General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

Yes Jar, I see that now. I had forgotten the thread was old and neglected to note the date, thinking it was a fresh thread. My bad and I apologize for that. After this I'll make a point to make sure what my moderating is on fresh stuff. 1. Jar, tell that to Randman, who would have never gotten by with such a post. It was clearly not the kindest shading you could have put on it, no matter what AdminNosy said about the new member. (That matter has been addressed in the Private Admin forum, so I'll not address it here.) According to the guidelines, it was your duty to either state why you thought the information to which you were referring was crap (imo, a kinder and better word would be false}. This was a new member, and we all should be especially hospitable to new legit members. Your post was a violation of these points of Forum Guidelines, #4 and #10:#4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. ...............#10: Always treat other members with respect. .............

Hi Rand. I suppose you're wondering if I've factored in on the matter of your problems here. My postition in the admin discussion on this is that I was glad you were back. I reminded my admin team mates that you work hard to do thorough debate on issues trying to respond to your majority counterparts, often numerous and this pressure builds tension. Nevertheless, my position on the ban was that because of previous warnings by counterpart admins and admonishment from myself as well, your calling people liars hindered me from coming to your defense. Remember, what I said on one occasion before. Someone else's violations of Forum Guidelines does not justify responses in kind. I try hard to be fair and balanced. Don't make it hard for me to defend your actions.Over the years I've been here, there's been occasions when I've been called a liar and was infuriated when I know that there was no deliberate lie, so it's a charge I consider significant. Unless you have solid and unquestionable evidence that a lie is intended, I'm afraid you can't expect help from me if you're called on it. It's fine to argue that an opponent's claims are false or based on lack of knowledge, et al. That is not a personal attack.Your presence and good work here is valuable to the board and serves as a good balance. I'll do all I can to keep you aboard within the fairness perameter. So my friend, in spite of what others do, work hard at keeping your own conduct above reproach. I hope that others who've been somewhat shabby in this regard will tidy up their conduct as well for the good of the community. We all have areas we could improve on.

This is fair. Rand knows how things are here so he needs to decide whether he wants to return with a positive attitude, making the best of how this board is run or find one which he can tolerate. If Rand accepts Percy's conditions and returns he needs to bury the hatchet, graciously accepting the offer and get on with productive discussion.Percy is moving in the right direction. He accepts constructive criticism when given in a positive and constructive attitude. I've had to learn this myself and am still working on it. It's Percy's website. I believe he sincerely wants it to be compatible for all. This does not mean we're all going to be in total agreement with how things are. When we desire change, we need to go about effecting it with the attitude that it's someone else's website as we make suggestions and critique the management which laboriously strives to make it a pleasant place for members to aire our views on the www and for guests to read and learn.

Done, Fatih. I tried to put it so as to suit you as well as the other participants of the thread.

1. In light of all that's been said about calling folks liars since there was no proof of intentional lies the suspension was justified. Nwr is a valuable asset to the board and especially in the admin sector, but he should get no free ride after all that's been said about Randman's similar violation.2. Herepton, I don't think your one person boycott will amount to a tinkers dang, especially since more than a few of your counterpart thinkers will likely celebrate rather than mourn during your absence. Imo your boycott will weigh in more on you than anyone else. This verse doesn't call them liars perse. It implies that they are either consiously or otherwise changing distorting God's words, i.e interpreting them so as to render a false conclusion.So get use to it, my friend. The rule here is that we don't call one another liars. There's other better ways to express ourselves so as not to inflame and to give one another the benefit of the doubt as to intensions.Abe: If you keep your word, you may be out a long time. Rand's return is strictly up to him as per the graciousness of Admin. So if he lingers, to keep your word, you linger with him.This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 04-10-2006 09:11 PM

The problem is that all to often it is used in blatant violation of Forum Guidelines #10, in that all to often users of the term missjudge their counterparts as to intension. Honest folks regard it as a serious matter to be labeled a liar.

For the record, I initiated the private admin forum discussion on this Robin suspension. I would have lifted the suspension then, but didn't feel comfortable with doing so without first getting some input from the other admins. I have great respect and appreciation for all the good work Admin Moose does here and didn't want to override him without getting input from Admin Percy and others. It appears AdminMod also listened to other admins before overriding Moose which imo was appropriate.It was agreed by the ones who contributed that though Robin needs to be careful about his attitude toward mods, this suspension was not warranted. I just want to reassure Faith and others who may see the need for creo representation that though I don't do much visible admin duties, I try to attend to these things when I become aware of them. I did some back stage admin input on the behalf or Randman and Herepton also, though Herepton remained buligerant and unappreciative in spite of it. (abe: My understanding is that either of these could have returned had they agreed to meet the conditions Admin, which imo were reasonable.) Since I don't have much time to read, it does help when folks bring these problems to the open moderation forum as Faith did.Thanks AdminMod for taking care of this since I had to leave my computer for the day shortly after I opened the private admin discussion on this.Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Edit to add a sentence, so designated by parenthesis.