The good news is I'm going away for a few days and it's doubtful I'll be posting. Before I go I want to make sure I get this point across
Moderation is preferential treatment to someone or some issue. If anyone chooses to view those words as unforgiveable that is their own doing.
So if I change Danny boy --to Daniel, the intent is preferential treatment to Daniel and the thread to keep itfree of unnecessary slurs
If I remove 3 smilies from whyme's post I'm giving preferential treatment to Shades rule's and to whyme for attempting to not irritate him with moving of post.
If I move posts to off topic thread set up for that purpose, I'm giving preferential treatment to the issue under consideration so that it can move forward unhindered, or non relevant clutter removed from thread.
If I give a warning to mikwut to refrain from unwarranted ad homs against Dale I'm giving preferential treatment to the issues to keep it from potential derailment, giving preferential treatment to Dale so as to not waste his time addressing ad homs, his health being an issue to the extent that energy wasted on addressing unnecessary posts, may in fact hinder progress of issues.
Moderation is in fact preferential treatment to someone - some issue. Only no moderation gives no preferential treatment whatsoever.
Any mod action can be viewed by someone as bias. At issue is whether any mod action is ever done so as to hinder progress of the issue being argued for or against.
Shades wrote:The Danny Boy--->Mr. Peterson thing is only ancillary. The remaining 99% was your use of the two unforgivable words.
The "two unforgivable words"? Did you happen to read the first three pages of the complaint thread, Shades? If not, you should have done so. marg isn't the only person (mod) who advocated for making the thread less taxing on UD.
Ray set her up from the get go on that thread, he largely used innuendo and lies to do it, with a little distortion mixed in for good measure.
What protects your mod team from poster bias against them?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Shades wrote:The Danny Boy--->Mr. Peterson thing is only ancillary. The remaining 99% was your use of the two unforgivable words.
The "two unforgivable words"? Did you happen to read the first three pages of the complaint thread, Shades? If not, you should have done so. marg isn't the only person (mod) who advocated for making the thread less taxing on UD.
Ray set her up from the get go on that thread, he largely used innuendo and lies to do it, with a little distortion mixed in for good measure.
What protects your mod team from poster bias against them?
If Ray really took an interest in that thread what he did might be understandable. But he's hardly written anything in it, and when he has it's been of little substance. He's admitted to not reading or being interested in reading Who Wrote the Book of Mormon. He doesn't seem the least bit concerned that the S/R theory might gain acceptance as he says it should be viewed with contempt. So what was his big concern? Whatever it was, it wasn't affecting him in any way. When you consider that for the previous month he was in a discussion with me which he obviously was irritated with. And only 1/2 hr before he started the Dale thread he stated he was no longer going to discuss with me the issue of NDE's. Add to the mix that I hardly did any moderating and it's obvious his motive was to spite, to piss me off.
I have no idea why Shades wasn't and not only hasn't been supportive of how I moderated that thread, which was minimal, but his continued support of Ray's complaint..his added criticism of what amounts to such minor actions I took...indicates he wasn't. Shades does come from the perspective that virtually no moderation is best. Essentially his main concern is vulgar words. He doesn't look upon moderation as being a tool to protect the issue under discussion from being hindered from moving forward.
marg wrote:I have no idea why Shades wasn't and not only hasn't been supportive of how I moderated that thread, which was minimal, but his continued support of Ray's complaint..his added criticism of what amounts to such minor actions I took...indicates he wasn't. Shades does come from the perspective that virtually no moderation is best. Essentially his main concern is vulgar words. He doesn't look upon moderation as being a tool to protect the issue under discussion from being hindered from moving forward.
And so it should be, that is, Shades' original way. Because we now have concrete evidence that once little biased dictators like you and Jersey are given power, you will abuse it. > > >
Ray A wrote:And so it should be, that is, Shades' original way. Because we now have concrete evidence that once little biased dictators like you and Jersey are given power, you will abuse it.
Still out of your head, I see, or is this yet another demonstration of lies that you built your little irrational tantrum on?
How was Jersey "given power"?
Just a side issue. When you started your twisted little rant, you claimed that you also thought "Shades was behind this." He was posting on the pinned thread as well. Was it your intention at the time to also accuse Shades of bias?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:Just a side issue. When you started your twisted little rant, you claimed that you also thought "Shades was behind this." He was posting on the pinned thread as well. Was it your intention at the time to also accuse Shades of bias?
Still going through old threads? Still looking for anything and everything that will vindicate you?
Shades later made it very clear where he stood. I knew of his bias in favour of the Spalding theory, but subsequent clarifications removed any doubts on my part that he was unable to separate moderational responsibility from the subject.
Jersey Girl wrote:Just a side issue. When you started your twisted little rant, you claimed that you also thought "Shades was behind this." He was posting on the pinned thread as well. Was it your intention at the time to also accuse Shades of bias?
Ray A wrote:Still going through old threads? Still looking for anything and everything that will vindicate you?
I have no need or desire to go through old threads. I was posting on the thread in progress or don't you remember that? Vindicate me? Was I charged with something?
Ray A wrote:Shades later made it very clear where he stood. I knew of his bias in favour of the Spalding theory, but subsequent clarifications removed any doubts on my part that he was unable to separate moderational responsibility from the subject.
Now how about giving this a rest and moving on?
As well as did marg make herself clear where she stood.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Ray A wrote:And so it should be, that is, Shades' original way. Because we now have concrete evidence that once little biased dictators like you and Jersey are given power, you will abuse it.
How was Jersey "given power"?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
