Campaign to Reinstate Jersey as a Mod

[_Dr. Shades]

Thing is, this kind of thing is something we'd all expect from MAD and the LDS church, not MDB. That which is hidden is unproductive in an open society.

So if you send me a private message in confidence, I should publish it to the board so everyone can read it?

If Jersey Girl wants to be a mod, let her.

No one gets to be a moderator simply because they want to.

Defrock Jersey? Fine, by all means. But when the response is "I don't want to embarrass Jersey" is given, even after Jersey is open to such explorations one takes pause.

"I don't want to kick Jersey while she's down" is probably the phrase I should've used rather than "I don't want to embarrass Jersey." Sorry for any confusion.

What is a bit disconcerting to me re: what you've posted above is that some (seeming) minority group (apparently) has the power or clout to influence overall policy.

That's always been the case. For example, a minority disliked the "R" word--the one describing the mentally handicapped--being used to slander people. I went ahead and added it to the word censor to please that minority. Why not? It doesn't hurt anybody. I'll probably do such things in the future, too.

From all I have seen of Shades's policies in action, I would have expected him to say something tantamount to, "We'll be sorry to see you go, but you are always welcome here at MDB."

That's what I have said when people have demanded that person X be banned. Not being a moderator does NOT equal being banned from the board. Not being a moderator is NOT a punishment.

One wonders who might have issued the ultimatum? Bust Jersey or I (or we) walk. I personally don't really care who those posters were. The fact that the threat was enough to provoke its intended effect is what I find to be out of character for this board.

I tried to work it out, I tried to find a compromise, but I couldn't make it happen. This was a last resort.

And, as far as I can tell, MDB has no special class (no Pundits, say). But this particular decision seems to have been inspired by a small group of posters with...well, with something that caused their opinion to rule. I say "seems" because I don't know the details. Just my perception.

Which would you prefer: A board administrator who is willing to listen to your opinion in private, even if, say, you're the only one who is concerned with matter X, or would you prefer a board administrator who utterly ignores you until you can present him or her with a petition signed by a supermajority?

I'm not going anywhere. Even if Jersey isn't reinstated. But, inquiring minds certainly desire more specific information about the event. Or, at least, I do.

I'm not going to post the contents of private messages that were sent to me in confidence, and that's final.

If all the various and sundry people who have PMed me over the months wish to speak up and make their feelings known, that's their prerogative. If they don't, that's their prerogative too.

This whole thing has been a tempest in a teapot. Think about it, folks. The name of this board is "MormonDiscussions," not "MormonModerations." This board was established so that anyone & everyone could speak their mind, not so that anyone & everyone could be a moderator over a discussion board.

I made it clear at the very beginning that moderators are hired on a "trial basis." If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out. Although nobody gets banned, a moderator can be de-moderatorized at any moment for any reason (or for no reason at all, for that matter). The whole purpose of this board is freedom of speech, not freedom to be a moderator. Ask yourself: Was Jersey Girl banned from the board? Have her comments been deleted? Have her words been edited out? Is Jersey Girl any less able to say anything at all than she ever was? She--and everyone else--is just as free to say anything about any topic, whether or not she has moderatorial powers. Just because she's no longer behind the wheel doesn't mean she can't ride in the car.

Is everyone clear on this? Not being a moderator is not a punishment. It's not being muzzled. It's not having your 1st Amendment rights stripped away. It's simply not having the ability to edit others' posts, delete others' posts, split threads, and move threads. THAT'S IT. Nothing else changes.

The rationale behind the complaints and resulting axing simply mystifies me for while they were in the process of "stripping" me of my mod powers, they completely gave me my posting powers back which are far stronger than that of a moderator. You see, as a moderator I refrained from commenting in certain cases where I normally would have done so as a poster.

How could your posting powers be given back when they were never taken away in the first place?

I'm mystified. It would nice to clear this up.

I hope the above is sufficient. If not, I'll boil it down:

I will not share the contents of private messages that were given to me in confidence. Therefore, if anyone wishes to dig any deeper into this, they'll simply have to hope that one of the many people who sent me private messages over the months chooses to speak up.

If it doesn't happen, then it doesn't happen. As for me, I've said my part.

[_Chap]

Having read the preceding post carefully, I have to say that I think Shades' response is a reasonable one (although I did put in a pro-JG vote on the poll).

Firstly, an administrator may from time to time receive private messages, and may reasonably take them into account in administrative decisions such as what moderators to choose. Since the messages were private, it would however be wrong for him or her to disclose their contents without the permission of the senders.

