UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY

[_GoodK]

Thanks Dr. Shades! You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[_marg]

Thanks Dr. Shades! You are a gentleman and a scholar.

What are you thanking him for Eric?

[_GoodK]

Thanks Dr. Shades! You are a gentleman and a scholar.

What are you thanking him for Eric?

Sorry if my comment was out of context - I was simply replying to the original post. I couldn't bring myself to read all the pages in between.

I definitely think loosening up the moderating standards is a good thing.

[_marg]

Sorry if my comment was out of context - I was simply replying to the original post. I couldn't bring myself to read all the pages in between.

I definitely think loosening up the moderating standards is a good thing.

Ok thanks, I thought you were commenting on recent events. Don't read the pages, you'll waste your time. I saw your you tube, it was well done.

[_skippy the dead]

Everybody's posts? You mean those people who jumped into a thread to criticize but demonstrated they didn't have a clue what happened. Right. What it boils down to skipster, is that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge you were wrong, so you want to continue on, still complaining to justify that despite the fact you didn't know, that you are still right. Got it.

Blah blah blah.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Everybody's posts? You mean those people who jumped into a thread to criticize but demonstrated they didn't have a clue what happened. Right. What it boils down to skipster, is that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge you were wrong, so you want to continue on, still complaining to justify that despite the fact you didn't know, that you are still right. Got it.

Blah blah blah.

I'm thinkin' of insulting you, Skippy, so you can use the kitty.

KA

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks Dr. Shades! You are a gentleman and a scholar.

You're certainly welcome.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well heck, I just got done strolling down memory lane on another thread and came back to this. The current exchanges are pretty intense...okay, I'll leave it at that.

Shades,

Let me try to simplify this so my own concerns are dealt with in short order. I'll make this as simple as I can, so you can copy/paste it and answer it in like 5 seconds.

1. When you examined the split thread did you see bonafide instances of marg splitting off topic exchanges to keep the thread on topic?

Y/N

2. When you examined the split thread did you see one instance of what you see as bias in the form of the "Danny Boy" change?

Y/N

3. When you examined the split thread was it a recent result of Ray's complaint?

Y/N

4. Or...Had you been following the mod actions the entire time?

Y/N

1.

[_Ray A]

The marg and Jersey circus continues. Boring.

[_marg]

Shades so far ..I've acknowledged my error in my post. I've expanded further on it.

Yet you continue to repeat it.

Yes I do, because you've continued to support the slander. Catering to people who it became obvious didn't have a clue.

Now you are saying that I moderated with bias. So now it's not just Ray but ou. Your example "Danny Boy----> Mr "was never an issue. Ray wasn't even aware of it, nor was anyone else. So let's be honest ..what else have you got in your mind, that warrants your now accusation of my moderational bias against critics?

Your use of the two unforgivable words.

Actions of mod bias are indeed relevant to the situation ..unforgiveable. Expressing thoughts poorly is not. I've clarified, I've admitted I expressed myself poorly. But you are going on criticizing me as if my actions indicated the bias Ray accused me of which is acting against critics unfairly to suppress their views.

Yes I had, not only that, I had contacted Bryon to make the change himself but he doesn't open up pm;s apparently because he didn't open mine.

So you had dropped a note indicating that the post had been edited by you?

Correct and my note though he never read it, was for him to consider changing Danny Boy to Daniel. If he was set against it, then he could put it back. I thought it was an unnecessary slur and that Daniel should be given more respect.

The charge against me Shades is bias...changing Danny boy to Daniel can not be construed as bias against critics.

It can be construed as moderation inconsistent with the Terrestrial Forum.

It can be? Sure any action can be construed as moderation inconsistent with Terrestial, there are those who want no moderation and anything to them can be infact the complainers all wanted no moderation, and then there are who want to clean it up and raise the level. But once again, the issue that Ray had was moderation bias.

For you to keep harping on this indicates you really have nothing against, you're now resorting to minutia in order to have at least something, anything..just so that you can say you have something.

The Danny Boy--->Mr. Peterson thing is only ancillary. The remaining 99% was your use of the two unforgivable words.

Right yet meanwhile you've agreed with poster's who know nothing of the events, who put their measly 2 cents in just to complain for the sake of it, and agreed with them that I didn't moderate properly. Like them you knew little, you too were going on about this "Danny Boy" thing the only thing you could think of. First the issue was I didn;t put my name to it. When that turned out to be wrong and I had put my name, now it's... well it "can be" construed as inconsistent with Terrestial. Give me a break you are trying to find something anything. It's the dishonesty in this that gets me. I just wish people would be honest.

Even though that something is no indication of the actual charge against me, it shows the opposite.

It does not show the opposite.

Yes it does show the opposite. Asking Bryon and then doing it myself ..changing Danny Boy to Daniel shows the opposite of being biased against critics such that my actions would show it.

And frankly there is nothing wrong with changing Danny Boy..it's a slur against him. I don't care if you don't think it is, I do. and if I do, I'm sure others do.

Of course it's a slur against him. But this is the Terrestrial Forum.

A slur is ad hom. The terrestial rules say no ad homs.

What you are not getting is that the charge against me is bias, not changing one name to avoid a slur. Bias Shades,...bias that's the issue.

Indeed it is.

Right that's the problem. You accusing me of undue bias against S-R critics. You've not shown it Shades. You hang it on my quick response to Ray for using those 2 words "preferential treatment" but I've explained by that I meant the Spalding theory and by extension Dale should not be hindered or harassed. Moderation is preferential treatment to the issues being discussed. Moderation is preferential treatment to those advancing the discussion and moderation is preferential treatment to those who attempt to derail by posting non relevant to topic posts...that is commiting a relevancy fallacy. So although you think the words preferential treatment are unforgiveable...I don't. That's your creation, not mine. And I appreciate you don't care what I think on that, once you lock and load, you don't waver.

I do think eventually locking and executing the plans is a good thing. You seem to rush to lock without gathering much information and then that's it, you dig your heels in.

When I read, to my horror, that you had uttered the two unforgivable words, I didn't need to gather any more information. They were sitting there in stark black-and-white. They were the information.

I understand that's where you are coming from. However Shades you have continued to support the notion that I infact in action acted with bias against critics and that is not the case.

You aren't interested in being principled, so much as interested in having rigid rules and plans to execute.

I am rigid in my principles. My rules are principled. And my plans are to execute my principles.

When I say principled I'm talking ethically principled. That is you fixate on an idea, lock and load and then become rigid in the course you've taken once chosen, irrespective of ethics involved.