Being too close or over-identifying with the moderation role can have the opposite effect, as we have seen. Has this effect been corrected yet? I haven't seen Allan reentering the fair exchange stage so far.
And please switch off your automatic signature when you are posting here, Chris, you might be taken for a spammer by moderators to come who don't know your history here. On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > *laughing* I think that Gabs was insinuating I was about to re-enter the > moderation fray. As it turns out, that is incorrect. I have completely > removed myself from any form of moderation or ownership. As I mentioned the > last time around, I was far too disconnected from the daily going-ons to be > effective in that role. > > Now it's in the hands of others, and I'm free to pop in from time to time > without dealing with moderation issues...unless, of course, I were to be > banned. :) > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Pat <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 25, 7:39 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Ah, Mr Putin is preparing to reenter the stage light! Voting for a >> natural >> > death is indeed ridiculous in the eternal presence of God. >> > >> >> Putin is Russia's answer to G. H. W. Bush. In other words, he's the >> man behind the puppets. Actually, they're muppets, because the >> strings come from below rather than above!! Nevertheless, Bush Sr. >> and Putin call the shots in their respective countries. The facts >> abour Bush are all laid out in an appendix of my book. The whole >> story of how the power moved from Hoover's FBI to Bush's CIA. It WILL >> stir up trouble, but there's no such thing as bad publicity!! >> >> > If I was in power, I'd learn to see rants as rants against my own power >> > position - is this how you are trying to impress others? Now guess who I >> > think is looking ridiculous. But I promise I won't go into details. Go >> on, >> > my American Hero, clean the group from unwanted, unsupportive, >> unproductive, >> > degenerated elements and get it going to how it used to when you still >> had >> > full control over what was happening here! >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chris Jenkins >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > God I hate banning people. >> > >> > > I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It >> accomplishes >> > > silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity >> (much >> > > like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery). >> > >> > > I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy >> > > hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any >> further >> > > decisions regarding group management. >> > >> > > Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely >> regretful >> > > that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil >> conversation, >> > > and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated >> it at >> > > length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation >> twice >> > > prior to being banned. >> > >> > > Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful >> > > contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe >> important >> > > conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through >> > > Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity >> to >> > > speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a >> fine >> > > education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western >> > > religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space >> and >> > > inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors >> like >> > > that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she >> was >> > > another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me >> feel >> > > lucky to be part of this group. >> > >> > > I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted >> management >> > > questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that >> the lack >> > > of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's >> get it >> > > resolved once and for all. >> > >> > > Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the >> > > group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself. >> :D >> > >> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time. Does the fact >> I'm >> > >> > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord >> me >> > >> > a ban? Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of >> Denmark'. >> > >> > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan. I wonder >> about >> > >> > us if we can't be more tolerant. If Allan did something bad enough >> > >> > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK. >> > >> > >> Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!! I'm all for crediting even >> > >> those who disagreed!! >> > >> > >> > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really >> like >> > >> > > Orn. >> > >> > >> > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > > > This is unacceptable. >> > >> > >> > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here >> under >> > >> these >> > >> > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win? >> > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind < >> > >> [email protected] >> > >> > >> > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed >> about >> > >> you >> > >> > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up. >> > >> > >> > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye. >> > >> > >> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by >> Vam. >> > >> But I am >> > >> > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you. >> > >> > >> > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like >> to >> > >> know. Is he >> > >> > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his >> posts >> > >> been >> > >> > > > > deleted? >> > >> > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help >> us >> > >> increase >> > >> > > > > the >> > >> > > > > > level objectivity. >> > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, 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. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > 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. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the >> > >> task/responsibility >> > >> > > > > > > lightly. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears >> to >> > >> be we are >> > >> > > > > > > not about trials here. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> > >> > > -- >> > > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal. >> > > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> > > > > -- > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal. > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com> > >
