General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0

From your recent post:

And you are not a moderator molbiogirl, which means you don't have the luxury to post correcting someone else without also moving the discussion forward. His cut and paste wasn't that lengthy and he doesn't make a habit of it as some do. Please refrain from conversational posts this close to the end of the thread.

1. I did not say that Buz used a lengthy cut and paste. Rule 6 states: "... in your own words". Buz added nothing.

2. The post was not conversational. I admonished Buz for his unceremonious dump of nothing but a cut and paste. And I moved the discussion forward (I pointed to the error of his assumption that a modern cell is equivalent to a proto-cell).

In my opinion, you have yet again taken the opportunity to advance a personal agenda as a moderator (and it's not just with me -- you've done this with other participants as well).

I disagree, so please refrain from similar style of posting in that thread.

quote:

---

In my opinion, you have yet again taken the opportunity to advance a personal agenda as a moderator (and it's not just with me -- you've done this with other participants as well).

---

What personal agenda? If you're going to make accusations, please substantiate them.

I disagree, so please refrain from similar style of posting in that thread.

As I assumed you would. However, Percy said that Buz didn't add anything to the CnP either, so I am not alone in my assessment of the situation.

What personal agenda? If you're going to make accusations, please substantiate them.

I (and others) have done so in the past, to no avail.

Since you won't cop to your bias, I see no reason to repeat the exercise.

quote:

---

As I assumed you would. However, Percy said that Buz didn't add anything to the CnP either, so I am not alone in my assessment of the situation.

---

This isn't about your assessment of the situation. As a moderator, I don't consider Buz's post to be a violation of Rule #6. As a moderator, I asked that you refrain from using posts to chastise and not move the discussion forward.

A reminder that Rule #1 states: Follow all moderator requests.

Nothing in my admin action stops you from presenting your side of the argument concerning the topic.

quote:

---

I (and others) have done so in the past, to no avail.

Since you won't cop to your bias, I see no reason to repeat the exercise.

---

That is the oldest trick in the book. You have made an accusation, please support it.

What personal bias am I promoting while in Admin mode?

As you wish.

...and he doesn't make a habit of it as some do.

What does this mean?

Nator Message 169 writes: Might you be inappropriately using your Admin status to lean on me, perhaps because you are resentful of what happened to you in the Misunderstanding Empiricism thread?

Rrhain Message 121 writes: She asked a question as to what I think she should have done ... Question: Is it possible for an administrator to overreach? Yes or no. If so, then yes, there will be times when an administrator should keep his or her nose out of it.

Were I to continue the search in previous versions of the Moderation thread, I have no doubt I would find more.

That you have never copped to bias is no surprise.

That you are accused of it repeatedly is telling.

MBG,

You brought your grievance to the Mod forum, which is great, in search of an answer.

You've been answered. Whether or not the verdict was to your liking is now immaterial at this point. I also happen to agree with AdminPD. While I'm sure you'll just throw out the "bias" card, it would be well with you to know that you are in no position to talk about personal bias or critique others on lengthy copy and pastes.

Instead of hounding AdminPD and accusing her of bias when things don't go exactly the way you'd hoped, wait around until more Admins give their opinion. You might find one or two that agree with you.

Please provide links.

So concerning nator's Message 169, you don't feel that I made the reasons for my decision clear from Message 171 on? What personal agenda was I promoting in that decision? Again, my admin action did not stop nator or anyone else from presenting their position concerning the topic.

Rrhain's Message 121 has nothing to do with promoting my own personal agenda as an admin.

Since we also participate in debates, admins will have to moderate those who have been our opposition at some point.

As I said earlier, nator was not stopped from arguing her position concerning the topic. She was asked to stop harassing another member per rule #10 at the time. I very clearly outlined why I felt it was harassment.

Rrhain was displeased with my attempt to break a repetitious cycle before it devolved into more personal and less topic. He did not insinuate that I was promoting a personal agenda.

