RE: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: BANNED MEMBERS

[Guest guest]

IMO, the important

facts are as follows:

The only people who

can know all the details of what went on behind the scenes during the recent

events at AI are the other 2 moderators.

The other moderators

have not asked you to step down.

I can only deduce from

the above that you are being as impartial as you possibly can be in your

moderator role on AI.

Wendi

PS – I must have

missed something because I have no idea who the other member is.

Re:

ANNOUNCEMENT: BANNED MEMBERS

To those that don't know of whom Zoo speaks and what

they've posted

elsewhere, it may seem draconian. However,

evidence must be weighed.

Logical.

Reasonable.

Polarizing.

Likely unpopular.

Reduces insanity on this board, at least: if

someone is in complete

disagreement with your

impartiality/qualifications, I would logically

expect them to always give you grief in the

future, stirring up

dissention with intense disrespect. They

will likely always expect

you to bend over backwards in proving your motives

for your actions

are fair and just, and complain if they don't

think they are.

Actually.... oh, never mind

StrictNon-Conformist

>

> To date I have not needed to ban or terminate

members for any other

> reason or infraction. However, two of

us have questioned my

> moderating skills on another board and

suggested that I step away

> from my post there.

>

> As they are members here, I see it as a

conflict of interest that

> they should be demanding my resignation

elsewhere but still claim

> the full benefit of such ammenities as we

have here.

>

> I have terminated their memberships in this

group, seeing as they

> implied my moderating skills are in

general...well...bad...no

matter

> where I am moderating. I have

terminated their memberships not as

a

> punishment, but simply because, since I am

the sole administrator

of

> this forum, there is no way that I could

satisfactorily reconcile

> their issues.

>

> One of these members has never posted and

wished to remain

> anonymous, therefore I will preserve that

anonymity and not name

> that member. But because the other

member has posted, it would be

> wrong of me for you to post to her, expecting

a response and simply

> never get one and not know why. And so it is

with great dismay that

> I say that Drunkard's Walk has had her

membership terminated.

>

> I felt it necessary to give you this

statement. It is very

> difficult for all. I only wish that

things could have worked out.

>

> Zoologist

[Guest guest]

strictnon_conformist <no_reply > wrote:

Wendi:This is the crux of the matter: while the most recent banning involved someone that has had a past history at Aspergia.com, that person had created quite a history with all people involved, other than perhaps Crucibelle, before he was banned.The two banned by Zoo here were not only defending the "rights" of the one that was most recently banned, they were also openly defiant and attacking the credibility of Crucibelle and the other two moderators in a very personal way for all members to see, making accusations that they were not being at all fair to the one most recently banned, and not taking evidence demonstrated online at AI into account, even what they could clearly see. They made wild accusations based on their personal assumptions without getting the side information from all of the moderators and

Crucibelle. All this, while clearly denying that it was a personal attack on the moderators.As I expect the other two did (Crucibelle and Queenbee) Zoologist found the accusations very disrespectful not only in the accusations, but also in the manner they were made: out in the open for everyone else to see, so that they may use emotional blackmail on the moderators to "be impartial" by restricting Zoologist from having anything to do with the banned member. I am making the inference that Crucibelle (in the end) found the whole thing rather unpleasant, as noted by the new sticky post indicating the procedure for addressing such complaints.I openly will state that I side completely with Zoologist in the handling of this matter; I've had personal experience with dealing with personal confidences and information not visible to the outside observer in administering sensitive matters like this in real

life. I will also state quite clearly (I also stated this in my posts in the "unjust" thread) that I believe that the two Zoologist banned from here have been unwittingly beguiled by the most recently banned individual into thinking they are more angelic than outside evidence in clear sight has shown to everyone else that reads it.So, as a result of personally taking offense to the personal attacks on the moderators of AI, as well as the knowledge that they were far more lenient in the case of the second individual with a past history than observation warranted (perhaps the time lag of not being able to discuss things together as a group of moderators contributed to this: a real world consequence of people existing in different time zones with different schedules and other things to do than admin/moderate a forum) and private communication from an unstated number of other individuals that relayed to me the dampening

