Make the Rules

[Neil D]

Quote:

Yeah Neil, the system can work like you describe, with the moderators addressing concerns. That is dependent, however, upon the moderators being even-handed. It is important to preserve that as a goal. I know of one moderator on C/A who has publicly stated that he does NOT intend to be even-handed. I have been on the receiving end of that, and it is absolutely outrageous and compromises the sense of safety. It is not a safe place when that kind of situation continues. There should be few rules, clearly stated, enforced uniformly across the board, with a blindfold on, so to speak. That would be a good healthy start to turn things around.

Um...do you know of ANYONE who claims to be even-handed in thier moderating....? I am sorry, but I have been here for a number of years....seen a few moderators come and go...NONE of them claimed to be even handed...Some were laboriously trying to be fair, and burnt out quickly. And Adventists are typically TRYING to find some loophole in a rule so that they are not bearing the burden of the judgement. I think that is the reason the above mentioned moderator stated what he did...that he was not going to TRY to be evenhanded. And comparied to what they used to be, these areas are far more disciplined than they were before hand.

Most moderators who volenteer here, TRY to be fair. But it is labor intensive to read EVERY post. And let's face it, some of OUR postings are very laborious...and tedious...and just plain boring. You find greek, with all it's rules to apply fun...Me? Hoho..you don't want to know what I think of Greek...[that descriptions actually may not be printable on this board!] And I used to discuss bible text ad infinitum...now, it's a chore..and I don't like it...If **I** have these likes/dislikes, what's that gonna be like for a moderator? And when you get a couple of guys who are arguing over whether the little horn was this or the little horn was that...WHO GIVES A RIP????

Moderating is a thankless job....and every user is upset with the moderators....because the moderators didn't moderate to the user's expectations...instead, Moderators did it better....

Quote:

Stan mentioned in a post, something about people PM'in him, wanting him to ban so and so, and apparently that has happened quite a bit. It seems there is a very vocal element who works behind the scenes to get what they want or think should be done. All of that, again, raises concern about the integrity of the process. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease," the saying goes. That opens the door to unfairness and abuse.

Of course, there is working behind the scenes...Isn't that what we learned in Church Business meetings/School board meetings???

I can assure you that Stan is quite reluctant to rush to bann someone just because they are upsetting the board....Trust me, I would have been banned many times over....Yet, I am still here....[Looking around, scraping a foot and looking above, whispering] And [censored] and [censored] and [censored] are still here, and a few others are too....LOok at the problems that they have caused, and yet...here they are, and we are tip-toeing around them....And yet, without those negative people, where would this ho-hum board be at????

Quote:

But as for Neil's epiphany . . . no, I aint smokin NUTHIN! Just calling things as I see them. Cmon Neil, fess up. We know what you really are.

Ok, I confess...I am NOT a closet scum sucking ultra conservative

I am a flasher...I flash my liberalness and I flash my ...otherness... around from time to time.....

[Stan]

The issue to deal with the problem has become bigger than the problem..

WOULD like to ask this of every poster in this thread.

What 'rule' would exist that would have made you not post the way you have, ( in other threads)

AS I said, with all but maybe two posters, people have asked to have YOU banned. Now that I look over the list it may be more than two. I do not recall recieving a request to ban a female here ( Except 1-2) but almost all males that are involved in this. (Not Lazarus or Bravus, that I can recall)

So tell me MEN, what would have made a difference in yours?

AND YES we are always right in our own eyes.

[Stan]

I may have missed other men. as this is 26 pages long...

[Neil D]

I may have missed other men. as this is 26 pages long...

It proves my point...Adventists are long winded....

[David Koot]

Ok, I confess...I am NOT a closet scum sucking ultra conservative

ULTRA-conservative? No one EVER suggested that you are an ULTRA-conservative. Just the ordinary garden variety conservative, thats all. Don't worry, it'll be okay. You're in good company.

[Neil D]

ULTRA-conservative? No one EVER suggested that you are an ULTRA-conservative. Just the ordinary garden variety conservative, thats all. Don't worry, it'll be okay. You're in good company.

**cough** **cough**...if you say so....Personally, what you call "ordinary garden variety conservative" is leaning so far that if I was leaning that far, I'd fall over....

[Woody]

Quote:

AS I said, with all but maybe two posters, people have asked to have YOU banned. Now that I look over the list it may be more than two. I do not recall recieving a request to ban a female here ( Except 1-2) but almost all males that are involved in this.

I would hope for MORE from those in control of this mess ... than just having to resort to BANNING.

What I am learning from all this is what is acceptable behavior. I've been wondering what was meant by "common sense" ... now I know at least one extreme of "common sense" that is allowed. I am learning what the rules are by example. It is a movie being played before my eyes.

What rating would you give this movie folks?

[Amelia]

Quote:

I would hope for MORE from those in control of this mess

Red, you haven't been in this position. It's not easy. And MORE doesn't always mean RIGHT!

[Woody]

I'm sorry Amelia.

