Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The system only works... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The system only works...
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

Or any other word that you may or may not know in advance is a "banned" word, regardless of its previous status as an acceptable word... because as it stands, javelin feels it is his right to change the rules of ornery in order to act "in the best interests of the forum,".... which is not the mandate given to him by what we, as ordinary memebrs, can see, from the information about how moderation is to occur on ornery.

This reminds me very much of what the Corps of Cadets used to refer to as quibbling. What it sounds like you're hoping for, is to have an extremely precise definition. Presumably, so that you can walk as close to the edge as possible.

When simply by treating others with respect - or at a minimum, civility, the precipice can be avoided entirely.

When one chooses the most inflammatory language one can find, one diminishes the ability to conduct a meaningful discussion.


Isn't that better than...


Everard, stop lying about how the Mod has broken the rules. Check them here.

You'll see nothing that discusses suspension in the actual text. Suspension has always been at the sole discretion of the OrneryMod.

Oct 20 Post by OrneryMod

quote:
Here is the new standard I am going to try and hold to. One warning, by e-mail, and then on the second offense you are suspended for two weeks. Third offense is a month and the fourth is banning. What constitues an offense is up to my judgement. That is what I was asked to do when the Cards approached me to be the Mod, some one to judge when the line has been crossed. When you asked who appointed me judge, the Cards did.

So, quibbler, what leg would you like to stand on now that both of them have been knocked from under you?


And now I'm going to retire from this discussion before I get myself banned.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy crap! Die stupid thread! DIE!

[ October 27, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Kent ]

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kenmeer:

Everard's login was suspended because he told us, via email, that he would continue a course of action on the board that he had been asked not to continue. As that course of action was in our opinion certain to escalate a dispute that we did not want to see escalate further, we took him at his word and prevented the action. This was not intended as "punishment," but as a preventative action. Later, when we were able to discuss things with Everard in more depth and arrive at somewhat better mutual understanding, we restored his login in advance of the originally planned restoration date.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There IS a Mod! I kneeled and spoke in supplication. The heavens parted and a mighty voice wrote.

I go now to play my fiddle on the roof, and sing:

"...voood it spoil some vast etoinal plan...?"

a deedle deedi deedah...

Fiddling done, I ponder a further theological mystery: is there REALLY an Orson? I go now to meditate.

OMmmmmmmm..............

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The sad thing is that when people disagree with a decision the moderators made, they always seem to take it personal as if the moderators have it out for them and are just generally bad people.
Here's the thing: Javelin screwed up. He shouldn't've been engaging in a heated discussion as a moderator, period -- although that's just my opinion. What's not just my opinion, and what appears to be contrary to stated policy, is that he acted as moderator in his own defense; he felt insulted, and had his "mod" personality step in to shut up the other member. Unless of course the anonymous Mod who just posted wasn't lying, and that Mod had just reacted in defense of the other Mod's alter-ego, but naturally we have no way of knowing that, either, because we have no way to know or reason to trust the mods.

I'm not saying Liberal wasn't being rude. But by OM's own policies, jav should have reported this behavior to the other mod. But like OM observed in that thread, they work on different schedules; it's not always feasible. And jav was too hot-headed to wait for the other mod to take action.

And once he did take action, he exposed himself in a very embarassing situation and had to lie about it. The other mod stepped in to smooth it over, at which point he "apologized" to that other mod and hoped it would die.

All of these problems -- including my ability to spin this this way, even though what may be the other Mod says (and I believe) that he acted instead -- happen as a direct consequence of anonymous moderation.

Mods should not be treated like normal "regulars," period. It's a simple no-brainer. It's like a bartender who thinks he can just kick back with the guys and chug a few down, as long as he wears a mask when he's pouring.

[ October 27, 2006, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone insists that jav is O or M. It has become a dogmatic canard.

"And once he did take action, he exposed himself in a very embarassing situation and had to lie about it. The other mod stepped in to smooth it over, at which point he "apologized" to that other mod and hoped it would die."

It's become like one of those TV forensics detective shows. Groovy micro-images of sperm stains and blood samples and carpet fibers encased in Chanel # 5 ambergris residue...

