Backgrounds in moderation

:: Edit to add ::

I take it that you have spoken to the individual who posted that report to you and they gave their explicit consent for you to republish their PM to you in the public forum James?

Yes?

 

Bells,

It sounds like you're projecting a disagreement with or dislike of another moderator onto me for some reason. Please work out who you have issues with before you go on the attack in future.

No you're not. I gave you a fairly full explanation in my previous post to you. More in the current post. If you have further questions, feel free. I will not be posting tonight to the thread in the Moderators forum on the issue of the deleted material posted by Gustav. I'm in the same time zone as you, and you can see the time stamp on this post. I've already spent several hours on this shit tonight - again far more than it deserves.

Then you have an argument with the supposed "yes men" among the moderators, not with me.

Yes. I said that I did not think that sciforums should host material that provides advice to criminals on how to evade due legal process. You do understand all the terminology there, don't you? By "host", I mean sciforums providing server space to store such material for easy access by criminals (such as in a thread).

I completely stand by my opinion on that matter.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you think sciforums should host material that provides advice to crimonal on how best to evade due legal process? This is actually the discussion that we need to have in the Moderators forum.

This relates to something another moderator wrote. Nothing to do with me.

"They" is the group of "yes-men" among the moderators, I assume. Why don't you ask these evil people whether they consider that I am above being accountable. While you're at it, ask them whether they actually agree with all my decisions, whether they are afraid of offending me, whether they have minds of their own, etc. You may be surprised at the result.

No. I get the run-of-the-mill disgruntled, just-moderated poster disagreeing with me all the time. An angry mob is more like when you get 5 or 6 people (at least) starting 3 or 4 simultaneous and separate attack threads calling for your blood.

I assume that's not exactly a verbatim quote, but rather a picture you're trying to paint for the general readership.

I haven't read those posts. I'm not sure where they are. Probably I'll get around to them eventually. So, you're accusing two other moderators, and perhaps me too, of misogyny and sexism? I can't speak for the other moderators (whoever they are), but I will certainly vigorously defend any accusation you wish to level at me saying that I am sexist or a misogynist. Give it your best shot.

As I recall, you were appointed on merit, not because of your sex. As you know, we have no affirmative action quota, but that's more playing to the crowd, isn't it?

I'm starting to get the impression you think I'm omniscient and omnipresent. I can assure you that that is very far from being the case.

Also, I always considered you to be more than capable of holding your own against your garden-variety sexists and misogynists.

I never asked you to take any flak for any action of mine. Nor have I ever demanded agreement on anything from any moderator, your implied accusations about "yes-men" notwithstanding.

That is what is wanted ... by whom? Me?

Maybe I should just sack the whole moderator team and rule as sole dictator. Then ... next step ... THE WORLD! Bwahahaha!

Oh, my evil knows no bounds. Where can I buy those chairs where you push a button and disobedient subordinates fall into a pool of sharks? And where can I get one of those white, fluffy Persian cats to stroke as I sit in my Command Chair?

Whose expectation? Not mine. Consensus is great, but not always achievable. You can't postpone all action until you have an absolute consensus on everything, or you get nothing done.

(Who is this mystery yes-man?)

You know, Bells, I'm really not that remote and forbidding. It's not the shark pit for you if you dare to disagree or, heaven forbid, ask me a question.

For the general readership: whoever did this accusing Bells of abusing me in public, it wasn't me.

Once again, Bells, it sounds like you have a beef with one or more other moderator(s). Perhaps you should have raised these issues with them directly, rather than bottling it all up and then laying some kind of blame at my feet.

Also, who knows? If you had brought any of this to my attention, maybe I would have sided with you. It sure sounds like something where I would have been on your side.

Yeah. It's Gustav, the man whose primary or perhaps only aim in posting on the forum at present (as far as I can tell) is to do his best to undermine the moderator group, of which you were, until your resignation, a part. I'm sure right now he's smiling quietly to himself over your
self-sacrifice on his altar. Job part-done.

You never know your luck in a big city.

There's that assumption that I'm omniscient again.

What? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I sometimes think my expectations are too high, which sometimes leads to disappointment.

Done (in the Moderators forum). It was, of course, already on the ban list automatically, logged with my name. I assume you're talking about spuriousmonkey's latest sock puppet.

You can say what you like. You might want to read my previous post to Tiassa regarding the reasons I believe that it is wrong to bring stuff from the Moderators forum into the public forums. Or not.

There's not much more to be said on that front, then. We must agree to differ.

Yes, poor me. The thing is, I don't have to take time responding to posts such as yours. It is, however, the right thing to do. So, here I am, with my clock reading 1:27 am as I right this. I ought to be asleep. Poor me.

Twice.

I have no idea what "Hmmm...." is meant to signify here.

Is it polite acknowledgement that, yes, indeed I do have other commitments apart from sciforums? I hope so. I really hope it's not an implication that I've somehow lied or something, because if that's what you're doing you should say it straight.

Why act dumb, Bells? You're not stupid.

The material Gustav posted was not "generally quoted in the media", as far as I can tell from a brief internet search.

The general policy that sciforums need not host advice to criminals remains. I have seen no argument yet that would convince me to change that policy. But perhaps you have one.

Thanks. Somebody else already pointed out that an amendment is probably needed.

A moderator who remains silent no matter what is a useless moderator, obviously.

Just the facts, Ma'am.

 

Oh it truly was a spectacular moment. After he commented on how he thought it was important to have a feminine perspective and accused me of acting like a little girl in the midst of a tantrum, he then went on to call me 'girlie'.

:thumbsup: for affirmative action!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And if that wasn't bad enough, I was then accused of throwing a hissy fit and not acting like an adult.

Was a moment to behold.

Well I suppose I should have acted like the proper lady and minded my place and thanked my male benefactors for having allowed me to set foot in the door..

Because of course that is not sexist or patronising.. Just like I'm apparently not saying someone is stupid if I ask 'how stupid can you be?'. Loving the new standards.


So ladies, line up. The mod forum is in need of the feminine touch. If you are not prone to acting like a girl and won't question authority, sign up. PM James now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!