Do you think that the moderators are not sharing their information here? Do you think that they only share positive thoughts? Do you wonder about some of the people here who like to do a little stirring up? Do you think that we are not hearing from them? Excuse me while I chuckle. It takes all kinds. We are all in one big boat! 4
I don't know what you are trying to imply here but I can assure you that no moderator would ever deliberately disrupt the website. IQ is operated behind the scenes to the highest levels of integrity.
(13 Mar '12, 20:54)
Simon Templeton ♦♦
1
Not at all, Simon. I am not saying that a mod would disrupt the site. But I would imagine that alter egos are posting here. I absolutely mean no disrespect to the integrity of IQ nor the mods.
(14 Mar '12, 15:23)
Dollar Bill
|
|
Yes! Yes! Yes please I would love the input of the wise Simon Templeton and the moderators. To prevent voting favoratism they could maybe write short articles on comunity wiki. Please all you wise guys I know you are very bussy but we want your input and wisdom so that we can grow. Excelent question Kakaboo. |
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website
kakaboo what's with these magical, unique and awesome questions lately?! Keep it up, nice one :)
@Nikulas honestly personally I don't really see anything special about my recent questions so I was pretty surprised when some of them got so many votes. I was going to keep it to myself till you mentioned it (don tell others that something amazing has happened, according to guru Stingray :)) On the other hand, I had some questions in the past which I thought were decent but couldn't even make it past 2 or 3 votes or get any replies.. lol
@kakaboo don't worry kakabook it is like baseball. I have a huge list of zeros and look how far I made it. :-)