...segue, per typical kenmeerian twist, to the idea that the search for the existence of God is to theology what forensics are to paternity cases.

We just KNOW that somewhere is a blue dress of sky with Yahweh's sperm stain on it. Gotta be.

(edited for poetic opportunity)

[ October 27, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't seen the posts in question, I haven't seen where jav "outed" himself as OM, I don't much care - but (putting on my seers cap) I foresee, in the not too distant future, a time where the pent-up animosity makes it impossible for OM to do its job.

I don't need a crystal ball to see how javelin has already been affected by the cloud he's travelling under. Short of both OMs outing themselves, and neither of them being jav...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The sad thing is that when people disagree with a decision the moderators made, they always seem to take it personal as if the moderators have it out for them and are just generally bad people.
Here's the thing: Javelin screwed up. He shouldn't've been engaging in a heated discussion as a moderator, period -- although that's just my opinion. What's not just my opinion, and what appears to be contrary to stated policy, is that he acted as moderator in his own defense; he felt insulted, and had his "mod" personality step in to shut up the other member. Unless of course the anonymous Mod who just posted wasn't lying, and that Mod had just reacted in defense of the other Mod's alter-ego, but naturally we have no way of knowing that, either, because we have no way to know or reason to trust the mods.

I'm not saying Liberal wasn't being rude. But by OM's own policies, jav should have reported this behavior to the other mod. But like OM observed in that thread, they work on different schedules; it's not always feasible. And jav was too hot-headed to wait for the other mod to take action.

And once he did take action, he exposed himself in a very embarassing situation and had to lie about it. The other mod stepped in to smooth it over, at which point he "apologized" to that other mod and hoped it would die.

All of these problems -- including my ability to spin this this way, even though what may be the other Mod says (and I believe) that he acted instead -- happen as a direct consequence of anonymous moderation.

As far as I know, I've never confirmed or denied whether or not I'm a mod. I'd like to challenge everyone on this board making this assertion to show us the money quote. I will say this: I have certainly spoken of the OrneryMods in the third person - and if I'm a moderator, I can see why someone may be disturbed by this. I think that it's valid, however - regardless of whether I am one of the two moderators or not.

On the issue of whether I have ever moderated a situation I have been involved in, I will categorically deny that right now. I have NEVER, in my time on this forum, done more than hit the report button and discuss the issue with the moderator (NOT ME) on any issue where I was involved.

I find the rumor that I've lied about my status here very upsetting, and the casual repeating of the rumor as if it were true even more upsetting.
While not everyone agrees with me on every issue, and it's true I've had my run-ins with other members, I do not think I've earned a reputation for being dishonest.

I am formally asking that the remarks that I've "denied being the moderator" stop unless someone can produce written evidence of it here.

Thanks.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While kenmeer seconds jav's statement above, he can't help but recall Michael Keaton practicing his confession to the pretty blonde (Kim Basinger?), and walking around muttering to himself, "I'm Batman. I'm Batman."

As for Tom D's analogy, add Alfred bringing Bruce and Robin after-crime-fighting cocktils himself wearing a mask...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jav, I believe you about the "never done more than hit the report button" thing. The reason I posted what I did above -- and I think I made this pretty clear in that post, too -- is to point out one of the essential flaws with anonymous moderation: we have no way of knowing whether or not a Mod is trustworthy.

I freely concede that a non-anonymous Mod can't engage in conversation as freely -- but as we see in the above case, you already can't. That's part of the price. Once you become "special," you can't take it back.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav - That's one of the best impressions of the classic Clintonian "that depends on the definition of what 'is' is..." [LOL]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is is is?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is is is?
Is that even grammatically correct? It looks like it isn't, but when I think it through it seems to be.

In any case, I got a good laugh out of it.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is (Verb) is (subject) is (direct object)?
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does all this mean I can call jav: Jav Wilson-Plame?
And will Orson be impeached?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I think we'll just censure Orson...
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's probably self-flagellating as we speak.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ssci
Member
Member # 1053

 - posted      Profile for ssci   Email ssci   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow.

