@tchrist The problem is that we can chat in here about XYZ but 90% of the votes come from users who barely have any rep and don't know anything about how SE works. I'm not saying we should prevent them from voting but if they're going to ignore everything except for rep and current diamonds, why bother having the rest of the fanfare?
@DamkerngT. I actually didn't vote for J.R. Not because I didn't want him to win but I knew he didn't need my vote, so I gave it to people who I thought would be better at the job than others. Regardless, Everyone was significantly behind in the votes from what Maulik got, so it was inevitable.
@NathanTuggy I'm glad I wasn't alone :D I was afraid to mention anything because I certainly didn't want everyone to do it and lose out on him as a mod.
First I'd like to thanks our pro tempore crew for sustaining a fabulous site for learners while their assistance was crucial for the site. WendiKidd, Matt, waiwai933 and especially J.R..
And now . . .
To our new mod crew:
J.R.: The monument of moderation and personability, and being fo...
@tchrist Well I'm gonna go and ask in meta; for sure the rationale of the current team will favor leaving a lot of chatty comments alone, and that'd turn ELL into a trainwreck when we get to be ELU's 1/10th.
@DamkerngT. A mod can step down any time they like. Similarly, if the site grows and needs additional mods, they will have another election and we do it all again.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M My interpretation of what he's saying is that you should wait until you start getting a lot of "delete this comment flags" declined or you start seeing a lot of chatty comments not being deleted before you make it an issue in Meta...
English Language Learners's first moderator election has come to a close, the votes have been tallied, and the 3 new moderators are:
They'll be joining (or rejoining) the moderator list shortly — please thank them for volunteering!
Please also thank the outgoing Moderators Pro Tempore who ...
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Yep. So many. Nothing ever actually gets done, though... or decided... and the Mods often don't respond to requests... Well... It was only J.R. and I know he didn't want to be the only one deciding things.
Here is the sentence from C. S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew:
Down and down they rushed, first through darkness and then through a mass of vague and whirling shapes which might have been almost anything.
As far as I know, might refers to the present and future, and might have refers to the ...
It's been discussed that the proofreading close reason is overused:
Stop throwing "Proofreading" close reason at questions that are clearly limited to a single point of concern
As part of my answer, I recommended that we consider rephrasing the "Proofreading" close reason so that it's less like...
@Catija I considered mentioning the CV reason reworks as part of my platform, but I wasn't sure it would make much of a difference, either to the election results or even to mod actions later.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Not really... @tchrist is right, meta posts telling people how to ask well, vote "correctly" etc... they can only help if people read them and, realistically... no one does.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Linking? No one's going to read a five-page guide on writing good titles. There are already lots of Meta questions about how to write good titles.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Sure... but part of that is because people actively use it all the time... But it seems that at least one mod has no interest in updating the current close reasons so that they're more useful to the people who have their questions put on hold.
@Mart take a look at http://www.superstructure.info/StackExchange/math/meta/negligent-or-dickish-review-of-suggested-edits.html and http://www.superstructure.info/StackExchange/math/meta/irrational-hatred-towards-typesetting-without-latex-commands-or-the-raising-deg.html to realize who we're dealing with here.
@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M At the time the word came down it was because I was just leaving work and had errands to do. Now, it's prudence—which (pace @tchrist) may or may not be the wise course of action, but is certainly no less productive than the alternative.
@tchrist You have a genuine command of your Latin; mine is largely restricted to forms that show up in old-fashioned footnotes. But English Renaissance critics (that is, critics flourishing in the Renaissance) took the two terms to be synonymous.
However, wonder/admiratio was a central critical term for them; it has mostly disappeared since the Restoration, and wonder has degraded in sense.
Well, the question is the case of the argument to pace. It’s normally pace tanti viri but I found one in the genitive.
> pace /ˈpeɪsiː/, /ˈpɑːkeɪ/, prep. Etymology: L., abl. sing. of pax peace as used e.g. in phr. pāce tuā by your leave.
By the leave of (a person).
Used chiefly as a courteous or ironical apology for a contradiction or difference of opinion. 1863 Fraser’s Mag. Nov. 662/1 ― Mendelssohn was an artist passionately devoted to his art, who (pâce Dr. Trench) regarded art as virtù. 1883 Standard 1 Sept. 2/2 ― Pace the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Mr. Scofield is right. 1911 Chambers’s Jrnl. Nov. 720/1 ― The colour [of fruit]··is a tacit invitation (pace the gardener) to the feast.
It's pace tua because pax is feminine, which accounts for tua, and the whole thing is in the ablative to represent a with or by relationship. I suppose the OED's last citation of pace tantorum virorum means by the peace of so many men.
First I'd like to thanks our pro tempore crew for sustaining a fabulous site for learners while their assistance was crucial for the site. WendiKidd, Matt, waiwai933 and especially J.R..
And now . . .
To our new mod crew:
J.R.: The monument of moderation and personability, and being fo...
English Language Learners's first moderator election has come to a close, the votes have been tallied, and the 3 new moderators are:
They'll be joining (or rejoining) the moderator list shortly — please thank them for volunteering!
Please also thank the outgoing Moderators Pro Tempore who ...
Here is the sentence from C. S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew:
Down and down they rushed, first through darkness and then through a mass of vague and whirling shapes which might have been almost anything.
As far as I know, might refers to the present and future, and might have refers to the ...
It's been discussed that the proofreading close reason is overused:
Stop throwing "Proofreading" close reason at questions that are clearly limited to a single point of concern
As part of my answer, I recommended that we consider rephrasing the "Proofreading" close reason so that it's less like...
If anyone has time please do this worksheet
http://www.chemisme.com/uploads/4/7/1/4/4714460/pes_2.pdf?
