--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Once those with a penchant for starting fights > realized it was no longer permissible to do so, > the problem would be solved. > > It takes at least two to fight. I shouldn't have to be > monitoring the chat all day long trying to determine who > has started a fight and getting them to stop. What if I > went on vacation? All hell would break loose.
No need to monitor it "all day long," of course. It doesn't take that much time to read a day's traffic at one sitting. And it might well be possible for you to find others who would help, at least in scanning the posts for possible problems and bringing any such to your attention for a ruling. Once the policy was *established*, you ought to be able to go on vacation with not more than a little hell breaking loose, if that; and one of your assistants might post reminders if any fires appeared to be getting started. If the reminders were ignored, then you could settle with the transgressors once you got back. This isn't rocket science, Rick. It's a pretty thoroughly proven formula for keeping potentially volatile groups under control. The important thing to recognize is that once the policy is *established*--once people see that starting fights is not permissible, as I said-- the number of *attempts* will diminish substantially, so that actually implementing the policy will require much less attention from the moderator team. There's significant effort involved in the beginning, but it should require less and less as time goes on. But as I've noted, you've had an implicit policy of permitting attacks for so long, and so much bad feeling has now built up as a result, that it really is going to take determination and commitment on your part if you want to reverse it. > All you > have to do if you feel someone has started a fight is > ignore them. End of fight. Once again: When you're the target of attacks day after day for years, and those attacks involve patent dishonesty and lack of fairness, it becomes extremely difficult just to ignore them. Readers may or may not be sufficiently well informed to even realize that the accusations are false. Just as an example, Barry claimed yesterday that I've been ignoring the posting limits. That simply *is not factual*. But how many readers here will have simply nodded their heads, assuming that Barry was telling the truth? Similarly with his claims about what's been going on over at TMFree. They aren't true either, but most readers here don't participate over there, so they have no way of knowing that he's telling falsehoods. For that matter, your citing Andrew Skolnick's Web site as "evidence" that I'm the main source of the unpleasantness here is yet another example. I strongly suspect this was a matter of your ignorance rather than a desire to deceive, but it has the same *effect* either way, so I can't just let it go. Referring back to my earlier, longer post, which you've apparently chosen to ignore, many experts attribute the loss of the election by both Gore in 2000--and Kerry in 2004--to the failure of the candidates to adequately respond to falsehoods promoted by the opposition. Obviously I'm not running for office, but the principle is the same. I'm being "Swift- Boated" by folks who don't like me, including even by you. ------------------------------------------------- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I wrote:] > Once those with a penchant for starting fights > realized it was no longer permissible to do so, > the problem would be solved. > > ---Odd, the criminal asking for tougher penalties. > But in a TM world.... > > Judy, do you ever feel as if you might have done or > said something to deserve this seeming retribution, > or are you always the wronged party? Just curious. I don't see why, since you appear to have made up your mind already. But I'll make a couple of points. First of all, I asked Rick some days ago to put both Barry and me on moderation. So yes, I *am* asking for tougher penalties; I just don't think I'm the chief criminal. And no, I already indicated I didn't think I was always the wronged party. But I rarely actually start fights. I have done it every now and then, but usually all I do is respond. If the attacks were stopped, I wouldn't have the need to respond, and I'd be far less motivated to start fights myself, even though I do so rarely anyway. With regard to the charge that I'm the "chief criminal" being promoted here by Rick and Barry and others--as well as, it would seem, yourself-- if I'm *not* the chief criminal, then how could it be that I'm *not* being wronged? What could I have done that would make me deserving of that label if it weren't accurate? *One of* the "criminals" I'll cop to, although my contributions have been mostly in my own defense, in defense of some others, and in defense of TMers and things TM-ish in general when *they've* been attacked. Finally, I've been discussing this mostly in terms of my situation here, because I'm most familiar with it; but I'm not the only one by any means to be the target of attacks by the folks who like to start fights. Three of the targets have already left because they couldn't hack it, so they aren't here to add their perspectives. But I'm not going anywhere. Rick's going to have to throw me off to get rid of me.
