Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 304 (411793)
07-22-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Taz
07-22-2007 3:30 PM


Re: Guys, please let this drop.
Admin is doing what he thinks is best for the life and purpose of this forum.
And he's wrong. His actions can't accomplish his stated goals.
Since his goals are important for the forum, admin and the other mods need to understand that their actions are working against them.
If you care about the forum then the discussion needs to continue. You're worried about the wrong thing. The effects of bad moderation are a thousand times more detrimental to the forum than discussion of bad moderation ever could be.
Taz, your actions aren't working towards your stated goals. If you care about the forum then your obligation is to add your voice to the objections - not speak out against them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Taz, posted 07-22-2007 3:30 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 4:09 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 149 by Taz, posted 07-22-2007 5:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 137 of 304 (411794)
07-22-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:29 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
crashfrog writes:
And are, like you seem to be, blind to the fact that their own actions are exacerbating the problem they're trying to solve.
Depends on which perspective you want to take I guess.
Let me ask you, Taz. Do you think it's possible to unfairly suspend enough people that people will stop complaining about unfair suspensions?
In the great scheme of things, these people were unfairly suspended. But in not-so great scheme of things, all three were suspended fairly and with different reasons than the issue that sparked this whole mess.
Berberry got suspended for directly insulting another member.
Let me ask you this. Why do you suppose it's polite and encouraged for us to say "I need to go to the bathroom" rather than say "I need to go take a shit"? Both sentences essentially say the same thing, but socially speaking one is less in-your-face than the other.
Same thing with implying that gay people are like animal or gay sex is like rape and saying outright "fuck you".
Dan got suspended because he (1) was being his silly self, (2) wanted to make a statement, and (3) more than twice requested to be suspended.
With Rrhain's case, you could say that he got suspended for disrupting the inner workings and patriotic attitude of this forum.
When in the whole history of whenever has that ever worked? Short of suspending the entire membership except for themselves, how can their actions lead to their stated goals?
And may I remind you again that this ain't a democracy? The admins are doing what they think is best to keep this forum's inner workings running as smoothly as possible, and if it means letting a few heads roll...

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:54 PM Taz has replied
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 3:20 AM Taz has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 304 (411798)
07-22-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Taz
07-22-2007 3:42 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Depends on which perspective you want to take I guess.
No, it doesn't, because from both perspectives, the problem is the same - nobody can get anything done while there's all this complaining.
The actions of the moderators are causing the complaining. That's not a matter of perspective. The actions they're taking can't solve the problem that everybody recognizes.
In the great scheme of things, these people were unfairly suspended. But in not-so great scheme of things, all three were suspended fairly and with different reasons than the issue that sparked this whole mess.
I think that the bullshit rationalizations people come up with to justify the actions of local authority are instructive.
Taz - you won't be able to kiss enough moderator ass to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to do, here. And agreeing with me that recent actions have been unfair is not going to convince anybody that they need to stop trying to convince the moderators not to be unfair.
Surely everyone can see that unfair moderator action is far more destructive to the purpose of the forum than complaining about moderator actions in a single thread. I mean, this is as far as the complaining goes; this one thread.
Unfair moderator actions extend to every thread if they're not checked.
Berberry got suspended for directly insulting another member.
Sure. And if they'd suspended Nj for directly insulting Berb, instead of letting him continue insulting him in three different threads, that could have been prevented.
By the time Berb was supended, he deserved it. But NJ deserved it all along.
Dan got suspended because he (1) was being his silly self, (2) wanted to make a statement, and (3) more than twice requested to be suspended.
Oddly enough, asking to be suspended isn't against the rules.
But he wasn't asking for it. He was predicting it. He predicted, accurately, that questioning the obviously unfair actions of the moderators would make them act unfairly against him.
He was right.
With Rrhain's case, you could say that he got suspended for disrupting the inner workings and patriotic attitude of this forum.
None of that is against the rules as far as I can tell. When Dan turned out to be right, Rrhain pointed it out. He was suspended.
When I'm suspended for pointing out that Rrhain was right, someone else will step up to complain about it, I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Taz, posted 07-22-2007 3:42 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 4:15 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 151 by Taz, posted 07-22-2007 5:52 PM crashfrog has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 139 of 304 (411799)
07-22-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 2:59 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
Phat:STOP! Lets move on to other things.
He did move on to other things. He made his point about NJ's ridiculous, offensive comments and he moved on - to poor moderator procedures.
