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 <gabbydott@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 <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