I don't think it is easy at all. But, what I see is disaster. The message that is portrayed by the "common sense" rule ... is not a good one.

I don't claim to know how hard it really is. I don't claim to know what the answer is. I may have ideas ... but since I am not in your shoes ... I can't speak to all the difficulties.

But I can speak to my opinion ... that this is one .... of a ....

MESS

And there HAS to be a better way.

[Stan]

The admin has that rule.

If it is to cumbersome for you hit the exit button.

[Woody]

Oh. It is quite entertaining. I will come just for that aspect.

[Woody]

The admin has that rule.

If it is to cumbersome for you hit the exit button.

Does this imply that this discussion of the benefit of certain rules is being closed?

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

Must we all tread around certain people like we are treading on eggshells and avoid certain topics all together because it might offend certain people? Is that any way to run a forum?

No, we don't have to but we have learned what happens if we don't. Do you like the outcome?

What happens is you allow a vocal few to set policies or what threads are deleted or locked. They do not like a thread they raise a ruckus on that thread until it is closed or removed.

My policy is not to let them run my life or modify how I post. I will not be intimidated by threats and inuendos by a few unstable people. I do not mean you Amelia or Stan. You both are great forum administrators.

[Bravus]

A few final comments from me:

1. I see calls for an admin to spend 2 hours a day moderating, but not volunteers to be thatadmin. Slight disjunction there.

2. In many ways I still think it's about social sanctions: boors in public places are ignored much more often than they are confronted, and that seems to work. Worth trying here?

3. The ability to let go and move on is crucial. There are people here with whom I have clashed repeatedly and sometimes strongly, but I have forgiven all of them, and apologised to all of them, and I try now to read each new post in the best possible light. I don't always make it, but hanging onto grievances is clearly unhealthy.

4. Sorry to say it, but some of y'all are just not mature enough to be out in public. And since it is those who will offend, and they won't follow the rules anyway, all the rules will tend to do is curtail the freedom of those who *are* mature.

I'd hoped we could get somewhere with this discussion, but we're really back to common sense, common courtesy, empathy and the Golden Rule as the only possible solution.

I'm off to ignore this place for a few days and hope the loud, smoking, swearing, waitress-abusing people in the restaurant are gone by the time I get back.

[Woody]

Quote:

I'd hoped we could get somewhere with this discussion, but we're really back to common sense, common courtesy, empathy and the Golden Rule as the only possible solution.

That's the message I've heard also. Back to square one.

[Neil D]

Quote:

4. Sorry to say it, but some of y'all are just not mature enough to be out in public.

I just want to say....[looking this way and that]

Redwood resembles that.....

LOL

[Neil now runs for cover behind a big rock, desparately trying to put on absestosis underwear at the same time.]

[jasd]

>>(Not Lazarus or Bravus, that I can recall)<<

Not jasd!? Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! --but, I would [truly] not have it otherwise.

Well, let’s level the field for all those born with one or more broken chromosome(s): Will you please ban Lazarus? as a disproportionate number of his posts seems so singularly en bloc; that is, ‘tonally colorated’ – which, on the face of it – smacks of either the incorrect ‘ist or ‘ism. And Bravus, please ban him also as he is, at the very least, so...,

extremely austral.

[/kidding, folks ;-) ]

But seriously,

Be Afraid of the Pharisee, but moreso, the Pharisaical Police.

(Is Robert being proved right that certain .orgs overly obsess with legalism?)

[Woody]

I am seeing too many goats around here. But I will not take the bait.

[Woody]

>>(Not Lazarus or Bravus, that I can recall)<<

Not jasd!? Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! --but, I would [truly] not have it otherwise.

Well, let’s level the field for all those born with one or more broken chromosome(s): Will you please ban Lazarus? as a disproportionate number of his posts seems so singularly en bloc; that is, ‘tonally colorated’ – which, on the face of it – smacks of either the incorrect ‘ist or ‘ism. And Bravus, please ban him also as he is, at the very least, so...,

extremely austral.

[/kidding, folks ;-) ]

But seriously,

Be Afraid of the Pharisee, but moreso, the Pharisaical Police.

(Is Robert being proved right that certain .orgs overly obsess with legalism?)

WOW. That does level the playing field. Thanks.

But I do need to defend the honor of my brother ... Laz. So, Don't pick on him.

[jasd]

Forgive me, but

the simple “Drop it” is inappropriate and inopportune (as well, seemingly, opportunistic); especially, as it seems to have inserted itself as ‘third party’ and partial, at that.

I’ve noticed (these past years) a bit of tension and allusion surrounding the participants who are presently dialoging upon a matter obviously important to them. It has drawn the interjections of those not intimately involved

with the particulars of the issue.

It is very likely that one or the other of the participants is attempting to set the matter straight – and is rightly concerned that his or her ‘creds’ are not 'libeled'.

In case it is not obvious to those who tend to be self-possessed in a not entirely positive way – the issue that has been swirling about these aforementioned has not been relegated to PMs in the first place – but upon these open boards: and there

it should be rightly resolved.

