Campaign to Reinstate Jersey as a Mod

[_Dr. Shades]

As Boaz and Lidia stated on the announcement thread you made:

"Christ on a crutch people.... this is just... a.... message board."

A poster who often goes much maligned on this board and with whom I couldn't agree more in this case. . . You have multiple issues to resolve here, Shades, and I will be glad not to take part in it.

Good. Then we've finally achieved resolution to this issue.

[_The Nehor]

Good. Then we've finally achieved resolution to this issue.

HOORAY!!! I love a happy ending.

[_Alter Idem]

But we inadvertently learned something about the MormonDiscussions board--it's more like MADB than most here might want to admit. Many times I've seen posters here accuse the MADB board of banning posters on the whims of Dr. Peterson or Juliann.

Unlike at MA&D, Jersey Girl wasn't banned.

Alter Idem: No, she was not banned--but I never claimed she was. I said you bowed to the pressure of behind the scenes machinations by unnamed posters who wanted her removed as moderator---purely because they did not like her. That's exactly what many here claim happens at MADB--behind the scenes complaints by Juliann or Dr. P. to Dan G. result in action taken against other posters who get on their bad sides.

Shades ADMITTED he gave in to the demands of a couple of posters who threatened to leave.

That wasn't an isolated incident. It was the crescendo of a long build-up.

Alter Idem: Yes, but apparently the complaints were not justified since she was clearly a competent moderator, but about her as a poster. I understand the difficult position you were in--it would be no fun to be harassed by someone constantly over personality conflicts you have no control over, and if you decided to remove her because you were sick of the complaints from this person, then fine...but leaving the impression that numerous posters were complaining (when it was only one or two) and that it was because of Jersey Girl's moderating was not right.

And another irony--unlike on MADB--where we know who the "privileged" posters are, these MD posters who "call the shots" are anonymous. Posters who have enough clout that Shades was willing to sacrifice a capable moderator to satisfy their whims.

Being a moderator or not being a moderator isn't a privilege or punishment either way.

Alter Idem: No, but removing a moderator who was doing a capable job and letting others think otherwise in order to protect a complaining poster(s) with their nose out of joint, was not right. Frankly, being a moderator is a pretty thankless job--I'd say it's more of a punishment.

Shades explained his reasons for his actions, and as the board owner, he can do as he pleases. But if the explanation he gave is true, then he's lost some of the high ground he inhabited by allowing a couple of unnamed posters to force a moderator out because she wasn't "liked".

Me giving in to a minority of people isn't all that unusual. Remember the "faith-based thread" debacle? A (larger) minority complained about it, so I overturned it. Don't forget about the "R" word affair, either: A minority of people were highly uncomfortable with it, so I activated the auto-censor for it. In another, entirely behind-the-scenes case, ONE person complained about me always correcting people's spelling and grammar, so I promptly quit doing that, too.

I'm sure I'll attempt to please the minority again in the future. More than once, I'll bet.

KEEP IN MIND that I have never, EVER budged on the issue of banning someone, even though various and sundry people have called for persons X, Y, or Z to be banned. It's almost safe to say that nearly everyone has complained about someone at one time or another. But have I ever budged? Has anyone ever been banned? No.

So don't forget this key fact: Just because Jersey Girl can no longer edit posts, delete posts, split threads, or move threads does NOT mean that her freedom of speech has been muzzled. Hence the vast, vast gulf between this issue and the state-of-affairs at MA&D.

Alter Idem: That's true. You don't ban posters--but from your remarks, I can guess that these pushy posters have been campaigning for bannings. How long before your harassing, complaining anonymous posters wear you down with their threats once again? Will you have to give in and ban just one or two posters to keep this poster(s) happy and willing to stay on the board? When you give in to pressure once, you open the door for more demands--if they see they can control you, they will not stop to use their power to get what they want.

Look Shades, I do understand that giving in to these posters was easier than continuing to fight their demands. I don't know their value to the board--as I said, they could be contributors and they could be posters that you really do not want to lose. But let's be honest; you acted in a manner that is more in keeping with the kinds of accusations made against MADB. You did lose some of the high ground you'd like to claim. If you had decided that you did not like Jersey Girl and wanted her removed, then that was your prerogative..and none could have complained. But you gave us too much information and let us know that it was not your wish, but the wish of some anonymous posters manipulating behind the scenes to remove a moderator they did not like. Personally, I'm glad you were honest about it--but I'm sorry to say that in being candid, it's reflected poorly on you.

