Re: Moderation
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 21, 2015
- 5044 views
I keep looking at this thread, thinking about responding to various specific comments, but so many things have been said that i just can't keep up. So, i will just make a few points:
I think this is a shame, but understandable. I think it would have been quite helpful to know what your specific responses to specific comments would have been.
1. I have been chatting with katsmeow for 10+ years, and although she has her emotional ups and downs and occasionally has blown up and disappeared for months at a time, i don't take it personally, and i have no problem getting along with her, and i enjoy chatting with her about a variety of topics.
I have seen that you have been on the receiving end from katsmeow before, therefore I would rate this statement of yours quite highly. From where I'm standing, you've been in the same position as the moderators and everyone else who has tried to mediate.
Most unfortunately, I feel that it is extremely unrealistic to be able to expect everyone to be able to handle things the way you do. (Conversely, if everyone did handle things the way you do, there's be no need for moderators in the first place!)
More saliently, the peace treaty you wrote was between katsmeow and myself. As you've seen, I'm actually the guy in the middle - the real "combatants" of this "battle" are other individuals ... who happen to be nonsignatories to the peace treaty.
I, without consulation, unilaterally agreed to the peace treaty because I believed that katsmeow's self-moderation, under the terms of your peace treaty, would have been enough pacify the others. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this is truly the case...
I think i know her well enough to realize she isn't a total psycho.
I don't think anyone has alleged that she was.
I am really irritated that some people have taken this opportunity to take another stab at her. Thanks! That helps a lot with the situation. Good job!
We share the same sentiments.
3. We could keep arguing about whether or not kat = john1988,
I feel it's best if such arguments, if they must be had, be done off of the forum.
I don't think it helps to keep arguing about what happened in the past on a public forum,
Agreed. I think this holds true for all participants, including katsmeow herself. Bring up old and invalid arguments from the past to defend herself (such as here: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/126375.wc ) do nothing to help anyone move forward.
but it is difficult to bring up grievances privately because there isn't a system set up for that.
I did in fact set one up, but I was later asked by another admin to make those "private messages" public. I feel the current view is that everything that happens on this forum must be made public. There's virtually no support for a private messaging facility.
I'm glad a solution is now being worked on for talking about matters like this with the admins privately instead of publicly.
Actually, katsmeow had already privatedly emailed several of the admins prior to your coming up with the peace treaty.
We could keep arguing about whether or not kat = john1988, which can't really be proven one way or the other.
I really wanted to respond to this, but based on the terms of the peace treaty, I can't. Speaking of which...
We are already declaring kat to be in violation of the terms of agreement? Wow,
2. I don't see how kat has violated the terms of the peace treaty i wrote out.
Well, let's see what you wrote:
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.
Also, here's what I wrote in response:
Agreed. I'll be happy to abide by the terms you have laid out if Kat does as well and follows the CodeOfConduct
Rather than simply agreeing to the terms, katsmeow actually withheld her agreement on her first post under that account since 2009 and continued to vent on this forum. In doing so she also violated the first rule of the CodeOfConduct : Be respectful.
Do we need to be nit-picking over details?
I think this is normal. Differences in interpretation are bound to come up from time to time, and further agreements will need to be hashed out. That's just how the process works.
can't you cut her some slack, considering she is actually talking about stuff relevant to the topic of this thread?
I already have. I ordered katsmeow to drop a topic, but then others brought it back up on this thread, and I allowed katsmeow to defend herself.
I would consider this thread to be neutral ground.
I do not. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it, but this is the first time that such a suggestion has been made. Also, I'm not sure how this would work. What are the nit-picky terms for neutral ground? Would katsmeow be allowed to ignore the CodeOfConduct when posting on this thread? Would I be released from my agreement to refrain from publicly stating my opinion on the john1988 matter?
I understand that there is a lot to folow and that you don't have enough time to keep up with everything, but I also feel that it is very important for you to speak up where the terms and conditions of the peace treaty itself are concerned. I really do hope you'll have another post addressing at least some of the concerns that both katsmeow and myself have raised over it.
It's really sad that the precious mental resources of the developers have to be wasted on this thread.
Well, maybe you'll feel a little better to realize that it's been kept to a minimum (just myself and ryanj).
Some advice for eukat: just drop that username,
I'm of the view that the relevant name has already been dropped.
register with a new (neutral) username, and you will have a new life on this forum.
Maybe this is not entirely fair. A new identity also means not getting credit for past contributions.
Nobody will discriminate against you
I can't see or deal with everything, but I'll do my best to prevent this from happening to katsmeow regardless. I argue that any form of discrimination is a violation of the CodeOfConduct.
you must quit that revengeful attitude and stop complaining about being discriminated against. Can't you do that?
I support this, but I'm also of the view that simply following the terms of ryanj's peace treaty and obeying the CodeOfConduct should be enough.
And just watch, i answered you in a level tone of voice, i mentioned no names, and i'll bet my answer gets deleted,
The reason it wasn't deleted is because it was too vague to pinpoint a specific violation on.
If the identity of the individual(s) you speak about was clear, and the charges levelled against them were untrue, then deletion would have been an option. Using a level tone of voice and avoiding naming names would have been no protection.
i'll bet ... your question goes unanswered on this forum.
If it helps, I'll offer to cover the losses from this bet.
And i did look in #Euphoria on irc to answer you privately before i posted here.
I wish to point out that you do have the option of posting on this forum to ask to bring the conversation to irc. You also have the option of posting on this forum to bring about an email exchange directly.
Another possiblity would be contacting one of the admins (either on the forum or privately) for assistance in exchanging contact details like email addresses outside of the public view. I'm willing to unilaterally promote ryanj to the level of forum moderator or admin so he can facilitate this for you.
After doing so, a good practice might be to have the OP (in this case GE) write a followup post stating that the exchange had been taken privately and resolved there.
