Campaign to Reinstate Jersey as a Mod

[_Mercury]

since Jersey has come right out and said that there are four posters that she refuses to moderate since she can't remain objective around them

Excuse me, Shades. No I didn't say that I refused to moderate 4 posters because I couldn't "remain objective around them". I stated on this board numerous times that I wouldn't moderate them in order to avoid the appearance of possible bias on my part.

Would you like me to go through the list of 4 posters and state why? I've already done it publicly for the first three.

1. marg and JAK: Because people know we were affiliated on another board for years and might possibly think I'd show favor to them.

2. Kevin: Because he engaged with marg and JAK.

3. Scratch: Because I didn't care to moderate him.

Does that help?

I'm curious about what all of this means. I had been led to understand that Jersey had been put through some sort of "vetting" process. Does her commentary here mean that she lied to Shades in some way? I mean, a "clone of Shades" would have no problem moderating these three people.... Right? I am just weirded out by the fact that a supposedly "fair-minded" moderator would totally refuse to moderate four specific individuals. Jersey's secret decision to "recuse" herself is completely mind-blowing to me.

What "secret" decision are you talking about Scratch? The four posters? I named them publicly right on this board except for you. The reasons for those are stated clearly in the above paragraph that you're responding to.

Were these names stated recently or when you chose to recuse yourself from moderating these four individuals?

[_Jersey Girl]

since Jersey has come right out and said that there are four posters that she refuses to moderate since she can't remain objective around them

Excuse me, Shades. No I didn't say that I refused to moderate 4 posters because I couldn't "remain objective around them". I stated on this board numerous times that I wouldn't moderate them in order to avoid the appearance of possible bias on my part.

Would you like me to go through the list of 4 posters and state why? I've already done it publicly for the first three.

1. marg and JAK: Because people know we were affiliated on another board for years and might possibly think I'd show favor to them.

2. Kevin: Because he engaged with marg and JAK.

3. Scratch: Because I didn't care to moderate him.

Does that help?

I'm curious about what all of this means. I had been led to understand that Jersey had been put through some sort of "vetting" process. Does her commentary here mean that she lied to Shades in some way? I mean, a "clone of Shades" would have no problem moderating these three people.... Right? I am just weirded out by the fact that a supposedly "fair-minded" moderator would totally refuse to moderate four specific individuals. Jersey's secret decision to "recuse" herself is completely mind-blowing to me.

What "secret" decision are you talking about Scratch? The four posters? I named them publicly right on this board except for you. The reasons for those are stated clearly in the above paragraph that you're responding to.

Were these names stated recently or when you chose to recuse yourself from moderating these four individuals?

They were stated in previous exchanges on this board along with the additional personal policies stated on this thread.

[_Mister Scratch]

since Jersey has come right out and said that there are four posters that she refuses to moderate since she can't remain objective around them

Excuse me, Shades. No I didn't say that I refused to moderate 4 posters because I couldn't "remain objective around them". I stated on this board numerous times that I wouldn't moderate them in order to avoid the appearance of possible bias on my part.

Would you like me to go through the list of 4 posters and state why? I've already done it publicly for the first three.

1. marg and JAK: Because people know we were affiliated on another board for years and might possibly think I'd show favor to them.

2. Kevin: Because he engaged with marg and JAK.

3. Scratch: Because I didn't care to moderate him.

Does that help?

I'm curious about what all of this means. I had been led to understand that Jersey had been put through some sort of "vetting" process. Does her commentary here mean that she lied to Shades in some way? I mean, a "clone of Shades" would have no problem moderating these three people.... Right? I am just weirded out by the fact that a supposedly "fair-minded" moderator would totally refuse to moderate four specific individuals. Jersey's secret decision to "recuse" herself is completely mind-blowing to me.

What "secret" decision are you talking about Scratch? The four posters? I named them publicly right on this board except for you. The reasons for those are stated clearly in the above paragraph that you're responding to.

Please forgive me for being confused.... You carried on as a moderator, despite not publicly announcing that you would not moderate certain posters. Is that correct? Yes or no?

Further, you claim that you "didn't care" to moderate *my* posts, despite the fact that you mention me TWICE in your "moderator actions" list above. What is the deal with that?