If you read the discussions completely, I think you find that nator did not continue to push the idea that I was retaliating and Rrhain didn't insinuate that I was pushing a personal agenda.

So if you feel I am pushing a personal agenda, please explain what personal agenda I'm pushing. Your examples did not show anything except people displeased with an admin action. All admins who actively moderate have them.

If you read the discussions completely, I think you find that nator did not continue to push the idea that I was retaliating and Rrhain didn't insinuate that I was pushing a personal agenda.

The fact that Nator and Rrhain chose to stop beating a dead horse is no surprise.

You won't cop to it. Period. As I said before, it is a pointless exercise.

You are in denial.

So if you feel I am pushing a personal agenda, please explain what personal agenda I'm pushing.

You seem to moderate piddly non issues with people you have strong disagreements with.

Your examples did not show anything except people displeased with an admin action. All admins who actively moderate have them.

Yet, some moderators have the grace and humility to admit it when they are wrong. Moose, for example.

Oh quit whining. You sound just like Buz.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

You've been answered. Whether or not the verdict was to your liking is now immaterial at this point.

PD specifically asked me to support my contention that she is biased. I did so.

While I'm sure you'll just throw out the "bias" card, it would be well with you to know that you are in no position to talk about personal bias...

I am not a moderator. I can exhibit whatever bias I wish.

... or critique others on lengthy copy and pastes.

Unlike some, I provide support for my assertions.

And I have been specifically asked by other participants to provide LENGTHIER cites (Jaderis, for example).

When you (or Buz), as a participant in a thread, accused me of "lengthy CnPs", I showed you in no uncertain terms that my cites were no more than 3 sentences long in that thread.

When you (or Buz), as a participant in a thread, accused me of "not using my own words" to support my position, I pointed out that I had used an average of 128 words per post to buttress my assertions in that thread.

When you (or Buz ... it's so hard to keep differentiate between the 2 of you), as a participant in a thread, accused me of "posting bare links", I pointed out that I have not posted nothing but an URL. Ever.

Oh quit whining. You sound just like Buz.

You got me there, Jar.

Still. Nator and Rrhain both feel the same way.

quote:

---

If you read the discussions completely, I think you find that nator did not continue to push the idea that I was retaliating and Rrhain didn't insinuate that I was pushing a personal agenda.

---

Er, so what if I didn't push?

I certainly didn't retract, did I?

My assesment of your moderation at that time is unchanged.

Is still think it was payback, regardless of if I let it go at the time.

I think it is hilarious that you are constantly encouraging people to "let go" of issues such as this, yet here you are, trying to bolster your position by implying that the reason I stopped "pushing the issue" was because I didn't think I was justified. I didn't "keep pushing" because I very much think you would have have suspended me.

I was justified, PD, but I was already too familiar with your startlingly inexhaustable ability to avoid addressing arguments to wish to experience the "Purpledawn Runaround" yet again.

There wasn't enough Dramamine in the world for me to want to do that particular dance again at that moment.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Nator and Rrhain both feel the same way.

Lots of folk whine.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

I have no problem admitting when I screw up. I have done it before.

You have not shown that Rrhain's complaint expressed any problem with me pushing a personal agenda. I don't usually debate with Rrhain, so that kills your strong disagreement theory.

I don't consider harassment or rising anger piddly.

You have a habit of playing moderator. Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong, but you only seem to do it to the opposition. Moderators don't have that luxury. You also have difficulty following moderator requests. I don't consider that piddly.

Why do you refuse to following requests from me?

You don't like it when others don't follow the moderators request. Try setting an example and not just quoting the rules.

You have a habit of playing moderator.

Gently reminding creos of Forum guidelines is a habit shared by many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Off the top of my head: Percy, CK, Dr. A, RAZD. Were I to do a thorough search, that list would be much longer.

Why do you refuse to following requests from me?

Cites.