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 <mollyb363@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 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