For the record, I don't support anonymous moderating because of the possibility of abuse. Apparently there is some history of that on Ornery. However, if the Cards and the moderators have agreed that the Ornery Mods are to be kept anonymous then the Mods have no choice but to lie or evade when asked for their identity directly. It stinks, but that's the way it is. I say stop asking.

Posts: 442 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't ask, don't tell, don't whine?

Ev - if you told them that you were going to continue doing something they were asking you not to, they were within their rights in suspending you, although I (having run many fora in my time) would have warned once again before that. Maybe "liar" didn't used to be forbidden, but the Mod has the right to decide that *henceforth* it will be. As long as there's fair warning and no retroactive application, it's fair.

I agree that the anonymity thing is not working. It's actually harder to flip on the Mods once you know who they are [Smile]

However, I will say that if Jav is indeed O or M, and I see little doubt as to this, then he has indeed not handled this episode very well. Some sort of admission of this fact would help, I think.

Then again, what do I care? Like I said, OM ain't crimped my style in a while. [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've got it. Asking anyone whether he or she is an OM should be a bannable offense.

There. All fixed now.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav,

quote:
As far as I know, I've never confirmed or denied whether or not I'm a mod.
well the OrneryMods statement of
quote:
Liberal, in point of fact it was not javelin who was moderating on the day in question.
could easily be interpreted as confirming you are part of the pair of Mods. Additionally LoJ confimed that you had posted using your name under the OrneryMod account, and then corrected it.

quote:
He accidentally responded to me once under the OrneryMod username. He later fixed the mistake but you can see my realization still here.

He confirmed it when he said "True. [Frown] " although he did get rid of the rest of the evidence so I think few others if anyone knew what we were talking about.

ssci,

Regarding Mod anonymity, I think that was agreed upon by the Mods and respected by the other decision makers, not a requirement of being Mod.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Everard, stop lying about how the Mod has broken the rules. Check them here.

You'll see nothing that discusses suspension in the actual text. Suspension has always been at the sole discretion of the OrneryMod.

Oct 20 Post by OrneryMod


quote:
Here is the new standard I am going to try and hold to. One warning, by e-mail, and then on the second offense you are suspended for two weeks. Third offense is a month and the fourth is banning. What constitues an offense is up to my judgement. That is what I was asked to do when the Cards approached me to be the Mod, some one to judge when the line has been crossed. When you asked who appointed me judge, the Cards did.

So, quibbler, what leg would you like to stand on now that both of them have been knocked from under you?


And now I'm going to retire from this discussion before I get myself banned."

Neither leg has been knocked out from beneath me, Drake. Read the user agreement. Moderation is OF THE FORUM, not emails to the moderator. Read the rules. The moderator has power OVER THE FORUMS. Not emails to the moderator.

In fact, everywhere moderation is mentioned... it is mentioned in direct connection with posts on ornery. Not emails to the moderator.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The moderator has power OVER THE FORUMS. Not emails to the moderator.
And the purpose of warnings, suspensions, and bans is to ensure compliance with forum rules. When it's clear the planned penalty won't ensure compliance, moving up in penalty is certainly warranted.

You were suspended for what you did on the forum, not for what you said on the email. The email was evidence that the warning had been ineffective.

What you did was the equivalent of tell the judge after he gave lowered your fine that you are going to speed on the way home from court. If the judge hasn't rendered final judgment, he can raise your fine.

OM isn't - and shouldn't be - bound by constitutional double jeopardy protections. If the restating is correct - that is, if you did say that you wouldn't heed the warning - then additional censure was appropriate.

OM only exercised his power over the forum. He relied on evidence from outside it, but the evidence was reliable and accurate.

[ October 27, 2006, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You were suspended for what you did on the forum, not for what you said on the email."

Nope. Thats not what I was told when I was suspended.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everard's login was suspended because he told us, via email, that he would continue a course of action on the board that he had been asked not to continue. As that course of action was in our opinion certain to escalate a dispute that we did not want to see escalate further, we took him at his word and prevented the action. This was not intended as "punishment," but as a preventative action.
Is this inaccurate, then?
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, I believe it is.

