And, it goes to the credit of this Group, that has made such a
connectivity transparent. It's unique, perhaps historical for an
internet forum... thanks to Craig, Chris, Ian and scores of members I
recall.
The thought that OM might be ill becoz of the inner turmoil he has had
to face is distressing. Hence my post : Come on OM. You can do it.
1 Select a Moderator group and invite them, regardless of whether
they will agree or not, or even if they agree to fill in temporarily.
2 Resolve this matter of Allan, in the light of truth, not what you
subjectively feel or not.
Clue : Banning someone is like murder. It's a crime against
humanity, except when humanity studiedly calls for it.
3 Resume your rightful place in this collective continuity... called
the Mind's Eye.
On Sep 21, 9:05 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe everyone's run away to Google+ and started a circle and we are
> left behind for one reason or another.
>
> Well, I hope this fracas has not made ornamentalmind ill or
> something!!! (In the same light, you would not believe how many people
> have recently said they are so sick of the political battles they
> simply refuse to watch, listen or read about them anymore- soon, they
> not bother to vote!)
>
> On Sep 21, 9:39 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some members have asked for transparency in the moderation process, so
> > who is going to judge ? I propose your name for that post , Gabby , I
> > hope you do not mind. After all members at large cannot sit in
> > judgement , it is nowhere done that way , so we would certainly need a
> > judge. But what about our moderator ? We haven't heard from him for a
> > long time , if he relinquishes his post we would be in for difficult
> > times as there is only one volunteer and nobody has taken interest in
> > him.
>
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:09 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "So, ask yourselves. What group are you looking for, and how can it be
> > > achieved? Then take responsibility for getting it there. Nobody is
> > > off the hook."
> > > What's wrong with the group that I need to be wanting to look for one? What
> > > do we need a hook for? We are talking different worlds, Molly.
>
> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Chris made his exit without confirming a mode of moderation which led
> > >> to the confusion to date. How this group moderates is not up to one
> > >> or two people who occasionally ask others to behave or apply the
> > >> rules. With no clear means of self governing, what will emerge from
> > >> the group to provide cohesion and perpetuity? So far all I see is
> > >> accusation and withdrawl. Neither provide the direction needed. Two
> > >> people with moderator rights who do not communicate with each other is
> > >> not sufficient either. But those two people are not how we got here.
> > >> We got here because the group could not agree on a form of self
> > >> government when Chris was asking for a decision, so he left without
> > >> getting one.
>
> > >> So here is what we have. I am not going to argue with Orn about how
> > >> to moderate. We have two very different styles. Apparently he is not
> > >> interested in communicating with me because I have not heard from him
> > >> on the matter of Allan.
>
> > >> Neither am I interested in continually admonishing folks who are here
> > >> for the thrill of disrespecting others and cannot control their own
> > >> impulses. That is not the group I am looking for. And if the group
> > >> members are looking for authority figures to argue with when the rules
> > >> are applied, you will not find anyone willing to step up and volunteer
> > >> to become moderators.
>
> > >> So, ask yourselves. What group are you looking for, and how can it be
> > >> achieved? Then take responsibility for getting it there. Nobody is
> > >> off the hook.
>
> > >> To continue to ignore the problem will mean its eventual demise.
> > >> Things will quiet down for awhile. Folks will be nice to each other.
> > >> And then it will come up again. And again.
>
> > >> On Sep 20, 12:07 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > A pissing match? Never done that, but ok, if you say so ...
>
> > >> > The moderation issue was being made an issue by Chris, who wanted to
> > >> > officially resign from the moderation job. Then there was a sort of
> > >> > discussion during which several people said they wouldn't do the job and
> > >> > several people who said they would do the job. That is all I know. In
> > >> > fact,
> > >> > I've assumed that you, Orn and Chris still hold the moderation rights in
> > >> > order to secure the group and wait for a worthy successor.
>
> > >> > No shit, Molly. Lack of transparency and communication on your side is
> > >> > what
> > >> > I see.
>
> > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > Always in favor of a pissing match Gabby? The issue before the group
> > >> > > now is one that was avoided when Chris announced his exit. How is
> > >> > > this self determined group to self govern? As much as some would like
> > >> > > to continue to spew and point fingers, that may very well be the
> > >> > > reason no one feels up to the challenge of becoming moderator. Your
> > >> > > MO is to rail against authority. The point here is, as a group,
> > >> > > either we all take responsibility for our own actions and the way
> > >> > > moderators and other members are treated, or the group falls apart.
> > >> > > Your last post is somewhat of a confirmation of the latter.
>
> > >> > > On Sep 19, 11:01 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > I'd prefer Orn to speak for himself. Besides, why don't you, Molly,
> > >> > > > just press the button to unban Allan from eternal damnation?
>
> > >> > > > On Sep 19, 12:59 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > Heavy sigh. Deep sense of loss.
>
> > >> > > > > On Sep 19, 1:42 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > OM, seems the members have left the Group to yourself.
>
> > >> > > > > > As I'd said... it is you who is on trial when you reduce as
> > >> > > > > > serious
> > >> > > > > > matter as a decision to ban to a personal " This is between
> > >> > > > > > Allan and
> > >> > > > > > me." !
>
> > >> > > > > > No, Sir, it is not. The members and their perception matters.
> > >> > > > > > Transparency, fairness and proportion matter.
>
> > >> > > > > > On Sep 16, 9:56 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > Vam, you don't like it. I get that. This is between Allan and
> > >> > > > > > > me.
> > >> > > He
> > >> > > > > > > is banned from this group.
>
> > >> > > > > > > On Sep 16, 9:52 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > > What are the specifics ?
>
> > >> > > > > > > > Which are the hyperbole ?
>
> > >> > > > > > > > Allan, my friend ? I do not even know him well.
>
> > >> > > > > > > > Loyalty ? What's loyalty got to do with this ?
>
> > >> > > > > > > > You've taken a decision, where you were on trial ! Remember
> > >> > > > > > > > that.
>
> > >> > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 9:48 pm, ornamentalmind
> > >> > > > > > > > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > > > Vam, your hyperbole is laudable especially when coming to
> > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > aid of a
> > >> > > > > > > > > friend who is perceived to have been wronged. Loyalty has
> > >> > > > > > > > > its
> > >> > > place.
> > >> > > > > > > > > The specifics in this case fly against your stance though.
>
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:57 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 1:31 am, ornamentalmind <
> > >> > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário