Re: Moderation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 16, 2015
- 5393 views
Lets sign a peace treaty and start fresh, ok?
I feel this is the most important aspect of your reply. I am completely willing to do this.
I hate getting in the middle of this, but i must,
I've said before that I was willing to compromise. It appears Kat isn't, at least not directly, but if a middleman can help accomplish that, then I'm all for it.
Well, i can see "someone's" post was deleted again. I happen to know exactly what she said this time.
that appear one-sided because you have deleted the "offending party's" ability to defend themselves while you appear to be fair and just. It's just your word against hers.
Yes, so does anyone else who might be interested. Deleted posts are publicly visible. So are all edits made to posts. This system is designed to be transparent, so that not only other moderators but the general public can review what happened and judge the original moderator.
because "someone" is not just some random spammer or troll that needs to be silenced. She is part of the Euphoria community, and has been longer than many of us, and even though she has said things in the past that you felt needed to be moderated, she does have valuable ideas and contributions to this community.
Agreed. I therefore point out that the current system was a compromise designed to allow Kat to express her valuable ideas and contributions while simply filtering out things which may be inappropriate. There are many forums and blogs which require moderator approval of ALL comments before they become visible... this is just another version of that.
Other users of this forum (such as Critic) have been banned for less.
This needs to stop. So, this is what i suggest for both of you.
- useless - I suggest you stop using "useless" as a name on this forum, because that says you are already assuming anything you say should just be ignored or deleted. With that kind of attitude and image, you might as well not post anything. Instead, please use your original nick - kat, eukat, or katsmeow. With that name, also bring a new attitude and new image of yourself - don't say anything out of negative emotions. Punch a wall or cuss at jimcbrown or smash a keyboard or whatever you need to do to vent, but don't type it on this forum. You have valuable things to say that are relevant to Euphoria, so please moderate yourself.
- jimcbrown - You know you have the power to do anything to this forum as an admin, and you can delete or edit posts. But you also have the ability to be diplomatic to resolve problems before they degrade into flame wars But in the present, i suggest you remove the ban/wait for moderation from kat/eukat/katsmeow. Leaving the ban on "useless" is reasonable, because nobody wants to hear what "useless" has to say. But I would like to hear what "Kat" has to say.
Lets sign a peace treaty and start fresh, ok?
Agreed. I'll be happy to abide by the terms you have laid out if Kat does as well and follows the CodeOfConduct (and since it's a fresh start, any violations will be followed up by the gradual scale used for newbies - moderator warnings on the forum, private emails, and so on).
Technically, only two of the usernames that I know of that Kat has used are under extended moderation (not banned, mind you, just moderated): useless_ and john1988. In fact, the user account useless and an even older one (it was either Kat or katsmeow) remain wholely unmoderated.
If Kat wants to start fresh with another new user account, that's also perfectly acceptable.
Was it a "personal attack"? I suppose, but it was only against the one doing the moderation.
Whatever happened in the past, we can't do anything about that.
Imagine this. A police officer pulls you over for speeding and gives you a ticket. Is that something personal? I'd think not - the officer is just doing their job.
Now imagine that you attempt to fight back by swearing at the officer, insulting that person's ancestry, etc etc. Does it become personal at this point? I'd say yes, but only because you made it so.
Now imagine that you tried to claim that all this happened because of a personal dislike the officer took to you. In my view, such a claim is patently false.
One can take this further. Imagine this was taken as a valid defense. Now imagine that you were able to somehow arrange for such an incident to occur with every police officer in the world. Now what? Every police officer now has a 'personal' problem with you, so none of them can enforce the law against you.
You've now made yourself immune to all of law enforcement. You can do anything you want, entirely unrestrained.
Do you see the problem here?