The evidence speaks otherwise crash - I'm not sure how you managed to conclude this. Phat made his declaration in Message 97. Rrhain continues talking about NJs comments in Message 107, Message 110.
And that's your idea of fair, dispassionate moderation? Moose is the worst moderator I've ever seen. Why do you guys cover for him?
I'm sorry Crash, I thought when you asked, "Which request, specifically?", you were asking for me to show moderators making requests, not to give you evidence of dispassionate moderation.
Mod - who gives a shit if you repeat yourself? Nobody gives a good goddamn how you guys are justifying your actions - because we can all see that you're all doing the wrong thing.
Nobody wants to hear more bullshit justifications for it. That's not what we want at all. We want the moderators to start doing the right thing. And to the extent that moderators involved in this discussion are providing bullshit justifications instead of amending their behavior, that means we still haven't made our point - and thus, the discussion must continue. Must be allowed to continue.
And if you put forward your best reasoning for it, and the moderators don't do it, what do you do then? The mods get pseudo-final decision on how to keep the place running with Percy as the final arbiter. Obviously that means that sometimes we have to suspend people like randman, no matter how much they insist they did nothing wrong. Sometimes we have to stop with 'did' 'did not' kind of gainsaying about whether Faith should continue posting. The moderators have to do a job, and that job isn't just beard stroking. We have to engage a course of action, and we don't expect everyone, or even the majority of people, to like all of those decisions all of the time.
No shit, Mod. The question is - should you? Should you defend Moose's ham-fisted fits of pique just because he's a moderator?
Is it more important for moderators to do the right thing, or the same thing? That's our point. I don't think it's a complicated or obscure point.
I wouldn't dream of defending someone because they were a moderator.
Moderators do not do the same thing - there are schisms and arguments that can be quite passionate. I have found myself at odds with Percy over how long to suspend nem and for why which is a public example. That the majority of moderators generally agrees with each other over this issue (which they don't btw - it's just that we don't bicker incessantly over it - argumentativeness not being a trait selected for in a moderator (goodbye Rand)) does not mean they always do.
The issue becomes - what is the right thing to do? I think there are a number of right ways of handling a situation, and I don't think humans will ever execute any of them perfectly. The debate becomes - what is the right thing to do, here? Who has been given the unenviable responsibility of making the final decision? It is easy: the moderators. I am happy to hear constructive criticism; a criticism that takes the writer more than a few moments to think of, but gainsaying: I'm not a fan.
When courtesy results in inaction, what is left?
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
I don't think we need implore God - but the sentiment is good. You've demonstrated courage in questioning authority, but there is also a time for wisdom.
If you want the moderators to be treated with courtesy, you have to reward courtesy. It's abundantly obvious that you all ignore it, instead.
I mean, maybe that's what you want - for people to make only moderator requests that you can safely ignore.
I cannot change what you find abundantly clear. I am sorry if your polite and well thought out requests have gone ignored. I will endevour to watch myself on that - us humans have a tendency to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the disruptive and not on the meek. That's why the thread was closed, incidentally - to allow space for other moderator requests that wouldn't get drowned out by the other stuff.
The community here deserves moderation that preserves and promotes fruitful discussion and defuses tensions. The moderation you're providing - you, Modulous, and you, Percy, and most especially you, Moose - disrupts legitimate discussion, heightens tension, and produces the appearance (and likely the reality) of favoritism and personal vendettas.
Once again my apologies. I tried to get to the bottom of the current debate, knowing that people would get very emotional about it after the admin team was indirectly accused of being so heterosexual they couldn't see the problem. Not being hetero I thought my services would be handy - and I was quickly called an insufferable nitwit and a self-hater.
What did I do? I gave my reasoning as to why I was not going to penalise a member based on the evidence I had seen. I stressed that I was happy to see further evidence to continue making an informed judgement. That my judgement was not to the liking of certain people was not my fault.
Just telling me that I am doing all these things, does not help. Just telling me that I am wrong does not help. I'd dearly love for you to spend some time composing a well thought out criticism of my moderation so that I might consider it and perhaps change - then I'd be in your debt.
How on Earth do you justify your behavior when it has those results?
I honestly think I was being fair. I honestly think people had misunderstood. People who misunderstand will obviously not think what I am doing is unfair. I asked what it was they thought I was doing was unfair, but I did not get any responses that seemed to mesh with what actually happened, so I thought the misunderstanding was continuing.
