General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

Most people (including me) come here to complain about something, so let me take this moment to say something positive.I think PD did a good job in the Haggard thread in the Coffee House. There was a side topic which opened up and began eating up space. I was one of the people who ended up with warnings and messages labelled Off Topic.Her decision was correct, and handling just. I think it could serve as a model for future handling of such side issues. First offtopic labels, followed in short order by warnings of closing thread and/or suspensions.My only suggestion would be to be lenient on anyone who might post before having seen the OT messages. I will often start a reply and go to do other things then finish it later. Even if it is just a matter of minutes I sometimes find my post (when finally submitted) crosses a warning, or another person's post.Anyway, good job PD... even if I took a hit.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Since you've chosen to reiterate your argument here, I'll address a couple points I didn't get a chance to before.AdminPD might have been trying to be fair but the attempt fell short. She accepted the drivel that nemesis_juggernaut offered as an apology. He only apologized for "confusion", not for the insult. In his "apology", he said: Checking my trusty American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition ©1996, I find that the very first definition listed for 'relative' runs thus: Therefore, gay marriage is "connected or related" to marriage between a woman and a dog, according to nemesis_juggernaut. So rather than apologizing he instead repeated the insult.Senator Rick Santorum has been rightly condemned by almost everyone who isn't a far-right fundie dolt for making this exact same argument.I haven't called for anyone to be suspended over this and, quite frankly, I think that if you hadn't jumped in it would have all been over after a few posts. I only wanted to make the point that such arguments are unacceptable to decent, thinking people, and in so doing to separate those decent, thinking people from, well, others.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I would like to add my voice to those protesting Faith's suspension. I've looked into the posts that drew Admin's ire and I suppose I can understand a stiff suspension, especially if it's true this isn't the first time the problem has surfaced.I think Faith is about the most valuable creo we have on this forum, not least of all because I think she's been very fair as an admin. I think she's been both more active and more fair than anyone expected, and the fact that she's a creo I think helps this forum to establish a reputation for generally even-handed moderation.Please reconsider this.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Heheheh... I don't want to start getting warnings here. I maintain that whether you believe NJ meant an insult or not, PD handled the situation of an OT issue in a fair way.I did not reiterate any argument here (unless you are refering to that post from yesterday?). Whether PD accepted NJ's statement as true or as an apology is besides the point to what I was commending her for.Remember I disagree with you on that point, I was warned just the same, and I think she was just for doing so (smacking me). So its not her position on what NJ said that I was defending.Unless you are saying she should have made him apologize the way you want? I dunno, but that would seem to be a practical impossibility. And in any case she'd be right in asking it be moved to here to be discussed instead of in thread. Please don't try to point the finger at me. Others have gone on to make the same comment as you and what was going to happen if NJ didn't apologize as you guys wanted?Yeah, by definition, it went longer because I also posted, but that's how it goes for everyone. I could also argue if you realized I was making the correct interpretation this would have ended sooner.And now I am a bit insulted, I am a decent thinking person and I was able to accept what he said. I might also point out that if I accept your criteria shouldn't I (or others) feel insulted for your not standing up for polygamists and children? After all you are being pretty selective to claim NJ was picking on gays, as it clearly involved much more. Are polygamists and children dogs, or is it just that gays should not be compared in that manner?Heheheh... okay I'm not so insulted, really. I just think you are making a mistake with what he said, even if you might be right that deep inside he feels such a thing (I dunno). Also you are being a bit overdramatic in denuciating him. Decent, thoughtful people might not care what NJ thinks or says.Back to what I was trying to say... don't you agree with how the OT banter was handled by PD? Wouldn't you agree that even if you were totally right and PD agreed NJ was insulting you, she was correct in trying to shift it here?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I pretty much agree with everything AdminPD said, except the part about nemjug apologizing. He didn't. And I'm not insisting on anything, I'm just pointing it out.

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

AdminPD might have been trying to be fair but the attempt fell short. She accepted the drivel that nemesis_juggernaut offered as an apology. He only apologized for "confusion", not for the insult.