I believe it is ex post facto justification, based on the emails I received from javelin at the time of my suspension, in which i was informed that I was suspended as a result of my email to him. This is, in part, due to javelin's statement in an email he sent me several days after suspending me that the suspension was believed to be in order because of the language in my email to him.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not inconsistent with the Mod's post, but I'll amend my analysis with an "If this quote is accurate."
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
as I said earlier on this thread, dagonee, one acceptable outcome, to me, would be to see the user-agreement be amended to reflect the fact that our emails to the moderator are actionable in the same way that posts on the forums are actionable.

Do you think that is an unfair request, given that apparently emails to the moderators can be used as reason to take action against a poster?

My primary bone of contention with javelin (and one that I won't abandon after a lengthy conversation with him, in which he stopped responding when I documented to him how the user agreement, and other references to the power of the moderator do not allow for the action he took) is that he acts tyrannically... modifies rules as he sees fit in order to achieve an outcome he desires. A rule change from above javelin would at least put his actions within the written framework of what is acceptable to the people who actually pay for this forum.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As far as I know, I've never confirmed or denied whether or not I'm a mod. I'd like to challenge everyone on this board making this assertion to show us the money quote. I will say this: I have certainly spoken of the OrneryMods in the third person - and if I'm a moderator, I can see why someone may be disturbed by this. I think that it's valid, however - regardless of whether I am one of the two moderators or not."

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=009258;p=3&r=nfx#000113

"I don't think there are any rule violations here - but that's up to the OrneryMods - but there are no rules against it that I know of."

This comes very very close to saying you aren't the moderator. Its not EXACTLY doing it, but its close enough to say that you are misleading people.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it is a change of the rules. I'm sorry, but it should be obvious that giving an indication of intent to not comply would lead to suspension.

If you want a written rule, I don't see it hurting, but I thought it was fair game before I ever heard of this incident.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*shrug* I didn't, because the user agreement and rules specifically refer to "posts" being moderated.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Technically, suspensions aren't "moderation" of posts that have been made. Deletion and editing moderate existing posts.

Suspensions are intended to moderate future posts based on an expectation that of future behavior.

Typically this expectation arises from past posts. In general, suspension is predicated on 1) past violative posting and 2) failure of a warning to work. This failure can be based on repeat bad posts or on other forms of communication. But it's the information given that the warning will not be followed which justifies the suspension, not the fact that it was a post on the board.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must admit, that if I hadn't been suffused in formal analysis of punishment and its intended effects for 6 months earlier this year, I wouldn't have naturally thought of board moderation in that way without lots of thought.

It still wouldn't have surprised me that an email to the mod could result in sanctions, though. *shrug*

Now we know.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. We know. And, knowing, I would like to see that reflected in the actual rules.

I am definetely a believer in concrete rules. They prevent situations like this one, where I do not trust the moderators to do anything in the best interests of the board... rather, I expect them to be whimsical and tyrannical in their moderation. This is not based solely on this one episode, but several months of correspondence starting about 6 weeks prior to the event for which I was suspended.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Taking this back to Ev's original post, it seems Ev's biggest problem is not the original suspension, but that he has no means to have that suspension looked at with a view to avoiding repeats of the situation either by modifying the rules, or modifying the way such a situation would be moderated in future. I think this is a reasonable concern.

Perhaps that concern could be alleviated if the Mods agreed would agree to review such situations themselves. They have already gone part of the route already. In relation to some issues they have invited discussion to determine how the community feels about the situation, and what ought to be done. What they have not done is followed up on that discussion.

What I suggest is that if a poster makes a serious complaint about the manner of moderation, or rules in any particular instance the moderators should reviews the policies that led to the moderation, either with or without community discussion. If they feel they acted in error, they should advise the person moderated of that fact and then get on with the job. If they feel they did not act in error, but that the principles they acted on could be revised to avoid the problem, they should clearly indicate their intention to revise those principles or not, and why. If there continues to be significant dissent (which means more than just one person with a grudge), they should themselves raise the issue with the Cards for adjudication. In that way people need not fear they cannot have the situation reviewed.

This does require some trust of the moderators, but for the most part I think they are doing a good job, and are trying to do so.

