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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > Heavy sigh. Deep sense of loss. >> > >> > > > > On Sep 19, 1:42 am, Vam <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> > > > > > > > <[email protected]> >> > > 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 <[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 - >
