I just find it ridiculous how people think Lenders would do a bad job, just because of the way he acts in GM.
Then how do you say that a poster be judged? By how sane they appear when in a conversation via PM? Other than the users who have 10+ posts a day there are very few who know others on this forum on a personal level. And we form a majority of the users on this board. The only way we can really judge a user is by his or her GM posts. In such a vote, we are not judging a users personality, but his or her internet(MTF) personality and the only way this can be done is by assessing the users posts which we have seen.
Moreover, from what I understand, most of all forms of bans or infractions are due to posts in GM. If this is so, a users GM posts should in fact play a big role in determining whether or not they are fit for any form of moderator position.
I think Lenders is quite a good poster other than his Ferrer trolling. But, (no offense to him) I think he is extremely
unfit to be any type of moderator. It doesn't matter that his trolling is based on jest and not hate. Somebody who spends a large chunk of his time and posts on this forum to insult one particular player clearly has a very liberal opinion of what should be allowed on this forum. Such a person definitely should not be an appeal moderator. If someone so liberal gets this role, it essentially would mean that almost every appeal would be approved, which defeats the purpose. On the other hand, if they do not act in such a capacity, it would mean having an extremely hypocritical moderator, which IMO is a terrible idea too. The (appeal) moderator can do as he pleases but he won't tolerate such nonsense by others. I agree that Lenders' offenses are "minor" in comparison to things such as racism, wishing injury/death, etc, but even these "minor" offenses play a role in determining a "judge" candidate.
Please understand that this is not campaigning or anti-campaigning. It is just me expressing my opinion.