Mod Hat — Let me clear my throat ....
That's a Beastie Boys line, okay? Never mind. If you didn't get the joke ... er—right.
At any rate, just to be official: What is this thread about?
Thank you.
If you click the link in post # 2 provided by Bells it will direct you to the thread in question. Reading the entire thread, and yes I know it is tedious and I apologize, but it is necessary to keep all of what everyone said in context.
Neverfly and Bells,mostly, got themselves into a flame attack. Neverfly expressed an opinion, Bells didn't like it. She proceded to conclude along with JDawg and apparently Neverfly, that he was a monster because of his opinion. That didn't really bother me so much, but Bells was stating things as if they were fact about the actual OP. Making insuations about the intentions of the guards involved. I asked her if she meant what her how her words were coming across of if she wanted to rephrase for clarity. I also then went on to support her initial position regarding the actual case. I did not support her summation of Neverfly. This seems to be where she and I got off on the wrong foot, and at times no matter how I tried to maintain the topic, with occasionally pointing out that she was putting words in Neverfly's mouth because she was, She insisted on blasting me, ironically, even when I was making posts in support of her claims. She criticized my posts and even rebutted my posts that were clearly in support of her prior stated position. She and Neverfly were really flaming back and at some point Neverfly backed off and said he was done. I indirectly acknowledged his wise decision by concurring because she was turning her attention towards me, in spite of the fact that I was supporting her claims for the most part.
I stated that I was not going to discuss anymore because I felt she was too emotionally charged at the time based on her bizarre rebuttals of my posts that were in support of her claims. She was making no sense. I can only imagine that strong emotion was clouding her ability to recognize that I was supporting her claims in regards to the OP.
She then got very snarky in her tone in dealing with me. And yes she gave subtle hints to gave me the impression that she would in due time use her position to take mod action against me.
I perceived this as a subtle hint that she would be willing to take retaliatory action against me in the future for how she was interpreting my actions in this thread.
I can only say that I never attacked her character, unless making an observation of emotionally charged counts. I defended another poster who was having his character attacked and I challenged the statements that were used to justify the character attacks. I am not saying Neverfly is without fault and I didn't say so in the thread. I suggested that they were both jumping to conclusions and that the article did not give enough information for reasonable conclusions to be made. I several times stated that I did not want to discuss it further but she kept rehashing and bringing up new arguments. After a bit I just gave up. Especially when I attempted to get the thread back on topic by posting an updated article with new information. I posted the link and then quoted excerpts. A common practice and something she also has done in that very same thread. Most of my responses to the article in question were directly in support of what her original position was, yet she completely overlooked it and went right into rebuttal. Im sorry but who rebuts an argument that supports their own claim? It makes no sense. She just had it in her head that I was against her because I did not support her justification for attacking Neverfly's character. Her perceptions by the way were caused by her reading way too far into what he actually said, At least that is how I perceived it. If she can post her perceptions then I should be allowed to post mine. She demanded a change in my approach but was unwilling to see where she was in error herself.
She kept insisting on asking me why I left things out. While at the same time ignoring parts of posted article and comparing it to links she provided stating that I am ignoring her posts. I didn't ignore her posts, I simply posted a new article and was addressing the points it was suggesting. I said repeatedly that more evidence was needed. Something all but 1 or 2 posters in the thread had all been saying repeatedly.
Ultimately kittamaru, seemingly frustrated, and understandibly so, told us all to chill out but did not neglect to excuse at least some of Bells behavior. From the way kittamaru worded the post it didn't seem to me that he had read the entire thread. He only seemed to be addressing the current state of the debate which had disintegrated at that point to finger pointing. If that is all he read then I can see why he would think Bells was excusable, but if the entire thread was read I don't think he would have agreed.
I, in sincere interest of finding out if I did indeed cross a line, pmed a mod that was not involved and asked him to read over the thread and specifically let me know if I was out of line in anyway or if i conducted myself in a rude uncivilized manner. He responded saying that it was clear that bells was at least equally to blame, but that he didn't think she was necessarily uncivilized but that she didnt use tact and that I was probably more civil and polite than she was. He also said he is not inclined to address problems with bells because she helps him out on threads sometimes. That bothered me but at the time i was not asking him personally to take up a crusade or to take any kind of action against her. I simply asked him to critique my behavior and he did, giving me a relatively clean report.
Yet the official mod statement is that bells is excusable. and no exoneration of any other participants. by stating one participant is excused and not addressing other participants it leads one to believe that it is accepted that the others are not excused. In this case i simply do not believe the entire thread was reviewed.
My issue is that Bells was as much at fault for causing the flame war. My initial posts were actually in support of her claims regarding the OP. I even continued to support her claims further into the debate in spite of her nonsensical rebuttals of my support for her claims. Her only REAL disagreement was me was how each of us perceived Neverfly. But she insists on rebutting. I don't get her.
Then when she is made aware that her behavior is reported she turns her sweet tone on and tries to convince me and readers that it was all my fault and that i was obviously just trying to start trouble. That is an attack on my character and is a dispicable tactic used by people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions. So rather than take responsibility they try to turn the tables and make it look like they were being picked on.
Yeah i was picking on her by supporting her claims in regards to the op. I don't think there is any rule that says I have to agree with her character assessment of another forum participant. and I tried countless times to redirect to the OP.
So why is she allowed to incite flame wars or at least participate equally in them and then not get any reprimand for it? I don't care if you ban everyone on in that debate, but be fair and ban her too. She needs correction as much as anyone else. As a moderator she should not stoop to flaming. As a moderator if she felt Neverfly said something so horrendous she should have drawn fellow moderator attention and taken action if deemed necessary. She should not have gone on the attack in such a personal way but should have handled what she perceived as advocating cruelty and violence with a warning and then an infraction if necessary.
But she could have even diffused it by simply asking him to clarify and accepting his clarification rather than telling him what he thought and twisting his words.
Please review that thread and issue whatever infractions you deem necessary. All I ask is that you do not allow her moderator status to give her immunity to the rules.
