General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

Gosh, I thought the three of us explained it.The problem is that you used your admin power to ensure you had the last word.Why don't you see that as problematic? The 300 limit isn't a hard rule, so it's somewhat irrelevant. You just "happened" to be the last one to post because you ensured you would be with admin power.You really don't see that as objectionable?

Admin,I respectfully request to reopen the "Positive Evidence for Atheism" thread on the basis of appeasing my two critics, Kuresu and Crashfrog.But only one condition: That I get to say in big, bold letters: Here I am! I have reopened the thread. To ALL who think that I am hiding something, please confront me and force me to answer your scary questions.Ok, so the last part was me being sarcastic, since I find their objections to be very silly. But I am serious about the request to reopen it for a time or length of your choosing.Do I have permission to temporarily suspend your 300 limit rule?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

You should get an admin warning for that.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Instead of being a sarcastic ass, it would have been sufficient for you to say "hrm, I guess you're right, there's the appearance of malfeasance there. I probably should have either refrained from posting or given others a chance to have the last word, if they wanted, or better yet, allowed another moderator to have closed the thread."With all the power you guys have around here I find it incomprehensible how tone-deaf some of you tend to be about using it. Mod power isn't an excuse to do whatever you want, NJ. It's a tool you use to meet your obligation to manage the board. Maybe instead of finding serious concerns silly, you could try to see the merit in them. We're not asking you to do anything but recognize that your actions had the appearance of malfeasance. Your insistence that no dirty dealings were intended doesn't change that appearance. Better for you to simply admit fault and pledge to do better next time, than to salve your wounded pride with sarcastic jibes. Does the concept of professional behavior mean nothing to you?

Sure thing.Nemesis Juggernaut, your tone, which appears to me to be jocular and playful, could be construed as condescending by people with sensitive feelings.One more outburst and your posting privilege's will be suspended.This is an official warning.

Oh, God.And now we see how moderators always respond to constructive criticism around here - ridicule, sarcastic denials, and general jackassery.When you guys have the power, and we have none, it's important for you to take these things seriously. Why is that so hard to grasp, NJ? Why is it so hard for you to treat criticism seriously? Why do you find the discussion of a potential misuse of power appropriate for playing the fool?Why is "I'm sorry and I'll do better next time" an impossible phrase for you to write?

Hi, Nem. As a college teacher, professional ethics are very important in my business. One of the main reasons we have for some of the rules aren't necessarily because the actions themselves are harmful, but because they prevent actions that can give the impression of favoritism or unfairness or otherwise prevent a productive relationship between the teacher and the student. The purpose of professional ethics isn't only to prevent harm to the public, it is also to assure the public that the confidence that they place in our profession is warranted. I assume that the same is true in law, medicine, law enforcement, and others.So I think that, as moderator, you not only have an obligation not only to be fair, but also to avoid decisions that are likely to appear to others to be unfair. I don't think that your actions themselves were unfair as much as it could very well give even a reasonable person the impression that you were unfair.

The real problem, I suspect, Crash, is that you have a general aversion to any authority, no matter how innocuous a ruling may in fact be.I can only imagine that its because you only know what its like to be inside of your mind. You have proven that you are incapable of objective thinking and will stoop to any level to get the last word, or will weasel in any way to make your own case look pretty.For someone that has been here as long as you, with over 15 billion posts, and no one has ever offered such a position to you is the surest way to know that no one trusts you. Even those of your own ilk find you objectionable. When are you going to stop alienating people? If I thought I had something to be sorry for, I would apologize.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Oh, that's it NJ!!! You're outta here!

Of course I'm averse to authority. Those in authority are invariably human, and authority tends to empower a human's worst impulses far more than their best virtues.Why wouldn't a reasonable person be averse to authority?Also - why is your immediate response to criticism about your moderation efforts personal attacks against those who dare question you? See what I mean? Why the personal attacks? Why is it so hard for you to say "I can see how what I did might be construed as improper; next time I'll avoid even the appearance of impropriety"? What makes you think it's never been offered? And what's the relevance of whether or not I'm an admin? Do I have to be one, to offer a perspective on how people perceive your actions?I'm not even the one who brought it up, remember? Kuresu did, and your first response was to call him a drug-addled paranoid delusional. Why the personal attacks, NJ? Why not simply admit and apologize for the appearance of impropriety he objected to? Why not apologize for the appearance of impropriety? When it became obvious that three people, including the guy who runs the board thought that conduct was a mistake, why not apologize for the mistake?

Why suspend NJ, when clearly AdminNem was the one who's conduct was improper?

I hope that your, uh, suspension is a joke (it is kind of funny) and not a way of telling us that you're leaving for good.

I think its Nems way of telling us that he would never impose authority on anyone without first accepting the same absolute standard for himself. (Plus it gives him an opportunity to bow out of this argument gracefully! )

Would this logic not apply to ourselves as well? If we convince ourselves that our arguments are ironclad and not open to question, might it be that we become our own authority and thus potentially close minded?(I know that many absolutist Popes were this way. )

Do you wish the thread to be reopened?