effect this individual had on anyone that looked at the board (and that's only the ones that had enough nerve to speak up to someone!) and contemplated joining, it was painfully clear to me that not only were they more than not being overly personal in the method and banning, if anything, they were unable to stop the damage soon enough to be optimal. Now, consider what I said above about them having real life cause them delays, as well as the intentions of trying to make it as impartial as possible.Also, consider this: the person most recently banned on AI had sufficient chance to remove the most offensive and off-putting posts that had scared off those that I'm personally aware of via PM before they were banned, and not a single effort was made to even tone it down for those posts. So, while perhaps they contributed some non-bannable (and maybe remotely valuable) posts before they were banned, no remorse in

the least was shown for their behavior.Being someone that hates to see a system torn apart by screaming, emotionally-charged, illogical people intent on emotional blackmail, I got frustrated, and did what I'm very good at: parsing reality and breaking it down for others to follow. What the two that were banned today by Zoologist from this forum did comes under the legal definition of libel: to ridicule/show contempt for someone in public, as well as doing their best to ruin their reputations based on their accusations, without sufficient information to back up their claims. I proceeded to shoot down their complaints and claims, one by one.In effect, the two people involved wish to be armchair moderators: everything is fine, as long as they say it is fine, regardless of whether or not they have the right to inflict such judgments on the discussion forums, and they weren't afraid to shame the legitimate

moderators publicly into getting their way. They were doing their best to goad the moderators into admitting that they were not impartial. All this, while having agreed previously to the terms of the discussion forum, which Crucibelle setup in advance. Well, as I mentioned in the thread, AI and how it is governed is NOT a democracy, and anyone other than the moderators and Crucibelle have no right to expect anything to go exactly how they want it. It is a democracy insofar as every member may stay and live in agreement to the terms of service, or may leave, never to visit again.Was I kind in how I responded to the two people attacking the admin/moderators on AI? I was less concerned for their feelings, actually, than in ensuring that they didn't bring down the system into externally-induced anarchy based on pure biased opinions. I also had in mind the objective of trying to ensure that

anyone interested in staying/joining wouldn't be scared off by the thought that there are people that might have control in such a way as to allow people like the one most recently banned to come back and cause trouble without consequences. Not all people are nearly as outspoken or as eloquently spoken as I am, and are more timid than I am, in not wanting to become a target of attack to anyone. I'm not afraid to speak up and defend what I feel is correct, regardless of how many feathers it ruffles: part of my personal philosophy is that it's better to live with hearing an ugly truth than a beautiful lie, because at least with an ugly truth, you can build around reality without it coming crashing down on you at an inopportune time. The two people involved (as well as the most recently banned person on AI) have as a central flaw the sin of ingratitude.It is an interesting thing to compare how AI has thus far

been governed when it comes to such issues as inflammatory posts, when stood up against another Aspergia jump off point: AFF. Whereas AI has preserved the evidence of how and why members have been banned in all its gory, AI has done things very quietly in the background, without a lot of the members even knowing what has happened. They have also (based on what others have said) deleted posts that didn't seem to fit in with their desires otherwise. Despite the fact that they've been up and going longer, it's interesting to note that when they switched to their final site and a different forum system (looks suspiciously like what we had on AI and Aspergia.com ) that they lost a huge number of members. It would be interesting to know exactly what has happened at AI as a result of all this flap lately.Well, this post is quite long enough already, and I expect some people have fallen asleep

:PStrictNon-Conformist> IMO, the important facts are as follows:> > The only people who can know all the details of what went on behind the> scenes during the recent events at AI are the other 2 moderators. > > The other moderators have not asked you to step down. > > I can only deduce from the above that you are being as impartial as you> possibly can be in your moderator role on AI.> > Wendi> PS - I must have missed something because I have no idea who the other> member is.> > > <SNIP>

I am A.I?