---

I know you didn't find his apology acceptable, but that was his apology. You demand an apology and he says he gave one. Round and round it goes wasting posts along the way. We don't always get apologies wrapped up the way we like with the bow on top.Even though you found his apology wanting, you needed to realize you weren't going to get any more of an apology than what you already had.While NJ didn't direct his comments at you personally, I do suggest that NJ be sensitive, as we all should, to the diversity of this community when wording analogies or comparisons, etc.I'm glad that most were pleased with my efforts and I appreciate the kudos. I probably should have acted sooner, but thought it would die out once it came to light in the Mod thread.Maybe we need a complaint thread that doesn't deal with Moderation Actions. Something to think about.

That's cool. I do think good admin procedures (specific ones) could use some boosting.Let me also take this moment to assure you of one thing, to end this on a happier note (between us two). If I thought NJ had made such a comparison I would definitely (personally) consider it an insult, as it would certainly have been meant as such. And given all the other things I am fighting him on would have gladly added that to the list. Since you take it as such a comparison I do understand why you find it insulting.IF such a thing were said (about anyone), I'd likely have argued such a statement would... at the very least... draw a clear distinction between the author's ilk and dogs, the latter being the more astute/intelligent of the species in question.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Thank you for the kudos, I do appreciate it.

quote:

---

My only suggestion would be to be lenient on anyone who might post before having seen the OT messages. I will often start a reply and go to do other things then finish it later. Even if it is just a matter of minutes I sometimes find my post (when finally submitted) crosses a warning, or another person's post.

---

I'm not too harsh concerning the first post after the warning because I also have a habit of starting a reply and finishing later and I know that posters do that. I also tend to look at who is online to see if the particpants are online at the time I'm tagging. That gives me a heads up that they may be typing and miss the tag.In my personal posts, I try to look at the post again and make sure nothing has changed before I post.I understand your concern, but I try to watch for those possibilities. I may not always succeed, but I try.Again thanks.

Unfortunately, that was a big part of the problem. Faith simply would not Admin and even admitted she could not Admin without bias. Part of working as an Admin is to try to behave fairly. Hell, we all fail at it, but really, we do try. When an Admin flat comes out and says that they will not respond to one segment of the membership even when they are way over the line, Percy has to question their suitability for the job.Being an Admin is often not pleasant. Often we have to take positions we really dislike, for example a couple times I personally have had to sanction you even though I agreed completely with your position. One time it was "There but by the Grace of God" because I was getting ready to respond just as you had when I came across your response. You said what needed to be said even though it broke the rules. Had you been any slower in responding it would have been me getting the warning instead of you.

Just to let you know I wasn't trying to suggest that you hadn't been lenient for such mistakes. The fact is I did make such a mistake and you handled it well.I was simply making that suggestion for future admins adopting such methods. I should likely pick up that same habit. Previewing my posts might also save me time on edits as well.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

AdminPD writes me:

quote:

---

You demand an apology and he says he gave one.

---

Just to be sure, I don't think I ever demanded anything. I'm not even sure I requested an apology, and it's quite clear that one has not been offered.When I first spoke up I said I thought that a comparison like that ought to be out-of-bounds here, but later agreed with jar that it's best to let people like nemjug show themselves for the bigots they are. From that point, all I wanted to do was highlight the insult and to point out that what some people seemed to feel was an "apology" was no apology at all and that in fact this "apology" did nothing more than repeat the insult.And no, I don't have any illusion that I'm going to get any more of an "apology" from nemjug. I never expected one to begin with, because it's been my experience that bigots never apologize unless they're forced to, and when they're forced to the apology is meaningless.Other than refering to nemjug's statement as an "apology", I don't see where you've done anything wrong and I have no ill will toward you.

---

W.W.E.D.?

This isn't a comment on anything recent, I haven't reviewed the relevant thread. It's just that since the topic of apologies has come up, I think that if we ever decide to add an 11th guideline, I'm going to put in a vote for "No demanding apologies."

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

her actual public actions as an admin, however, certainly seemed reasonable and even-handed, if very restrained. is admitting bias, but trying to be fair in spite of it, or taking a back seat a crime? that sounds to me like a good reason to remove moderation priveleges, but not regular posting priveleges.

---

i've found her very frustrating. but as i keep saying, this is the debate and we can't ban the opponents just because we are frustrated by them sticking to their opinions, however wrong or misguided they may be. the site will certainly be a lot less interesting, if a lot less frustrating.

---

I'll jump now. Rather than be pushed later.See y'all.