> Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is not
> democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added to it.
Subjectivity can include emotional instability and rank egotistic
stupidity. But we all work at learning to be on guard against that
because IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR. Especially Moderation of a
Group... with members who are pretty much evolved and conscientious on
their own. This Group has had the hallmarks of such great members...
I wasn't meaning that the Moderation process be " Democratic." But it
certainly needs to be open and transparent.
> gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let me know
> specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it comes to
> individual cases.
Nothing in your judgement, Mr Moderator, can force me to give ' value
' or assign so much ' worth ' to particular posts. I actually do not
give much value to Gabby's posts and actually assign much worth to
them. And I felt it necessary to say as much, when I did.
> Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the task/responsibility
> lightly.
Lightly ? No, OM, I do suggest you take the matter heavily. The
seriousness implies that the Moderator CANNOT be wrong in his
judgement in the context, even if he has to give the offender the
benefit of doubt everytime, all the time. As can be seen, you are in
absolute minority of ONE, from the reactions on this thread. Perhaps,
you need to look at your subjectivity...
> Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears to be we are
> not about trials here.
Then you most definitely are not taking the matter " seriously " at
all. IT IS YOU WHO IS ON TRIAL everytime you have to take a banning
decision !
> On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I believe banning is a serious matter.
>
> > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or done. In the
> > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled : Why so-and-so
> > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules !
>
> > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to respond, and a call
> > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't be difficult.
> > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month.
>
> > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself knew he had gone
> > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining posts. He followed
> > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self admitted/defined)
> > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the result would be.
>
> > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include self
> > > responsibility.
>
> > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems disproportionate,
> > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain gross, as in
> > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such evolved members who
> > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration.
>
> > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on this matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário