Juliann's Latest post about me on MAD

Post by **_harmony** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:31 pm

"went through committee"? I would like to know more about this. Can you tell us some more details? For example, which posters were you "pressured" to ban? Who did this committee consist of, and what do you think was likely said leading up to my queueing/banning? A final thing: I often felt that I was essentially being "followed" by Nomos on FAIR, so I'm not so sure if this truly was a "committee decision." Rather, I think that Dadof7 is just a hypocrite who wanted to boot a critic he didn't like.

I didn't see him that way. I'm sure there are those who actually like some of the more active posters on MAD (DCP, Pahoran, Juliann, Nighthawke, Jan, etc), but I can't in all honesty say I'm a fan of any of them anymore. I think we all do things that are out of character occasionally, and mod power allows for a nice big bang when we get all pissy about something. I'm not usually as ornery as I've been the last couple of days, but if someone only read my posts from this past week, they'd think I was world-class ornery. My real life washes over into my posts, and sometimes that results in prickly posts. Maybe Dadof7 was just having a bad day/week, like mine's been, and that's when you popped up on his radar, Scratch. I know what it's like to be shadowed (Juliann did it all the time), and your every word monitored (and people wonder why I put on the Pickle suit). But I think there's more to Dadof7 than his mod sockpuppet.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:13 pm

harmony wrote:I didn't see him that way. I'm sure there are those who actually like some of the more active posters on MAD (DCP, Pahoran, Juliann, Nighthawke, Jan, etc), but I can't in all honesty say I'm a fan of any of them anymore. I think we all do things that are out of character occasionally, and mod power allows for a nice big bang when we get all pissy about something. I'm not usually as ornery as I've been the last couple of days, but if someone only read my posts from this past week, they'd think I was world-class ornery. My real life washes over into my posts, and sometimes that results in prickly posts. Maybe Dadof7 was just having a bad day/week, like mine's been, and that's when you popped up on his radar, Scratch. I know what it's like to be shadowed (Juliann did it all the time), and your every word monitored (and people wonder why I put on the Pickle suit). But I think there's more to Dadof7 than his mod sockpuppet.

Agreed. :)

And, Harmony, for what it's worth, I hope you week goes better. :)

This week is going to suck for me because I'm holding inclement weather make-up classes, and starting to work on end of term paperwork. Posters beware. LOL

Post by **_moksha** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:55 am

liz3564 wrote: Dadof7 really is basically a good guy. You have to understand that when we were banning folks, it literally went through committee. Although I wasn't a Mod yet, when you were banned. judging by the pressure certain "underling" Mods were placed under to ban folks, I'm not surprised he took that type of action.

Could you walk us through this committee and elaborate on this pressure a bit more? Inquiring minds want to know.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:11 am

I firmly believe I was banned (back when I first started posting and was banned, If I recall correctly, July 4, along with TD) due to Juliann's insistence that the head honcho (whose name I no longer remember) override the consensus of the other mods.

I complained on the thread due to Juliann's repeated violation of the "ask and answer" rule, as well as her personal snide behavior towards me, which she began the minute I started posting there. (she called me a liar and and plagiarizer repeatedly on my first thread, without the slightest justification.. mods came after her and deleted her comments, as well as me quoting those same comments) At the same time, Juliann complained about me. There was no action taken other than a caution to remain civil towards all parties. Then, suddenly, head honcho swooped in and stated he was making an executive decision and banning me for "uncooperative" behavior. I have zero doubts he swooped in to please Juliann, who probably didn't like the mods' decision to leave me alone.

Yes, it is very easy for moderators to pressure one another. It is a very difficult and subjective job, and sometimes certain mods have stronger opinions than others. I think the fact that Juliann was one of the founders and a financial backer makes displeasing her difficult. She has one of the most snide and ridiculously arrogant internet personalities I've ever seen. Z posters consistently complained about her behavior, and she didn't like it when she was dinged, unlike Pahoran who would just take it like a big boy. Even more ironic, she deliberately began "posting under the radar" (ie, being rude to posters while not "openly" violating Z's rules) and yet she has the nerve to state that it was CRITICS posting under the radar that ruined Z. I long suspected she deliberately tried to cause enough problems at Z to shut the place down, when she became displeased over her dings.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:32 am

head honcho swooped in and stated he was making an executive decision and banning me for "uncooperative" behavior.

