S.a.m.

So because the children stay, they somehow deserve punishment?

 

Hercules Rockefeller:

I notice you closed this thread. I have reopened it, because I think this is a discussion that needs to run its course. People obviously have things they need to get out of their system.


Tiassa:

Your accusations of me lying are sounding a bit shrill. I do not believe I have at any time engaged in a deliberate lie. I may have a less-than-perfect memory of certain remarks in threads etc., which I'm sure you can search and correct, but there is no systematic cover-up or lying on the matter of SAM's current ban by me. In fact, I'm re-opening this thread so you can put your case publically if it makes you feel better.

At this point, I'd just like to correct a couple of points you made.

I did not "send her for a month arbitrarily". I telegraphed my intention to ban her for a month well in advance of starting the vote in the moderators' forum. Moreover, I informed SAM of the exact nature of the process, including my intention to seek the approval of the moderators for a permanent ban and of my intention to ban her for 1 month if that poll failed and no apology was forthcoming. SAM was kept fully informed at all relevant times, in advance of any action.

Many errors here.

1. I have no long-standing grudge against SAM personally. I am on record, however, as holding the opinion that her trolling of late has been damaging to the forum.
2. I took action to ban SAM (for 3 days, along with fellowtraveler) in response to a reported death threat from SAM.
3. That action was not "overidden by protest and evidence". I changed my mind following helpful analysis of SAM's posts in that matter, provided to me by several supporters, yourself being one.
4. The poll for a permanent ban was in relation to a different matter all together - namely, SAM's ascribing statements to me that I never made and her refusal to apologise for said statements.
5. The vote on a permanent ban was "lost" on the basis that I set a 2/3 majority as the standard at which I would ban SAM.
6. I do not "pretend" the vote justified SAM's current 1 month ban. The 1 month ban was the penalty I informed her would be applied in the event that the vote failed and no apology was received. She was informed well in advance of that.

The 30-day ban was drawing of a line in the sand.

 

Sorry, string. You're the second moderator who has independently had that idea - and I completely understand. For now, though, I'd like to leave it open.

 

To pjdude and CheskiChips:

This thread is about SAM. The spat between the two of you stops here.

To any others who wish to complain about other posters being banned or not being banned, please take it to a different thread.

 

kmguru:

Nah. This whole thing is vastly blown out of proportion. I'm not sure why, but SAM always manages to provoke intense opinions one way or the other. I guess it's the high profile or something. I think people need to get over the idea that SAM is special.

I don't see why Tiassa felt the need to move this discussion to the public forum, either. But now that it's here, I think it is important to play out the issue here.


pjdude:

Maybe you ought to check how much ban time otheadp and cheski have actually had. At least one of those two is on the brink of a permaban.


Doreen:

I apologise if this is the impression you got. I am not trying to make people look stupid. What I'd like to know is why some people here think that SAM is special? Why is she so special that she must be given special licence to troll?