No - the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion.
But what if they're wrong? What if their explanation is that "these actions are consistent with enforcement of the Forum Guidelines", but they're actually not? What if their actions are defended as intending to promote the goals of the forum, but their actions don't actually promote their goals?
In other words, I'm accusing you now if the exact blindness you and Percy and the rest showed then - the blindness that says whenever there's a controversy about moderation, it's the fault of the laity for objecting. It's never, ever the fault of the moderators for
doing the wrong thing.
Look, it's Percy's joint - like Rrhain kept saying. I agree. It's not a democracy. I'm not and have never asked for it to be one. All I'm asking is, can you or can you not see how that is eroding to confidence in moderators? And can a discussion forum survive when participants have no confidence in the fairness of moderators?
Can you see that, Mod? Do you agree that when moderators act unfairly, capriciously, cruelly, follow personal vendettas and respond out of pique, they erode confidence in their ability to do their jobs effectively? Do you agree that when moderators refuse to address objections to their conduct, and support one another regardless, that erodes confidence in their objectivity?
These are universal features of authority. They apply in any situation. For instance, imagine a police shooting where a white cop shoots an unarmed black man. Suppose there is videotape showing that the cop never identified himself as police but simply drew and fired on the man. Imagine if it came to light that the black man had been an outspoken critic of police brutality. Imagine that these police were your neighborhood's officers.
Wouldn't you find your confidence in their effectiveness and objectivity to be eroded? If the police department closed ranks and refused to break "the thin blue line" (do they have that expression in the UK?), refused to refer to the shooting as anything but a completely legal and justified "righteous kill", wouldn't your confidence in their professionalism be eroded? Wouldn't your confidence in your safety be eroded, now that you have reason to suspect that even entirely prosaic encounters with your local police could end in your death at their hands?
Surely the answer to these questions is "yes." So the question isn't whether moderators
can pursue personal vendettas, defend each other unswervingly regardless of merit, and act to suppress complaints and objections. Obviously they can do those things because they
did do those things.
The question is, is it
right for them to do so? Is it
useful for them to do so? Does it help or hinder their ability to do their jobs when they take actions that erode confidence in their objectivity?
Link to the posts demonstrating three examples of my capriciousness, cruelty, and unfairness with an explanation as to how they meet the criteria.
Look, let's not be ridiculous, here. I'm putting direct questions to you, and I'd like them to be answered. I think I deserve it. If people want to see your conduct in that thread they can go to it.
I did so in the OP, Message 1. Do a search for 'cogent contribution' if you're having difficulty finding it.
That was very helpful, but now I'm confused. I asked you to point out the message that you felt was Dan "disrespecting" you, but you linked to message 90 which is a
reply to you accusing Dan of "disrespecting" you.
So, again, which message is it that you felt was the "disrespectful" one?
I advised him in my judgement he broke a forum rule.
Er, well, no. You advised him, in fact, that he
hadn't broken a forum rule. You wrote:
AdminMod writes:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself.
Did you write that, or didn't you? It's your face by those words.
You accused him of disrespecting you and then you suspended him. I'm trying to tell you - absolutely none of that gives the appearance of dispassionate, impersonal moderation. What it looks like is you not being able to take criticism or disrespect, and suspending someone in revenge.
It's the kind of thing that erodes confidence in your ability to be objective. It certainly eroded mine, which is why at the time I described you as being one of the worst moderators I had ever seen at the forum. Taking moderator action because someone "disrespected you", but not against someone else who had disrespected
Berberry, made it pretty clear that you weren't using your moderator power to enforce respect among debators, you were using it to enforce respect for yourself.
The question is, was I being overly passionate? Was I moderating on the basis of a personal agenda and pique with no rational basis whatsoever?
I don't see how, objectively, there can be any other conclusion. What actions did you take? As you keep reminding us, the only person you yourself took action against was the one person you felt was being "disrespectful" to you. NJ's disrespect to Berberry you not only gave explicit approval to, you actually shortened NJ's suspension when he was suspended for it.
Did you not understand at the time, that's what I was complaining about? That you seemed to consider disrespect against your most holy person the only disrespect worth exercising your moderator power over? Jesus, what did you think I was on about, the whole time?
I'm not going to defend other people
No, but you did
then - you have the second-most number of posts in that thread - and those defenses were a part of how you were central to the erosion of moderator confidence. When authority closes ranks to protect their own and ignore the objections of those their actions are meant to serve, it erodes confidence in their fairness and objectivity.
Message 160, eh? That's a lot of debate, a lot of the same posts being done over and over again.
And yet, clearly it was not enough. Clearly people had more to say, because some of them
did continue, and were suspended. Hell
you even continued. You're just asserting that Message 160 is where "enough" debate had occurred, but do you have any reason to believe that besides Percy
saying "that's enough"?
I even conceded my actions resulted in a decline, and you still say that?
So then why are you saying anything besides "Rrhain and Crash and Dan were ultimately proved right, and I'm sorry for my actions"? I mean it seems like you've answered the question you posed in the topic. Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? You seem to be admitting that you did.