[Guest guest]

Strict,

I think I understand

what you are saying and I’ll have to go back and read the thread again,

though I have been following it... I guess it takes me a while to process that

someone has been insulted! I’m

not too quick about that, especially when I’m not feeling well lol.

I guess I wasn’t

very clear – and I’m sorry if I wasn’t... but I want to be

clear now - I was trying to agree that I think Tom is being impartial (by

stating what, in my mind, are the bare facts since none of us – except the

AI moderators – know all that when on behind the scenes).

I think the moderators

on AI are doing a great job. I

think it is a difficult job to do and they wanted to take all views into consideration

before going ahead with the banishments on AI and that’s why it took a

while (as well as the time lag in communication between moderators). I think it was good they took their time

and didn’t do it hastily, even if that meant more violations!

Yes I am very timid. Yes

I avoid conflict. Yes I was afraid

(and still am, in a months time – or even now by posting this!) of being

attacked. I can’t imagine why

I would be, but I’m afraid by putting one word in the wrong place and I

might be.

I was trying to be

supportive, but I’m guessing it didn’t come across that way??? Sorry if it didn’t.

Wendi

(PS Tom you have my

permission to share this with the other AI moderators if you wish)

Re:

ANNOUNCEMENT: BANNED MEMBERS

Wendi:

This is the crux of the matter: while the most

recent banning

involved someone that has had a past history at

Aspergia.com, that

person had created quite a history with all people

involved, other

than perhaps Crucibelle, before he was banned.

The two banned by Zoo here were not only defending

the " rights " of

the one that was most recently banned, they were

also openly defiant

and attacking the credibility of Crucibelle and

the other two

moderators in a very personal way for all members

to see, making

accusations that they were not being at all fair

to the one most

recently banned, and not taking evidence

demonstrated online at AI

into account, even what they could clearly

see. They made wild

accusations based on their personal assumptions

without getting the

side information from all of the moderators and

Crucibelle. All

this, while clearly denying that it was a personal

attack on the

moderators.

As I expect the other two did (Crucibelle and

Queenbee) Zoologist

found the accusations very disrespectful not only

in the accusations,

but also in the manner they were made: out in the

open for everyone

else to see, so that they may use emotional

blackmail on the

moderators to " be impartial " by

restricting Zoologist from having

anything to do with the banned member. I am

making the inference

that Crucibelle (in the end) found the whole thing

rather unpleasant,

as noted by the new sticky post indicating the

procedure for

addressing such complaints.

I openly will state that I side completely with

Zoologist in the

handling of this matter; I've had personal

experience with dealing

with personal confidences and information not

visible to the outside

observer in administering sensitive matters like

this in real life.

I will also state quite clearly (I also stated

this in my posts in

the " unjust " thread) that I believe that

the two Zoologist banned

from here have been unwittingly beguiled by the

most recently banned

individual into thinking they are more angelic

than outside evidence

in clear sight has shown to everyone else that

reads it.

So, as a result of personally taking offense to

the personal attacks

on the moderators of AI, as well as the knowledge

that they were far

more lenient in the case of the second individual

with a past history

than observation warranted (perhaps the time lag

of not being able to

discuss things together as a group of moderators

contributed to this:

a real world consequence of people existing in

different time zones

with different schedules and other things to do

than admin/moderate a

forum) and private communication from an unstated

number of other

individuals that relayed to me the dampening

effect this individual

had on anyone that looked at the board (and that's

only the ones that

had enough nerve to speak up to someone!) and

contemplated joining,

it was painfully clear to me that not only were

they more than not

being overly personal in the method and banning,

if anything, they

were unable to stop the damage soon enough to be

optimal. Now,

consider what I said above about them having real

life cause them

delays, as well as the intentions of trying to

make it as impartial

as possible.

