UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY

[_harmony]

Of course it's all my fault! Did anyone ever expect anything different?

[_Dr. Shades]

No; little if any of this is your fault. There are simply experiences that teach us a more perfect way.

[_Jersey Girl]

No; little if any of this is your fault. There are simply experiences that teach us a more perfect way.

Not so fast, Mr. Perfect.

Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how? She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment? Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress and have you taken a moment to thank her for her efforts?

Sheesh.

[_Dr. Shades]

Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how?

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"

She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment?

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"

Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress . . .

It isn't Either/Or. I saw both taking place.

. . . and have you taken a moment to thank her for her efforts?

Yes. More than once.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to Mr. Peterson.

[_Dr. Shades]

She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to Mr. Peterson.

I thought everyone was saying she had.

[_marg]

No; little if any of this is your fault. There are simply experiences that teach us a more perfect way.

Not so fast, Mr. Perfect.

Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how? She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment? Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress and have you taken a moment to thank her for her efforts?

Sheesh.

Shades has thanked and he even asked me to not leave, His request on the board was to not moderate the Book of Mormon Authorship thread.

The evening Ray started the smear campaign against me by started the "Does Dale get preferential treatment thread" was 1/2 hour afterr I believe he had posted in the Pearl Curran thread that he wasn't going to indulge me in further replies. He started up the smear thread, I saw it but was heading out the door. I posted quickly a "yes" I gave Dale preferential treatment, sure I cared about Dale but none of the moderating I did was preferentially biased. It's also obvious Dale doesn't need preferential treatment by the way he posts.

When I came back that evening I saw you had written a post bowing into the complainers and asking me to not moderate the thread. I quietly said sure, and nothing else. But within a short period of time that evening, I thought not only do I not want to spend more time in my life conversing with someone as underhanded as Ray but what was the point continuing at all if all that was required was some complainer with a personal grievance to complain and you'd cave. So I gladly posted and with no regrets that I no longer wished to moderate.

But as time has gone on, people coming out of the woodwork on this to add their 2 cents to criticize, yet I don't think any of them really knew what went down and with Ray still sticking to his "marg is biased" campaign, I feel it necessary to be more explicit of the facts. I don't blame you one bit, I made the mistake of replying that I gave preferential treatment when I hadn't and I am certain beyond a shadow of doubt that what motivated Ray was a function of our discussion in 2 threads which evolved over the month.

I'm not sure what we learned. Ray learned that he can mistreat others and get away with it. I learned that perhaps responding in exasperation without thinking wasn't wise, though it's not that I regret not moderating. The moderation issues boiled down to Brent being angry about his first post being moved, essentially a one line question which was off topic as Dale's personal life is not the issue of that thread. Though it was moved along with 4 others of a similar vein. And a warning to Mikwut who unjustifably and excessively described Dale as being flippant and dismissive in response to a post of mine, which given the massive number of posts by Dale and that the response was meant to be concise because I asked for it to be,seemed inwarranted. Also, Dale & Mikwut previously had an exchange of 4 posts in which both acknowledged one of them had insulted the other, and I was taking care that a repeat wouldn't happen. But a warning is not a deletion, no post was moved, just a warning that in the future I might delete ad homs. Certainly one warning is not indicative of overzealous biased moderating.

Rays motives were spiteful. He spent a whole month responding to me frequently , oftentimes seemingly in anger with replies of "Marg is biased, closed minded, and ill informed. Although the issues had nothing to do with the S/R he tied them together such that 'Marg is biased closed minded on these issues and therefore biased on S/R theory and therefore what she says should be dismissed'. Addressing issues did not seem to be Ray's intent but rather attacking the person did. He made comment that his intelligence had been insulted and numerous times tried to put words in my mouth that I was labeling him gullible when in actual fact I hadn't until he explicitly asked me and when I asked him questions his response indicated on that particular question he was and I told him so.

Everyone has bias. The point here, is whether or not a moderator acts in such a manner as to hinder one side unfairly from advancing their argument with undue actions. While Ray may claim that's so, there really was nothing of significance to back up his claims. Certainly though there is plenty of evidence for whatever reason, that instead of addressing issues, time and time again in discussion with me, he'd resort to the attack of "marg is biased and closedminded". I kept trying to reason with him about concepts of skepticism but to no avail.

As I said I really don't know what the lessons are. I do believe that good moderation is better than poor, no moderation is better than poor moderation. I've experience no moderation, I have experienced very poor moderation, but in recent months this has been the only time I've seen moderation which does seem to have generated an improvement in quality of posts.

As far as a comment you made Shades previously that the Book of Mormon authorship thread is not Celestial I believe there was a discussion briefly on that in the Mod forum and it was decided rather than move it to leave in Terrestial but treat it much like Celestial. In any event, that doesn't make any difference because the moderation was minimal. For the most part the skill of the participants is what kept the thread on track and free of personal attacks.

[_marg]

She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to Mr. Peterson.

I thought everyone was saying she had.

This was and is the problem, few people know the facts.

[_Jersey Girl]

Popping back in for a sec to clarify with you, Shades.


Me: Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how?

You: "Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"



Me: She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment?

You: "Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"



Me: Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress . . .

You: It isn't Either/Or. I saw both taking place.

Me again: Are you saying that when you examined the split thread you saw both a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress and bias in the form of how the "Danny Boy" remark was handled?

[_Dr. Shades]

Rays motives were spiteful.

I'm not worried about his motives. I'm only worried about whether or not there's some merit in what he says.

Everyone has bias. The point here, is whether or not a moderator acts in such a manner as to hinder one side unfairly from advancing their argument with undue actions. While Ray may claim that's so, there really was nothing of significance to back up his claims.

The utterance of the two unutterable words was enough to destroy confidence and raise ire. That was the damage.

As far as a comment you made Shades previously that the Book of Mormon authorship thread is not Celestial I believe there was a discussion briefly on that in the Mod forum and it was decided rather than move it to leave in Terrestial but treat it much like Celestial.

If so, I either missed it or forgot about it. Even so, I should've put the kibbosh on it.

She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment?

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"

[b]Me again: Are you saying that when you examined the split thread you saw both a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress . . .

Yes, although there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I would've waited until after a derailment had taken place, not just a potential derailment.

. . . and bias in the form of how the "Danny Boy" remark was handled?

It may not have been bias, but it wasn't how Terrestrial threads are handled, thus garnering ire.