Jersey Girl wrote:Did I fail to implement your policies or make errors as a moderator? Was I less than conscientious in doing that job?
No and no.
Your comments in the announcement OP give the appearance that there was a recurring pattern of error, bias or something to that effect and that's what people have questioned here, not "temperament".
Are you sure about that? I disagree. About the only thing I alluded to was the fact that the votes of "no confidence" from others--as opposed to mistakes or errors on your part--reached critical mass.
If someone had chosen to publicly discredit you, how would you respond?
I don't recall anyone publicly discrediting you.
And who should I expect to stand up on my behalf?
You?
Oh man, if only you knew how many times I stood up on your behalf behind-the-scenes, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm almost chuckling here.
You seem to think that I'm the enemy here. On the contrary, I'm your unseen champion, and you don't even know it. I simply lost the battle and am making the required concession in order to preserve the peace.
Blixa wrote:I think you're being unnecessarily opaque about the whole thing Shades. . . I'm frankly surprised that you haven't addressed it in a more forthcoming manner. I think it would be easy to do so.
Of course it would be easy to do so. Up 'till now, I've been of the opinion that it wouldn't be
best to do so.
But you know what? Screw it. I don't care anymore. Here y'all go:
- The most visible moderators have been myself, liz3564, Bond...James Bond, Scottie, Sam Harris, and Jersey Girl.
- Guess how many people have complained about Liz? Only one, Infymus (multiple times). He did it publicly, not via PM, so that's why I can freely "reveal" it here.
- Guess how many people ever complained about Bond...James Bond? The figure rounds up to an even 0. Yes, that's right, ZERO. No complaints or concerns PMed to me about Bond.
- Guess how many PMs I've received so far complaining or protesting about Scottie? It's easy to count: NONE. In other words, nobody has complained to me about Scottie EVER.
- How many complaints did I get about Sam Harris? Two, I believe. It might have been the same person complaining twice, but it's been a while and I can't quite remember, so we'll go with two.
- Which brings us to Jersey Girl. Oh, boy. Jersey Girl. Where do I start?
A thread was generated right from the beginning with a title which went something like, "Who else is concerned with Jersey Girl as a mod?" I got several PMs that coincided with it, but I staved them all of with "I ran her through a rigorous recruiting process, so she knows what's expected of her, so please just give her a chance."
I thought that would end it, but, surprisingly, it didn't. Other PMs arrived every so often with what appeared to be an increasing sense of urgency or seriousness as time went on. Each and every time, I responded with why I felt she should remain as a moderator (I don't feel comfortable with giving any other details).
Finally, this last bout contained actual anger. One or more people were going to "vote with their feet." I did my best to broker a compromise, but I was unsuccessful.
So, at long last, I finally decided enough was enough. Why allow the trend to continue? Why not be democratic and just give the people what they want, especially considering the dearth of complaints about any of the other moderators? Besides, no one was agitating for her outright banning from the board--something I always flatly refuse without budging on anyway. At the end of the day, being "de-moderatorized" is simply an adjustment of status, not a punishment, and no abridging of free speech takes place.
Beyond that, since everyone seems to want to know the nitty-gritty, screw it, I'll give in. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so here you all are:
If there's a trend that ran through all the complaints and concerns like an iron cable, it was this:
Jersey Girl is a hothead who gets way too angry way too easily about completely stupid stuff. As such, people just didn't trust her to remain calm "with her finger on the button." And you know what? It turns out they were right, 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. Unfortunately, in order to keep the people's confidence, a moderator has to demonstrate natural objectivity--nay, he or she has to RADIATE objectivity--in EVERYONE'S case, without exceptions. The intant a moderator expresses or admits an inability to remain detatched in EVEN ONE INSTANCE, well, the whole thing is tarnished.
In each of those cases, I went to bat for Jersey Girl, painstakingly explaining the difference between "speaking as a moderator" and "speaking as a man." In most cases that stilled the waters, but--and you asked for it--there is a distinct sub-set of the above who, in addition to not trusting her, simply
don't like Jersey Girl and don't want her anywhere near their posts. It finally got to the point that nothing I could say could make a difference. So, in true Jeremy Bentham fashion, I opted for the greatest good for the greatest number. Yes, it knew there was the potential for Jersey Girl to take it hard--a scenario that has indeed been realized, as luck would have it--but the amount of goodwill I've been able to recoup was a necessary trade-off.
So, in conclusion, is this thread, in and of itself, symptomatic of the very syndrome that made people so concerned? In other words, is this thread demonstrating in real life just what it is they had in mind? You be the judge.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley