as anyone who is a "newbie" to the role of moderator I believe there has to be a "learning curve" in settling in to that role, and where if I have been seen to be not impartial to the needs and wants of members, then that is the only excuse I could offer.
For any of you who that know me from my posts, you should realize (hopefully) that there has been no malicious intent on my part, and certainly no intentional favoritism towards any member/s by me, and where if I decide to continue in this role (or voted out for that matter), I shall aspire in the future to be as fair & impartial as possible to all members, regardless of their background or personal beliefs.
In stating all of the above, I hereby offer my apology to everyone for any perceived anomalies, in the hope that the forum will continue to run as smoothly and as fairly as possible, with the ideal of "support" that is upheld in the interests of us all.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It shows that Chris is truly trying to do what is right when he apologized for something someone perceived he did. I don't feel it was necessary but that just speaks to the kind of man Chris is, he has true humility.
No one is against him, at least not me.. I thought I was giving suggestions since he asked and since I am just someone who sits and reads only usually and doesn't have a biased opinion.
I don't see why there's anything wrong with constructive criticism, which is what it was, nothing about him personally at all. This is why I don't waste my time posting, everyone is too touchy here and whenever something is said that's thought provoking its automatically some personal attack.
As an artist for years, I am used to criticism and I know better then to think it's a personal attack.
You can't learn how to do your job better without. And regardless with everyone thinking how great Chris is and what not, he's human like us and new at this job.
What would water fasting have to do with being a moderator? I think people keep getting the role of what a moderator is supposed to do confused: Aren't they supposed to keep the off topic (which they are tons of junk on here), abuse (which is pretty obvious in general), and other crap that doesn't need to be in a forum? I don't recall the Webmaster giving a 'savvy' to water faster requirement to being a moderator.
there was always the possibility of other mod's joining this forum after the Webmaster had appointed the both of us: this had not been excluded from my own thinking or mouseclicks either.
Is this news or a revelation of some sorts?
If mod's wish to remain anonymous as opposed to revealing their own identities then this demonstrates that they are hiding behind a shield from abuse and other criticisms.