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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 16, 1:31 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 -