Also, consider this: the person most recently

banned on AI had

sufficient chance to remove the most offensive and

off-putting posts

that had scared off those that I'm personally

aware of via PM before

they were banned, and not a single effort was made

to even tone it

down for those posts. So, while perhaps they

contributed some non-

bannable (and maybe remotely valuable) posts

before they were banned,

no remorse in the least was shown for their

behavior.

Being someone that hates to see a system torn

apart by screaming,

emotionally-charged, illogical people intent on

emotional blackmail,

I got frustrated, and did what I'm very good at:

parsing reality and

breaking it down for others to follow. What

the two that were banned

today by Zoologist from this forum did comes under

the legal

definition of libel: to ridicule/show contempt for

someone in public,

as well as doing their best to ruin their

reputations based on their

accusations, without sufficient information to

back up their claims.

I proceeded to shoot down their complaints and

claims, one by one.

In effect, the two people involved wish to be

armchair moderators:

everything is fine, as long as they say it is

fine, regardless of

whether or not they have the right to inflict such

judgments on the

discussion forums, and they weren't afraid to

shame the legitimate

moderators publicly into getting their way.

They were doing their

best to goad the moderators into admitting that

they were not

impartial. All this, while having agreed

previously to the terms of

the discussion forum, which Crucibelle setup in

advance. Well, as I

mentioned in the thread, AI and how it is governed

is NOT a

democracy, and anyone other than the moderators

and Crucibelle have

no right to expect anything to go exactly how they

want it. It is a

democracy insofar as every member may stay and

live in agreement to

the terms of service, or may leave, never to visit

again.

Was I kind in how I responded to the two people

attacking the

admin/moderators on AI? I was less concerned

for their feelings,

actually, than in ensuring that they didn't bring

down the system

into externally-induced anarchy based on pure

biased opinions. I

also had in mind the objective of trying to ensure

that anyone

interested in staying/joining wouldn't be scared

off by the thought

that there are people that might have control in

such a way as to

allow people like the one most recently banned to

come back and cause

trouble without consequences. Not all people

are nearly as outspoken

or as eloquently spoken as I am, and are more

timid than I am, in not

wanting to become a target of attack to

anyone. I'm not afraid to

speak up and defend what I feel is correct,

regardless of how many

feathers it ruffles: part of my personal

philosophy is that it's

better to live with hearing an ugly truth than a

beautiful lie,

because at least with an ugly truth, you can build

around reality

without it coming crashing down on you at an

inopportune time.

The two people involved (as well as the most

recently banned person

on AI) have as a central flaw the sin of

ingratitude.

It is an interesting thing to compare how AI has

thus far been

governed when it comes to such issues as

inflammatory posts, when

stood up against another Aspergia jump off point:

AFF. Whereas AI

has preserved the evidence of how and why members

have been banned in

all its gory, AI has done things very quietly in

the background,

without a lot of the members even knowing what has

happened. They

have also (based on what others have said) deleted

posts that didn't

seem to fit in with their desires otherwise.

Despite the fact that

they've been up and going longer, it's interesting

to note that when

they switched to their final site and a different

forum system (looks

suspiciously like what we had on AI and

Aspergia.com ) that they

lost a huge number of members. It would be

interesting to know

exactly what has happened at AI as a result of all

this flap lately.

Well, this post is quite long enough already, and

I expect some

people have fallen asleep

StrictNon-Conformist

> IMO, the important facts are as follows:

>

> The only people who can know all the details

of what went on behind

the

> scenes during the recent events at AI are the

other 2 moderators.

>

> The other moderators have not asked you to

step down.

>

> I can only deduce from the above that you are

being as impartial as

you

> possibly can be in your moderator role on AI.

>

> Wendi

> PS - I must have missed something because I

have no idea who the

other

> member is.

>

>

> <SNIP>