If you look at my posts you will see I have spend hours upon hours trying to clear up the misunderstanding. After a while, it becomes clear that minds cannot meet. I know of no way to satisfactorily resolve these kinds of issues. The problem is intractable.
Think it through. Keeping the forum from degrading into a flamewar is a good goal. It's what we want you to do.
Is that what your actions are doing? Think it through. Do you think that you, Percy, and Moose can ever be cruel enough, capricious enough, and suspend enough people unfairly that people will stop complaining openly about you being cruel, capricious, and unfair?
In the history of despotism, has that ever worked? Think it through.
I don't think we should suspend people in a cruel fashion. What specific action has been cruel - if you'd like to discuss that we can do. Suspension is a last resort for me, I rarely do it. Any examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 2:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:12 PM AdminModulous has replied
 Message 170 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 3:38 AM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 140 of 304 (411802)
07-22-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:41 PM


Re: Guys, please let this drop.
As an addition to the longer post I made: I'd be interested to hear what you think the right or correct action here is/was?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:18 PM AdminModulous has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 141 of 304 (411803)
07-22-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by AdminModulous
07-22-2007 3:58 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
The evidence speaks otherwise crash - I'm not sure how you managed to conclude this.
Because I'm reading his posts.
And if you put forward your best reasoning for it, and the moderators don't do it, what do you do then?
Try again. If they continue doing the wrong thing, then they clearly didn't understand your point.
The issue becomes - what is the right thing to do?
That which promotes, not hinders, the stated goals of moderation.
The problem here, Mod, is that you're continuing to defend wrong actions instead of taking correct ones.
Try this. Don't reply to this message. Don't ask yourself what you could say differently. Ask yourself what you could do differently, in the future, and then do that. And then tell me what you're going to do, if you have to tell me anything at all.
I don't think we need implore God - but the sentiment is good. You've demonstrated courage in questioning authority, but there is also a time for wisdom.
Pretending that the problem is all over here on our side is definitely not wise - because it's definitely not true.
I'd dearly love for you to spend some time composing a well thought out criticism of my moderation so that I might consider it and perhaps change - then I'd be in your debt.
Rrhain did just that and Moose suspended him. That conversation is over, remember?
I honestly think people had misunderstood.
And, yet, despite how many different way you explain it, we don't "understand." Doesn't that indicate that, in fact, it's you that are wrong?
I know of no way to satisfactorily resolve these kinds of issues.
Mod, it's not hard. When people are angry and frustrated because you've been doing the wrong thing, what you do is stop doing the wrong thing. It's not a matter of understanding. It's not a matter of you haven't found the right way to say it.
It's a matter of the moderators doing the wrong thing. Instead of thinking about saying something differently, think about doing something differently. Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.
It's really extraordinarily simple, Mod.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 3:58 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2007 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 147 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 4:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 142 of 304 (411804)
07-22-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:54 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Sure. And if they'd suspended Nj for directly insulting Berb, instead of letting him continue insulting him in three different threads, that could have been prevented.
I asked this at the time, but nothing was forthcoming. Can you link to where NJ directly insulted Berb? I'm happy to increase nem's suspension if I see it.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:25 PM AdminModulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 304 (411805)
07-22-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by AdminModulous
07-22-2007 4:09 PM


Re: Guys, please let this drop.
1) Suspend Nj when it became clear his comments were intended to bait Berb.
2) Suspend Berb if he still insisted on acting as he did.
3) Don't have suspended Dan.
4) Don't have suspended Rrhain.
And for god's sake - just admit that Dan and Rrhain and I have a legitimate complaint here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 4:09 PM AdminModulous has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 144 of 304 (411807)
07-22-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 4:12 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
I'd dearly love for you to spend some time composing a well thought out criticism of my moderation so that I might consider it and perhaps change - then I'd be in your debt.
Rrhain did just that and Moose suspended him.
Stop it Crash, you shouldn't mock Rrhain with such saracsm - "well thought out criticism" and Rhrhain pure genius mate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:31 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 150 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 5:24 PM cavediver has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 304 (411808)
07-22-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AdminModulous
07-22-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
You have been shown. If you still don't see it, you're either being willfully ignorant, disingenuous, or you lack the perspicacity necessary for moderation.