Secondly, Jersey Girl is not harmed in any way by not being a moderator: in particular her ability to take part in discussions on the board is completely unimpaired. She can clearly be reassured that her contributions are not unwelcome, as the vote in her favor suggests, so her self-esteem can remain quite undented. And (since Shades invited Jersey Girl to be a moderator in the first place) it seems obvious that his decisions about whether or not she should be a moderator are unlikely to be motivated by any personal prejudice against her. Like all the other moderation invitations, the invitation to Jersey Girl was explicitly made on a trial basis.

Nor (since there seems to be no shortage of moderators to do what needs to be done) is the board harmed by Jersey Girl ceasing to be a moderator. On consideration, I am not sure that decisions about moderation are best made by following the majority opinion on a board; it may sometimes be necessary to take unpopular decisions in order to protect or reassure a minority (the majority on MAD would certainly support their present bizarrely paranoiac moderatorial crowd).

Given all that, I am prepared to trust Shades' judgment in this matter.

[_cksalmon]

Having read the preceding post carefully, I have to say that I think Shades' response is a reasonable one (although I did put in a pro-JG vote on the poll).

Ditto.

[_Scottie]

Obviously Shades isn't influenced by the majority. Just look at his stubbornness with smilies!!

[_Jersey Girl]

Can someone point/link me to the "embarrass" Jersey remark that's been referred to in some of the above posts, because I haven't seen it and I'd like to see it in context before continuing on.

Thanks if you can.

[_Yoda]

Can someone point/link me to the "embarrass" Jersey remark that's been referred to in some of the above posts, because I haven't seen it and I'd like to see it in context before continuing on.

Thanks if you can.

This is a link to the other thread that Shades started:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=6554

Actually, the word, "embarrass" was not used.

[_Jersey Girl]

Can someone point/link me to the "embarrass" Jersey remark that's been referred to in some of the above posts, because I haven't seen it and I'd like to see it in context before continuing on.

Thanks if you can.

This is a link to the other thread that Shades started:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=6554

Actually, the word, "embarrass" was not used.

I'm well familiar with that post since I requested it. I don't see indication of "embarrassment" on my part. Perhaps someone else sees it differently?

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm going to take Shades response here as being what Mercury wanted to happen and begin responding later. I have to put up a fence first. Seriously!

[_The Nehor]

Right, Nehor?

Hey, I only said I was leaving permanently once. :)

I appeal for clemency on the basis of insanity in that case.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

As I stated previously, I think that Mercury indicated that he preferred for you to respond before I continued with my own comments. Since you've done that, I'll begin responding before I offer up evidences.

Your above post in no way answers Mercury's inquiry or that of others who have posted here. He hasn't asked you to divulge PM content, he asked you what the offenses were, if there were a pattern of offenses and such as that. You haven't addressed that but chose instead, to allude to "the many people" who sent you PM's "over the months" and I'll be addressing that soon but for right now I'm going to take your response above and begin responding to it piece by piece because as I've stated, truth is important to me. I, at least, am unwilling to play fast and loose with truth or give lacksadasical treatment to people. I have, infact, conducted myself in that regard toward you before this board ever saw the screen. I don't appreciate how sloppily you've conducted yourself regarding this and I think "the how and why" of that will become evident before long.

In your response to Mercury in the above post you state:

Defrock Jersey? Fine, by all means. But when the response is "I don't want to embarrass Jersey" is given, even after Jersey is open to such explorations one takes pause.

"I don't want to kick Jersey while she's down" is probably the phrase I should've used rather than "I don't want to embarrass Jersey." Sorry for any confusion.

I don't know where the concept of "embarrass" or "kicking Jersey while she's down" comes from but it would appear to me that in the above you are attempting to revise a statement that you never made to begin with.

Do you see what I'm talking about when I say "how sloppily you've conducted yourself"? That's an example right there.

Just for the record, I'm not at all embarrassed by this nor am I "down". If I'm down, just who would have put me there, Shades? If I were embarrassed, I wouldn't have asked you to make it public. You see, Doc, where you stated in your OP on the announcement thread:

Normally I wouldn't dream of making such an announcement, but this thread has been created at the request of Jersey Girl herself. So here it is.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=162993#162993

I am someone who wouldn't dream of NOT making it.

I didn't fail to uphold your policies as moderator. Did I? Of course not, you already confirmed that in our exchanges as I will further confirm by my posts on this thread.

You need to know straight up, Doc, that I don't appreciate the spin you've chosen to put on this and I will do my best to unravel this little ball of yarn. There are 3,000 views on this thread alone. Apparently someone else gives a damn about truth.