Scott Gordon? Or someone else?

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:21 am

Yes, it was Scott Gordon.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:00 am

liz3564 wrote:. . . judging by the pressure certain "underling" Mods were placed under to ban folks, I'm not surprised he took that type of action.

Did anyone else catch this?

Why, oh why was there any pressure placed on "underling" moderators at all? Why didn't the "overling" mods just skip the middleman and do the bannings themselves?

I think we were just given a pearl of insight: Specifically, I think it shows that there is a triple layer of anonymity for the FAIR mods! First, we all know that they mostly post under pseudonyms or quasi-pseudonyms to begin with. For example, "Dadof7" isn't his real name, of course. Second, they each have "sock-puppet" moderator names, so their "real" usernames get to escape accountability for their actions. And now, third, we learn that they pressure the underling moderators to do the dirty work of certain bannings, so if one banning or other should prove unpopular, they can continue to look good (since the subordinate was the "bad guy").

Liz, does this sound about right?

Everyone else, is there a better explanation for overling mods pressuring underling mods other than the one I just gave above? 'Cause if there is, I'm not seeing it.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:18 pm

Dr. Shades wrote:
liz3564 wrote:. . . judging by the pressure certain "underling" Mods were placed under to ban folks, I'm not surprised he took that type of action.

Did anyone else catch this?

Why, oh why was there any pressure placed on "underling" moderators at all? Why didn't the "overling" mods just skip the middleman and do the bannings themselves?

I think we were just given a pearl of insight: Specifically, I think it shows that there is a triple layer of anonymity for the FAIR mods! First, we all know that they mostly post under pseudonyms or quasi-pseudonyms to begin with. For example, "Dadof7" isn't his real name, of course. Second, they each have "sock-puppet" moderator names, so their "real" usernames get to escape accountability for their actions. And now, third, we learn that they pressure the underling moderators to do the dirty work of certain bannings, so if one banning or other should prove unpopular, they can continue to look good (since the subordinate was the "bad guy").

Liz, does this sound about right?

Everyone else, is there a better explanation for overling mods pressuring underling mods other than the one I just gave above? 'Cause if there is, I'm not seeing it.

You basically have the right idea, Shades. One thing I would add, and that is that if one of the more "senior" Mods wanted to ban someone, they didn't have a problem with doing it. Basically, it was just a matter of who hit the button on the computer first. ;)

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:53 pm

liz3564 wrote:You basically have the right idea, Shades. One thing I would add, and that is that if one of the more "senior" Mods wanted to ban someone, they didn't have a problem with doing it. Basically, it was just a matter of who hit the button on the computer first. ;)

Now I'm even more confused than before. If it was only a matter of who hit the button on the computer first, why all the needless fuss to put pressure on junior moderators? Wouldn't one get around to the button-pushing phase much, much quicker without wasting so much time pressuring underlings?

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:56 pm

Dr. Shades wrote:
liz3564 wrote:You basically have the right idea, Shades. One thing I would add, and that is that if one of the more "senior" Mods wanted to ban someone, they didn't have a problem with doing it. Basically, it was just a matter of who hit the button on the computer first. ;)

Now I'm even more confused than before. If it was only a matter of who hit the button on the computer first, why all the needless fuss to put pressure on junior moderators? Wouldn't one get around to the button-pushing phase much, much quicker without wasting so much time pressuring underlings?

Ahh...but you forget....we're dealing with Mormons here.....the kings and queens of "calling meetings to have meetings". ;)

We had to justify our actions. They were discussed...hashed and re-hashed....and if a senior Mod did the actual "clicking of the button" to ban someone, they took painstaking lengths to "educate" the junior Mod on the error of their ways in not performing the action, and why it was done.

:)