It's a matter of historic record at this point that NJ's comments merited his suspension, and Berb's legitimate frustration only boiled over into frenzy because of you insisted on being obtuse. If you're still hung up on that point, then you're just not cut out to moderate these kinds of issues.
In addition to Moose, who I reiterate is the worst moderator we've ever had here, I recommend that you step down from moderator responsibilities, as you're clearly much more interested in winning debates and defending your "rightness" than in taking the actions necessary to operate the board. EvC can ill afford a moderator as selfish as yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 4:15 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2007 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 146 of 304 (411809)
07-22-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by cavediver
07-22-2007 4:21 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
If there was a legitimate refutation to Rrhain's points, I didn't see it.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality and rape is baiting. It's ridiculous and unnecessarily inflammatory. There's no supportable argument that it should be an acceptable feature of board discourse. The first time a person does it, I can see being lenient.
This was not the first time. Nj knew it was wrong and he did it anyway, to bait Berb. Berb bit. He shouldn't have; but the moderators shouldn't have given him a chance. They didn't. So berb should have been suspended, but Nj should have been, as well.
Also - I'm only posting messages on this topic because Mod just asked me to, as administrator. I can hardly be blamed (or suspended, I hope) for disregarding moderator requests at a moderator's request.
I've had my own issues with Rrhain, who I know to be unmatched in his capacity for disingenuousness, but in this case, he's been proven abundantly correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2007 4:21 PM cavediver has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 147 of 304 (411814)
07-22-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 4:12 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
Because I'm reading his posts.
I posted the posts, in chronological order that contradicts this claim. Do you care to speak on this, or are you just gainsaying me? This is meant to be a discussion.
Try again. If they continue doing the wrong thing, then they clearly didn't understand your point.
The other alternative is that they understand your point, and disagree with it. If yours was the only possibility then we'd still have randman since we continually did the wrong thing by him.
Try this. Don't reply to this message. Don't ask yourself what you could say differently. Ask yourself what you could do differently, in the future, and then do that.
I have spent hours doing this very thing. I did not feel any need to suspend nemesis for the reasons given to me. I am not going to suspend someone if I don't see a reason!
Pretending that the problem is all over here on our side is definitely not wise - because it's definitely not true.
The fact that I am spending so much time and effort to discuss this with you leads you to conclude that I am pretending you don't have a problem. I am trying to resolve this issue with you now. If you have some specific criticism that you haven't brought up, then do so, if not then I am not changing my mind based on the issues you have put forward so far.
Rrhain did just that and Moose suspended him. That conversation is over, remember?
I hereby retrospectively pardon Rrhain admonish Moose and suspend Rrhain retrospectively for continuing to discuss the bestiality issue after the request was made for the participants to stop. Is that better?
And, yet, despite how many different way you explain it, we don't "understand." Doesn't that indicate that, in fact, it's you that are wrong?
Could be, I continue to await anybody who wishes to make some specific criticism to explain what exactly I did or didn't do that was wrong. To save you the time, the arguments put forward so far have not convinced me. Sorry about that - I'm only human crash. I try to remain open minded about it though and will continue to solicit help in pointing it out.
Mod, it's not hard. When people are angry and frustrated because you've been doing the wrong thing, what you do is stop doing the wrong thing.
Granted - but I have to see that it is the wrong thing first, no? I cannot just bow to the most vocal people on the board can I? Do you honestly think I should simply do whatever people tell me to? What would be the point in entrusting me with the responsibility ot make these kinds of decisions? Should I, in future, just do whatever anybody says if they tell me I'm doing something wrong? How many people should I wait to complain before doing so? And what of those that believe I am doing the right thing? How should it be weighed?
It's a matter of the moderators doing the wrong thing. Instead of thinking about saying something differently, think about doing something differently.
The point is this, crash - the original issue was that I did not think there was any reason to do anything except explain why I saw no reason. The only other thing I could do was nothing whatsoever. No doubt there would have been bitching at the lack of moderater intervention
Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.
That's fine, it really is. I cannot say that I always take good actions - the debate did get rather heated with people saying rather unfriendly things so I can openly admit that I might not have acted in the perfect manner. At first I did not believe action was necessary. I thought action was only necessary when the debate about the debate was getting too heated and people started calling the admin team childish names.
