And Dan was arguing against Percy. When I told him what that would imply (that I would have suspended him) he responded: 'see how easy that was?'. Hoist on his own petard, eh?
I'm sorry, I don't follow. That doesn't explain why Dan's motives are important as yours. Again, Dan was not a moderator, but you were.
Without waving in the general direction of the thread again - could you provide an example of the reticence of moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy?
I'm trying to bend the arc of these exchanges towards brevity, so no, I'm not going to do that. Suffice to say, throughout the thread it was repeatedly stated that the issues under discussion would only be specific acts of moderation, not general complains about moderators.
I kept asking for evidence of infractions
It had been provided and ignored. There really wasn't any more that would have been needed to have been supplied, especially if you had been moderating according to Percy's enunciated "rubber dart" standard.
Simply the wide and popular impression that NJ was engaged in gay-baiting meant to piss Berberry and others off should have been sufficient, according to the standards of moderation Percy had enunciated. At any rate you picked a
terrible time to stand on principle, as I said.
Whatever. You're never going to see reason on this, even though NJ himself showed up to confess to being a homophobic jerkoff back then, so let's drop it. Just know I can't accept your version of events as true, no more than had you asserted the sky was green.
Exactly! Dan had an out. I gave it to him explicitly.
This strikes me as an endemic problem in your posts that I think we've uncovered here - you read as sarcastic when you're apparently just being incredibly un-self-aware. Like your "retroactive suspension" of Rrhain and Dan, later in that thread - you seem to think you actually did something there, but let me assure you, everyone who read that interpreted it as sarcastic Moderation Theater.
It's something for you to watch for, I guess. Try to read your own posts with some degree of cynicism, because as a moderator cynicism will invariably be applied to your actions and justifications.
If that's something you can't bear, hey, you could always step down...
Good - I'm glad you have now dropped the charge that I was being 'hypersensitive'.
But I haven't. As I said, there's no inconsistency in my positions, here. One can, after all, interpret something as an insult even as they're not particularly insulted by it.
Inane, crash. I didn't seriously think he was telling me how to eat a banana.
Oh, so now we're back to where you
did think Dan was calling you a "retarded monkey." I wish you'd make up your mind; I'm getting whiplash trying to follow your moving goalposts.
Because he could use it to vindicate his belief that the moderators were capriciously suspending people.
How would he use it to "vindicate" anything when the suspension made him unable to post? As I said, nobody wants to be suspended. If they did it wouldn't be effective to use it as punishment, now would it?
How could you have missed that he wasn't calling for NJ to be suspended?
Because that's not true? Because he actually
did want you to unsuspend Berberry and take action against NJ? Because that's what he actually
said?
I mean, Jesus. Did you understand what the issues in front of you were
at all? Every time you come back with something like this, it seems like the answer must be "no".
During time of impasse, the moderators win - unfortunately.
Doubtless. There's nothing that can be done about that.
But moderators
don't get to revise history and project their own intransigence on the participants. We were perfectly willing to discuss alternatives. None were ever offered beyond "fall in line or hit the road." "All of my position, and none of yours" is not a compromise. It's exactly the opposite of compromise.
™ Version 4.2