Jersey Girl: Here you miss the obvious thrust of Alter Idem's remarks. So far as I can tell, she has not raised the issue of freedom of speech or banning. She raised the issue of behind the scenes transactions that this community regularly criticizes the MAD board for. If I am mistaken, I hope that Alter will offer correction.

You are correct.

[_Dr. Shades]

I understand the difficult position you were in--it would be no fun to be harassed by someone constantly over personality conflicts you have no control over, and if you decided to remove her because you were sick of the complaints from this person, then fine...but leaving the impression that numerous posters were complaining (when it was only one or two) and that it was because of Jersey Girl's moderating was not right.

Your assumption is incorrect on two accounts:

• I never left the impression that it was only one or two posters who were complaining. One or more posters may have caused the dam to break, but he/she/they were the mere capstones to many months of build-up by a number of other people.
• I never left the impression that Jersey Girl's moderation was not right. I stated quite clearly that a number of individuals simply didn't want her to be a moderator anymore.

No, but removing a moderator who was doing a capable job and letting others think otherwise in order to protect a complaining poster(s) with their nose out of joint, was not right.

I never let others think otherwise. I either held my tongue or, when pressed, told the truth.

You don't ban posters--but from your remarks, I can guess that these pushy posters have been campaigning for bannings. How long before your harassing, complaining anonymous posters wear you down with their threats once again?

Never. It's not a slippery-slope.

Will you have to give in and ban just one or two posters to keep this poster(s) happy and willing to stay on the board?

No, 'cause if that happened then the entire reason for MormonDiscussions's existence would cease to exist.

When you give in to pressure once, you open the door for more demands--if they see they can control you, they will not stop to use their power to get what they want.

You severely over-estimate the power of others to persuade me to violate my core principles. (Who is or isn't a moderator is not one of my core principles. Even now I reserve the right to moderatorize or de-moderatorize anyone at any time for any or no reason whatsoever.)

Look Shades, I do understand that giving in to these posters was easier than continuing to fight their demands. I don't know their value to the board--as I said, they could be contributors and they could be posters that you really do not want to lose. But let's be honest; you acted in a manner that is more in keeping with the kinds of accusations made against MADB. You did lose some of the high ground you'd like to claim. If you had decided that you did not like Jersey Girl and wanted her removed, then that was your prerogative..and none could have complained.

LOL!!! If so much complaining--by yourself included--has been done for this reason, how much more would've occurred for that reason??

But you gave us too much information and let us know that it was not your wish, but the wish of some anonymous posters manipulating behind the scenes to remove a moderator they did not like. Personally, I'm glad you were honest about it--but I'm sorry to say that in being candid, it's reflected poorly on you.

Great. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

[_The Nehor]

I'm not following anymore. You're accusing Shades of making a decision based on people complaining. You think this was wrong.

Now you want him to reverse his decision because people are complaining?

[_Dr. Shades]

VERY well said, The Nehor!

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm not following anymore. You're accusing Shades of making a decision based on people complaining. You think this was wrong.

Now you want him to reverse his decision because people are complaining?

Where has Alter stated anywhere on this thread that she wanted Shades to reverse his decision?

[_The Nehor]

I'm not following anymore. You're accusing Shades of making a decision based on people complaining. You think this was wrong.

Now you want him to reverse his decision because people are complaining?

Where has Alter stated anywhere on this thread that she wanted Shades to reverse his decision?

I was referring to the thread in general. By the title it's a campaign to get one of Shade's decisions reversed. It has lately morphed into a shaming thread where Shades should be ashamed of what he's done with mention of how much respect has been lost for making such a decision. So the tactic has gone from political action to an attempt to induce guilt.....which would have no other purpose then to get him to reconsider to shake off said guilt.

I don't think he feels any guilt though and nor should he.

[_Mercury]

My goodness, Shades. Is it that you can't think or that you refuse to deal with the obvious?

Its pretty clear, Jersey. Shades has gone out of his way to explain his actions. Your take on his actions are irrelevant at this point.

[_Jersey Girl]

My goodness, Shades. Is it that you can't think or that you refuse to deal with the obvious?

Its pretty clear, Jersey. Shades has gone out of his way to explain his actions. Your take on his actions are irrelevant at this point.

So what you're saying if I'm reading you right, Mercury, is that based on what you've seen here that it was totally kosher for Shades to PM me to inform me that he was terminating me as moderator?

Yes or No?