1) Suspend Nj when it became clear his comments were intended to bait Berb.x
OK - let's start here. When did it become clear his comments were intended to bait Berb? Let's dissect this thing so that I might learn for the future what was best to do and apologize for acting incorrectly.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 3:55 AM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 148 of 304 (411817)
07-22-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 4:25 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
You have been shown. If you still don't see it, you're either being willfully ignorant, disingenuous, or you lack the perspicacity necessary for moderation.
All are possible. Or perhaps it is you that have one of those characteristics? Neither of us is qualified to know which one that is though, and if you pretend otherwise that should probably disqualify you from moderating right there, but that's just my potentially flawed opinion.
It's a matter of historic record at this point that NJ's comments merited his suspension
It was PaulK that managed to explain that one of NJ's comments merited a suspension and upon him doing it I immediately acted. I saw no other comments by NJ that would merit his suspension - except for the Austin Powers puerility.
Berb's legitimate frustration only boiled over into frenzy because of you insisted on being obtuse.
Berb's frustration was certainly legitimate, but I'd rather the forum did not have name calling no matter the frustration.
Message 37 is where I entered. Berb asked if he should accept being insulted in a vile fashion, and I replied that no he shouldn't and that I didn't think Berb had been insulted in a vile fashion but that I was investigating the issue further to be sure. Berberry responded that he had been insulted in a vile manner with no specific reference. I admitted that calling homosexuality immoral was insulting to gays - but that cannot warrant a suspension in a discussion about the morality of homosexuality and Berb called me a nitwit and I think implied that I was racist. He then got suspended by Percy.
In addition to Moose, who I reiterate is the worst moderator we've ever had here,
Given that that includes Faith and randman that is a harsh criticism
I recommend that you step down from moderator responsibilities, as you're clearly much more interested in winning debates and defending your "rightness" than in taking the actions necessary to operate the board. EvC can ill afford a moderator as selfish as yourself.
I'm sorry if I came off as wanting to win some debate. I was trying to explain why I did not suspend nemesis and got a load of grief for doing so. I could have just ended it there, but I doubt that would have been popular either, once I was in I thought it prudent to explaining why I was not taking action and continue soliciting reason why he should in case I was getting it wrong.
If I am as selfish as you think I am, I urge my privelages be removed immediately. I suppose typing out thousands of words to try and explain myself could be seen as trying to 'win' a debate but I honestly saw no alternative but inaction. Towards the end, I was in two minds as to reply with a curt "Thank you, your comments have been noted" or to drive forwards to resolve the schism forming at EvC. In retrospect, I think the former might have been wise. Perhaps I should think about this further if I see no new criticism coming forward, that might be the best piece of advice I could take away from this thing.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 5:57 PM AdminModulous has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 304 (411819)
07-22-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 3:41 PM


Re: Guys, please let this drop.
crashfrog writes:
And he's wrong. His actions can't accomplish his stated goals.
Yes, he may be wrong, but you of all people should know the relative nature of right and wrong.
Since his goals are important for the forum, admin and the other mods need to understand that their actions are working against them.
Perhaps, but it is an approach nonetheless. The approach has been taken. No really really serious offense has been done on the moderators' parts, so it's best that we make the best of it.
If you care about the forum then the discussion needs to continue. You're worried about the wrong thing. The effects of bad moderation are a thousand times more detrimental to the forum than discussion of bad moderation ever could be.
Oh, by all means continue the discussion if you want. All I'm saying is questioning the core beliefs and attitude of this administration will probably not yield the result you want, which seems to be the resignation of certain admins as well as the original bully suffering the full wrath of almighty.
And have I mentioned that this ain't a democracy?
Taz, your actions aren't working towards your stated goals. If you care about the forum then your obligation is to add your voice to the objections - not speak out against them.
My goal is to (1) keep the EvC debate going in a healthy manner, (2) keep as many people from being suspended as possible, and (3) keep this forum alive. This is the only place I visit, you know.
But more to your point. Not all objections are constructive. The three members in question who have been suspended were suspended not because of their objection to n_j or to adminmoose.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 3:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 150 of 304 (411820)
07-22-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by cavediver
07-22-2007 4:21 PM


Re: Adminnemooseus needs to step down
Stop it Crash, you shouldn't mock Rrhain with such saracsm - "well thought out criticism" and Rhrhain pure genius mate.
Can't let this one drop. It's off topic and disrespectful to a particular member. I'm sure a warning should suffice here, and I really don't want to add to the pile of suspensions we've had here.
This applies to everone else - no banter in this thread please.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2007 4:21 PM cavediver has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024