View Full Version : Moderating squad reshuffle

06-20-2009, 01:57 PM
After 5 years of skirmishes, bitchy fights, rapes and so forth, it's time things got a bit in order.

I'm not even sure who is a mod, and who isn't, but from what I see, here's the low-down:

Endymion - we could keep him, he sounds techy, plus he seldom is arrogant, and can be helpful

L_M_1565 - personally, I think she's a total joke with zero competence, no level-headedness, too many issues to deal with on a personal level, etc, BUT if it really tears your heart to see her go, maybe we'll have to be saddled with her for some time...

Rag Doll - a bit prissy but ok I suppose. She's from New Jersey, NOT NY.

Tijs - apparently if he goes, the entire board resigns and the band is left with a vacuum for a forum. Might be a good idea to keep him?

JN - is ok when he isn't arrogant or disingenuous. Can be helpful and kind. I suppose his mood varies.

Anybody else is a mod that I haven't mentioned?

Now, your turn: you can give your personal reviews, you can propose new moderators, you can plea for whomever you wish, in short, you can expatiate on the moderating issue.

Don't forget to tell us if you'd like to see Bipolar Bear back on the forum. I am beginning to wonder how horrid it must feel to actually be banned from somewhere, anywhere, even offspring.bbs.

06-20-2009, 02:29 PM
Sup, howyoudoingkthanks?

My only complaint is that there is only one European in there, two would be better because of time differences. I recommend Free?

06-20-2009, 02:31 PM
My thought is that Free? would be good at this, too. At this point we're talking not removing any of the mods, just adding one, right?

06-20-2009, 02:33 PM
Who's the beaut' in your av?

Duly noted about Free? He seems a regular. Plus he's clearly not fighting to become a mod. Therefore, he should be a satisfactory one.

David: we're talking anything. You give your input. It'll be processed.

06-20-2009, 02:42 PM

I <3 our mods. They do very competent and fucking professional, especially if you take in account all the bullshit and pressure they're dealing with. I also <3 Maria and maaany others members here. I'm neutral (or don't know good enough) about some people here. I </3 the ones who are over-sensitive and easily-provokable, also trolls and generally people with poor arguments, but strong stubbornness that can't just leave arguing. I hate... I think no one yet.

About Bipolar. Well, he certainly had a sharp tongue and definitely liked walking on the edge, I think he got what he deserved. I mean, ffs, he had WARNINGS, he had a BAN, then he had the warnings again, and he still kept his bladerunner style. He had some good posts, but he couldn't stop being annoying. I'm not gonna die without him.

Aww, Maria and David, and Jesus (edited here :o) you made me feel warm! I'll take your words as a very sweet compliment :). But, I don't feel like being a good mod. I'm not good enough, my English isn't good enough, also, it's a great responsibility, much greater than I can take.
But that was sweet of you, thank you!

06-20-2009, 02:42 PM
Who's the beaut' in your av?

The incredible sexy Michał Kalecki, one of the most brilliant macro economists of the early 20th century. He wrote mostly the same stuff Keynes wrote, except earlier and in Polish (and some in French) which nobody could understand. It's like me, I've written tons of intelligent stuff in gibberish which nobody understands (yet).

06-20-2009, 02:48 PM
Mods were already cupid shuffled recently. Like, within 2k9. Kind of a moot point.

06-20-2009, 02:54 PM
Free?: I love you for loving everybody. But I'm still concerned about Bipolar Bear. I've had two warnings as well, and frankly, I'm not going to become my own antithesis just to suit somebody who deep down, I couldn't give a monkey's about. Maybe he just thought likewise? Anyways. Please never stop hearting me. If you do, I might become a broken mess. You never know. *melodramatic shudder*

Jesus: they never talked about the guy in macroeconomic classes. On the other hand and from what I recall, they kept mentioning how every successor of Keynes couldn't undersand squat about his writings, and had to resort to rewriting it and of course, tarnishing it as well.
Also, who are you?

AllIn All It's Not So Bad
06-20-2009, 02:55 PM
aint you french supposed to be sleeping right now

06-20-2009, 02:56 PM
Having sex, you mean. It so happens I've got a slight headache tonight.

06-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Jesus: they never talked about the guy in macroeconomic classes. On the other hand and from what I recall, they kept mentioning how every successor of Keynes couldn't undersand squat about his writings, and had to resort to rewriting it and of course, tarnishing it as well.
Also, who are you?
Mine mentioned him a couple times in some footnotes in the course book. Well successors of Keynes obviously had problems with his writing, since not only did they go against the conventional wisdom of say's law and the quantity theory of money, but more importantly it also had some psychological underpinnings (like the animal spirits). To try to fit this into a standard rational framework (based on micro economics) was quite difficult, it needed to be put into this framework because everything else was mostly considered marxism at that time. Samuelson finally did it, although he did indeed tarnish it quite a bit. Quite recently however the psychological part of Keynes his writing has been picked up again by most importantly Shiller and Akerlof in an excellent book.

And I'm an average Belgian, and omg you know some economics which is hot hot.

06-20-2009, 03:21 PM
Thanks for all the info.

I studied both macro and micro, with a marked preference for the former, but still ended up forgetting much. I picked up market finance instead.

An average Belgian? Crap. I figured you were this sizzling stud on a night-prowl. Such a let-down. Never mind, it's not your fault. Nighty-night.