Everard, the moderators stated position is that their role is to keep discussion civil. In that light, short term suspensions should be viewed more like police "move on" powers than as judicial punishment. They are powers that must be used flexibly to a certain degree to work. This does open the risk of their being used tyrranically, but I do not think Javelin's(?) actions can be described that way. Some have been questionable, or even, in my view, mistaken; but they have been honest and rare mistakes. Given that, doesn't the issue really come down to proper review? And if so, would you consider my proposed review acceptable? In essence, would you trust the moderators to actually raise the issues with the Cards if a more informal review did not give you sastisfaction?

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No.

I don't trust javelin any further then I can throw him.

And since I don't know where he lives, I can't throw him.

Javelin lost, forever, any right to my trust when he stopped responding to my emails after I quoted to him the portions of the user agreement and the forum rules that I thought indicated he acted outside of his jurisdiction, and then when I emailed asking about a response two weeks later, he told me, essentially "I think we've reached an impasse."

Well, yes, we reached an impasse. I quoted to him the portions of the user agreement I thought he violated, and he had no response. So he was left hanging high and dry and without any argument to stand on, and instead of apologizing or saying "ok, we'll modify the user agreement," he ignored me.

Considering this was not the FIRST time I had been ignored by the mods (the first time being a simple request to know WHY I had been suspended, after all moderators involved had told me I hadn't broken any rules), I have absolutely no reason to believe that any review would be made in good faith.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am definetely a believer in concrete rules
You're probably not in a mood to appreciate this, but I'm thinking of our constitutional interpretation strategies and finding this a little ironic on both our parts.

Of course, I can easily reconcile both our views on both topics so neither of us is inconsistent in this regard, but the surface incongruity is amusing to me.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Of course, I can easily reconcile both our views on both topics so neither of us is inconsistent in this regard, but the surface incongruity is amusing to me."

I understand that [Smile]

As you said, there isn't really an inconsistency.

I'm not willing to explain why the apparent difference in view right now (mostly due to my frustration level) but I do think there are differences... many of them having to do with the supreme court, and the lack of review on ornery that is my primary complaint [Smile]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard, I disagree with you as to whether Javelin would review in good faith, but I don't think that is the issue. My proposal is that the moderators review the issues and post their conclusions. In the particular case of your suspension, which has obviously caused some rancor, they would review their actions and the rules, either in communication with you, or in a dedicated thread. They would then post their conclusion. They might post that they agreed that the rules ought to explicitly reflect that private communications would be taken as evidence of future actions, and therefore may result in suspension - and add that to the rules. Alternatively, they might conclude that they acted in good faith in accordance with the rules as currently stated, and post that. In either case there would be a publicly accessible record of how they interpret the rules for future refference.

Now if you still disagreed with their decision, they would then bring the issue to the attention of the Cards for resolution. The question of trust comes down to this, would you trust Javelin to bring this to the attention of the Cards if he said he would? It doesn't matter whether Javelin carries out the review in a way that might change his mind. It matters that we be informed of the situation as it stands, and that if needed, the Cards can adjudicate the decision, even if that adjudication is just a rubber stamp (which is what I would normally expect).

Beyond that, it's Card's forum. It's our decision whether to post here. As long as both parties are reasonably informed of the conditions of doing so, any further problem comes down to our own pigheadedness.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" As long as both parties are reasonably informed of the conditions of doing so,"

This is my problem.

As I tried, many times, to explain to javelin... he invented two rules in order to suspend me. We're not reasonably informed about the rules, and javelin has made it clear when communicating with me that it is not the rules that matter, but his interpretation of "best interests of teh board." A phrase so broad as to be useless.

"My proposal is that the moderators review the issues and post their conclusions."

Which requires that they actually review the issues. I don't think they have done so in this circumstance, despite several lengthy email exchanges with me.

"Now if you still disagreed with their decision, they would then bring the issue to the attention of the Cards for resolution. The question of trust comes down to this, would you trust Javelin to bring this to the attention of the Cards if he said he would?"

YEs, but I wouldn't expect him to present the manner to the cards in a way that assures a fair hearing.

[ October 27, 2006, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1