The concerned among us should allow them the opportunity and this platform to either justify or to vindicate his or her position. That is called,

courtesy and perhaps emotional support may be the order in the form of dispartiality – supposedly, a big thing amongst those who profess Xtianity.

And, this “derailing” canard: what a carp! Sorrowfully or not, there is often more information submitted [and gleaned] in the so-called ‘derails’ – as otherwise.

[Woody]

I will just ...

this

[David Koot]

WOULD like to ask this of every poster in this thread.

What 'rule' would exist that would have made you not post the way you have, ( in other threads)

So tell me MEN, what would have made a difference in yours?

First off, I am not one who has PM'd admin suggesting that someone be banned. I rarely contact admin. I wish to avoid influencing admin either way on issues, for the sake of integrity of the forum. If I do contact admin, it usually would have something to do with me rather than my asking that someone else should be banned.

But I would like to answer Stan's question here. I would like to do so by talking about my experience on C/A. It started several years ago, maybe 2002 or so? At that time, I seem to recall that C/A had perhaps more of a liberal orientation than now. I do recall very clearly that I did not have a pleasant experience on a number of occasions. Just the other day, someone else who had been active on C/A during that time commented that I had been 'trashed' repeatedly. That was my perception as well. This other individual reportedly asked administration why this 'trashing' of a member was allowed. The response reported: Because it brings more people to C/A, i.e. it is good for business. So first off, I would like to ask Stan, 'Is that true?' Do you guys sit back and allow someone or other to be trashed because it stimulates participation or interest in C/A? Is this some sort of blood sport, in which we are the contestants, carried on for the benefit of spectators?

At any rate, there were some very unpleasant encounters. I objected. At times, a moderator would take action--but it was fitful and inconsistent. Finally had enough of that, and got busy elsewhere. Recently, I once again became more active on C/A. I found that now, there was not such a liberal bias. But I still found a small core of individuals who engaged in personal attacks and ridicule, and GOT AWAY WITH IT! I endured their scorn for some time, and did not respond in kind. Occasionally, SOMEONE would say or do something about it, but not very often. Finally, I HAD IT! That was enough. I decided that since this was not a safe place, a place where I could feel safe, that I needed to take things in my own hands. So, when the ridicule began once again, THIS TIME I returned the 'favor.' And I can be very, very effective at it if I so choose. Indeed, there was a salutary result. The little tag-team who liked to ridicule, backed off--fitfully, but with noticeably. And in an effort to help make this a SAFE place, since admin often seemed to let people be hurt, I decided to go after those who were foremost in vicious and cruel ridicule, wherever I found it happening. Oh yes, I went after them with a vengeance--although not nearly so much as I could have. Not yet, anyway. I am waiting to see if things improve, first.

Then, things got far, far worse. Whereas before, there was ridicule . . . in recent months, that turned into libel--actionable libel, categories of libel per se--outrageous accusations which were made, in some cases on the public forums, in other cases in the chat room, as well as via PM's, and in a private forum populated by individuals also active on C/A. I mentioned this to admin and some moderators. I made appeals. I appreciate the fact that in one case, a libelous post was deleted by admin. Yet it continued after that. Quite recently, it was still going on. I have made repeated appeals for action and intervention. Nothing has been done.

So, now, not only was C/A not a safe place, speaking of ridicule for one's beliefs, it was also a place where a person's character could be assassinated with impunity, with admin standing by, doing nothing to intervene.

THAT DID IT! Sorry, CyberGuy, I am not as long-suffering as you are. Or, perhaps, the outrageous and false accusations which have been leveled at this guy may be worse than what you got hit with. I don't know. But at any rate, that did it. I made the decision to take action. First, through good-faith attempts at mediation, which came to nothing. Then, through PM's. Now I have the next step, which is filing a lawsuit for libel against individuals on this forum, for what they have done here. Preparatory to that, I am required to file a demand for retraction. That is in the works. If the parties refuse to retract, then the lawsuit is the next step.

So, Stan, to answer your question on point . . . two rules, evenly enforced, would have dealt with this travesty:

1) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

2) NO LIBEL

If those two rules had been followed and consistently enforced, things would not be where they are now. But now, it is too late. Can't turn back the clock. The damage has been done, NOTHING has been done about that damage, and so things are inexorably moving forward.

Yet, there is still the future. If you will begin NOW to enforce those two simple rules, FURTHER injury and monetary damage can be avoided.

Dave

[David Koot]

I just want to say....[looking this way and that]

Redwood resembles that.....

[Neil now runs for cover behind a big rock, desparately trying to put on absestosis underwear at the same time.]

And look--LOOK who is talkin'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Neil D]

First there was this post, that said-

Preparatory to that, I am required to file a demand for retraction. That is in the works. If the parties refuse to retract, then the lawsuit is the next step.

[David Koot]

David, you have given me a glimpse of you that I am not sure what to do with... It has given me pause to wonder....

You haven't walked in my shoes.