06-20-2009, 03:27 PM
Sorry, and on top of that I'm just bored, my gf still has one exam to go.
Finance, did a couple of courses in that. General accountancy IFRS etc and also financial markets. But a lot of the more mathematical models in there don't seem to be really reality based. Extrapolating from historical data, trend lines etc. Behavioral finance was quite interesting though.

Sleeping, nice idea. Gonna hit the sack too.

06-20-2009, 03:28 PM
I would like to have Bipolar back, but I also think he did something he shouldnīt have done and perhaps should apologise?
I donīt mind the mods here, but some of them are perhaps doing their mod job better than other? Itīs hard to be a mod in a place like this so I wonīt complain. They all generally do good.
And any new mods wouldnīt hurt. Got no idea who though.

06-20-2009, 03:37 PM
We have to extrapolate from historical data to get the volatility. To show the validity of the model, historical volatility is compared to implicit volatility - logically they should be equal. I don't think there's anything wrong with that... on the other hand I never could wrap my mind around behavioural finace: "individuals are irrational, therefore markets are irrational, too!"

Great. Super. And from that premise, we proceed to...?

It's a question of temperaments, I guess, also you hinted at the great truth of finance, it's not an exact science, indeed it's not really a "science" at all properly speaking, which would explain why models, however deterministic, don't have much predictive value. And there are other factors. I'll grant irrationality is one of them, but "behavioural finance" sounded like so much blahblah to me, so I quickly branched out of it...

Anyway. I've already hit the hay, might as well start rolling in it...

06-20-2009, 04:09 PM
Well the biggest problem is that the volatility in the models doesn't correspond to the reality in my opinion because most of those model assume normal distributions. Like take the Dow, a 5 times deviation from the mean should happen like once ever 7000 years according to the models, except it happened around 80 times last century.
And there is also the simple lack of historical data, take the pricing of CDO's. Those were based on risk correlation which were calculated via Gaussian copula models. Which didn't work out too well since it assumed valid historical correlations and normal distributions once again.

In short you could say that there is a difference between risk and uncertainty. With risk being something random with a known probability distribution. Which makes it usable and thus you're able to make some kind of model out of it. While uncertainty is randomness with an unknown or even unknowable probability distribution and therefore unusable. And I think a lot of the mathematical models tend to confuse uncertainty with risk. Mostly influenced by the efficient market hypothesis, which basically states that there isn't any meaningful uncertainty.

And I think I'm really going to sleep now, although that's what I said half an hour ago too.

06-20-2009, 04:26 PM
That's totally true, we do assume normal distribution. I did my final year report on CDOs... nothing great, we mostly compiled and polished other people's theses.

And although from Markowitz (1952 from what I recall?) onward there have been mainly proponents of the efficient theory, there are others (take the guy who wrote "A Random Walk down Wall Street") who have said the exact opposite. I guess you'd be more aligned with them. What is certain about finance is that ONE branch at least is sure to please you. Caters for every taste.

And I'm shutting down my computer now.

06-21-2009, 11:39 AM
This thread is stupid. But I love Free? He's awesome shit.

06-21-2009, 11:45 AM
Yeah, there was a shift just a few months ago. Try again in two years.

06-21-2009, 11:48 AM
This is the fourth thread dedicated to the same stupid fucking mindless shit..

This HAS to be a record of some sort...

06-21-2009, 01:59 PM
Sometimes I just fuck off and when I return to read a little what's been going on, I never seem to understand squat.

I don't see how else I could explain that I'm not aware of the 2009 reshuffle.

06-22-2009, 09:21 AM
I never seem to understand squat.

We're all aware of this. This is why you should stop posting.

06-22-2009, 09:24 AM
I (Re)recommend Ninth!

06-22-2009, 09:25 AM
This thread begins with an admission that you don't know what is going on at all, but still think you're totally qualified to request massive changes (despite the fact that we had massive changes very recently).

Nothing about this thread makes any sense whatsoever.

06-22-2009, 12:29 PM
Now that's rich. I open this thread with requests for views and opinions, after giving my own views and asking if I'm right about who is actually a mod. I do not claim to be omniscient as to what goes on in this forum.

Keep away from me, you're annoying. And that goes for Jakebert too, who's an idiot anyway.

06-22-2009, 12:57 PM
Oh, hello, it's Little_Miss_1565 being her usual provocative self.

And after that she'll claim I'm harassing her. Tsk. No manners.

06-22-2009, 01:05 PM
Well, you haven't demonstrated any competence, level-headedness or control of your private and public life, now, have you, dear?

06-22-2009, 01:14 PM
Pretty sure she has. Gimme a sec to check, hold on.

Now, where'd it go...


You can find some of her finest work here: www.offspring.com/forums

A brief history, since you're probably unaware of it, there is about 90% less lewd content, 90% less trolls, and what's left of that content/those trolls are kept in check. A brief for instance: We used to have 80 year old men sucking each other off in every other thread. Pictures of it, too. Haven't seen that in forever. Also, while we still have some members who cause a ruckus and cause disharmony, the percentage of members who get what they came for has significantly increased.

Summary: Fuck off, Maria, you're wrong.

06-22-2009, 01:17 PM
Well, you haven't demonstrated any competence, level-headedness or control of your private and public life, now, have you, dear?

And you have? Excuse me while I go chortle in the corner.

06-22-2009, 01:20 PM
Suit yourself, honey. Those aren't my views, but *shrugs*

And I'm in all actuality fucking off - to the shower. Bye byes.