You know, Jersey, I supported your initial appointment as moderator, albeit with some skepticism. In watching your latest outburst, however, I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Shades is %100 percent right about you: you are a loose cannon and a nutjob who cannot be trusted to render fair moderator decisions. You were apparently keeping a lot of secrets about your biases when you applied for the moderator position. It seems to me that Dr. Shades was very generous to allow you into the position in the first place.

[_Mister Scratch]

They were stated in previous exchanges on this board along with the additional personal policies stated on this thread.

Where? Please feel free to cite them. I, for one, will be patiently waiting for you to enlighten me. I have to say: it is astonishing for me to learn that a moderator was secretly harboring biases. Why you bothered to volunteer as a moderator, despite these obvious problems, is a complete mystery.

[_Jersey Girl]

They were stated in previous exchanges on this board along with the additional personal policies stated on this thread.

Where? Please feel free to cite them. I, for one, will be patiently waiting for you to enlighten me. I have to say: it is astonishing for me to learn that a moderator was secretly harboring biases. Why you bothered to volunteer as a moderator, despite these obvious problems, is a complete mystery.

What's astonishing, Scratch, is how you twist and distort the comments that I've made here to read "secretly harboring biases" when I said nothing of the kind. I stated that I didn't moderate three specific posters in order to avoid the appearance of possible bias on my part.

Do you think that moderators should invite situations that could give the appearance of possible bias on their part?

[_Dr. Shades]

I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Shades is %100 percent right about you: you are a loose cannon and a nutjob who cannot be trusted to render fair moderator decisions.

Let's be totally clear on this: The above is what others were saying, not what I was saying.

[_Jersey Girl]

Please forgive me for being confused.... You carried on as a moderator, despite not publicly announcing that you would not moderate certain posters. Is that correct? Yes or no?

There are no provisions for moderators "publicly announcing" that they will or will not moderate specific posters in order to avoid the appearance of possible bias on their part. For example, I also didn't moderate threads where I was heavily involved in topical discussion. If I saw something questionable on a thread such as that, I handed it off to Shades to handle it in whatever way he wished.

Further, you claim that you "didn't care" to moderate *my* posts, despite the fact that you mention me TWICE in your "moderator actions" list above. What is the deal with that?

I mentioned you because your comments were in opposition my pulling an image posted by Infymus that Shades had already pulled himself and in which I stated I had received no instructions from Shades changing his decision on the original delete and for which, there was no resolution regarding that. In other words, you involved yourself in an unsettled and outstanding dispute.

You know, Jersey, I supported your initial appointment as moderator, albeit with some skepticism. In watching your latest outburst, however, I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Shades is %100 percent right about you: you are a loose cannon and a nutjob who cannot be trusted to render fair moderator decisions.

What outbursts? Further, I see nowhere on this thread or any other thread where Dr. Shades has referred to me as a "loose cannon and a nut job who cannot be trusted to render fair moderator decisions." Do you? He infact, has stated that I didn't fail to support/implement his policies or erred in my judgement as a moderator.

You were apparently keeping a lot of secrets about your biases when you applied for the moderator position. It seems to me that Dr. Shades was very generous to allow you into the position in the first place.

Keeping secrets? As a moderator I was fully transparent on this board. Any generositiy with regards to moderation can be found in the time investment of those who do the job not the "allowing" of it.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Shades is %100 percent right about you: you are a loose cannon and a nutjob who cannot be trusted to render fair moderator decisions.

Let's be totally clear on this: The above is what others were saying, not what I was saying.

Thank you. I addressed the putting of words in your mouth by Scratch in a recent response to him.

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch,

Would you like to run through your "sceptor of censorship" remarks to me on the thread in question (Dork thread) or would you like me to do that? I should have time to do that for you tomorrow.

[_marg]

Shades I don't remember ever pm'ing you to complain about any moderator or mod action. I think most of my complaints if I ever had any, were expressed on the board. If I have pm'd you regarding a mod, let me know on the board, and if you can remember any details to jog my memory ... I'll comment. Otherwise as far as I know I'm not involved in any of this.