Ah! I see now why the topic on 'women's rights' has not been touched:

1) it is entirely tongue-in-cheek.

2) To treat it censoriously would be to treat it seriously.

3) the moderators actually agree with the comments of the author of the 1st post

What a pickle! Who'd be a moderator?

Regards

I agree, Elysium, however there has been no further communication with either Bruce or the moderator to reach a peace about what happened, and thus feelings are still hurt.  What is sought, is not to restore Craig's angry comments.  What does makes sense is peace, compromise and consistency.  Spitfire's "Goodbye Chaps" thread did not violate the terms of good taste or the forum, and certainly is less offensive than RyanParis' anti-woman thread which can still be found on the off topic forum. 

Peace and compromise do not, in any way invalidate a moderator's job.  Failure to acknowledge what a substantial number of posters are feeling and saying after the deletion of Craig's thread, however, while perfectly legal is unsettling to those of us who see AKF as a community. 

Matthew

That is not true, Senote.  I have had emails from others who have not posted supporting our discussion here.  The number is significant, and at least on our end it is a discussion.  It is true, if the moderators don't care to continue the conversation it will die down.  And a number of us will leave as well. 

We have had many discussions on the board about pure unconditional love, expressing love, and the like.   This is not about one side being "right" or another being wrong.  It is about a number of people (a significant number), who feel hurt by the recent actions of the moderator and want a better solution.  Even if seen from the view of PUL, the cosmoethical action here, as Kyo would call it would be to engage in conversation, make peace, and figure out a public and open way to moderate that would let discussants feel that there was justice and fairness involved. 

M

  Self edited:

What's the point?

 3 times a charm?

Hi Justin!  Glad to see you here again. 

Believe it or not, I am as big of a hot-head as the rest of the hot-heads around here.  I get p.o.'d, I get offended, and I don't like everybody, but I do choose my words and my battles carefully. 

From what I understand, Spitfire wasn't banned (not yet, right?) it's just that he crossed the line somewhere so he got a slap on the wrist.  We've seen this with Don too (sorry to bring up your name Don but you know you've crossed the line many times and I'm surprised you haven't been deleted yet-- but maybe not enough folks have complained about you?)

All my above post was about was to defend the fact that Bruce has made the peer moderator system so that when enough people "complain" about a post, something can be done about it.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Bruce agrees with the complaint or that everyone else on this site agrees with it. 

As I said, Bruce isn't here to speak for himself at the moment so a lot of these complaints are kind of pointless as I see it.  If anyone has a gripe with him, they need to wait and talk with him about it.

And, even if there are cliques here, no one is going to get banned or deleted because they are not liked by a few.  I'm sure that spitfire's thread got deleted because it violated guidelines.  Am I right? Or am I wrong?

Personally, I have read plenty of stuff I don't care for, but I also don't complain about it.  I know it will eventually blow over after everyone has said what they want to say and then they all move on to something else.  Happens all the time.  I chose not to engage in every thread, argument, debate, war, or whatever you want to call it.  Sometimes all I do it read.  Sometimes I just ignore it altogether. 

In regards to you Justin, when you were getting bashed, I missed all of it--on this site and on the other.  Just like I missed this whole Spitfire problem.  If his thread had been left on the off-topic forum and it offended me, I just would have ignored it.  I wouldn't even have posted on it. 

I can only speak for myself here in saying that I'm not taking sides on this issue, it's just that it's not affecting me the way it seems to be affecting some people.  But that's the way people are--we want to stick up for those we like/love. 

Quote:


i,too think this is an unfortunate explanation.not only for here, for any boards this was going to be an extremely unfortunate explanation.

it is ok to be going..it is not ok to go without saying the reasons of going..because perhaps you ll come back and nothing would have changed.. and perhaps you d regret not saying it.

humbly..peer moderation is not a good system..especially in a positon where the peer moderation output is putinto the action without intermediate evaluation. in peer moderation system the "keen" party rules the board ..or board bandits in other words..(and those board bandits might really get undercover )but instead it ought to be the justice that should rule a board..and unfortunately just people would sense that moderation is not their bussiness and will stay out of the peer moderation system mostly.
you d notice immediatly when somebody is insulting you..a moderation doesnt have this luxury. when moderation does this, it really really looks bad. moderation has to be alert for anybody equally or show this will to a proper degree ..and especially on behalf of the weak and unwanted (by the bandits), the moderation should be alert. because those people should also be welcomed as long as they dont insult people..it is wonderful to have people who dont agree and discuss this openly....i cant spare/save my friends, supporter, customers and let the strangers or non wanted by the bandits to be perished on a board, as the moderation..or it is not a board it is just "lets praise and raise the king" arena. nobody..even the customers wouldnt wanna be in such a place after a while.. is my guess
anyway.. mostly and shortly behind all this moderation should do the work of separating thought critizm from personal insult. thats all.

Vicky,

A thread entitled "Goodbye Chaps," after the initial bad taste posting was completely deleted.  Posts on both threads that were not offensive were completely deleted.  The time, effort and thought placed into those posts were summarily erased.  

I am not saying every moderator is perfect.  However, obviously people are upset by these actions, but they stood by without an adequate explanation or restoration despite the seeming injustice and the outcry.

I believe a public notice either on the original thread or on a new thread would serve the purpose well.  We are not trying to make the moderator "eat crow," so much as to restore the sense of balance and fairness that many of us feel is lost.

Allan posted a note saying that in point of fact, I, you and others are "owed nothing,"by Bruce or the website.  Although legally true, for those of us who see this as a community, I find that to be a very discouraging and polarizing statement.


Matthew