It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:08 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:46 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Dear MormonDiscussions.com participants:

Recent developments have convinced me that we need yet another course correction in our quest to perfect this message board. In other words, your concerns have been heard.

From this point forward, our moderatorial modus operandii will change in the following ways:

First change:

ALL threads in the Terrestrial Forum will be run like ALL OTHER threads in the Terrestrial Forum. (The same goes for all other threads in their own respective home forums.) If someone wishes to have a thread hosted in the Terrestrial Forum (instead of the Celestial Forum) in order to give it more exposure, then that person must also be willing to take the "hit" that Terrestrial-level discourse will take place within it. In the future, all thread originators must remember that that's simply the price to pay for greater exposure.

Of course, there's nothing preventing moderators to be more vigilant when it comes to splitting off derailments or off-topic posts at the thread originator's request. Even in such a case, only actual derailments will be split. Potential derailments will be allowed to stand, since we've learned that doing otherwise raises far more ire and thus engenders, paradoxically, much more potential for further derailment.

Second change:

In the Terrestrial Forum, we are going to be a little more predictable--and lenient--when it comes to deleting ad hominem material and personal attacks. To whit, some ad hominems are more extreme than others, so to best reconcile the contradictory concepts of running a free speech board while simultaneously keeping everyone happy, we're going to delete the more blatant, obvious attacks and let slide the ones that are more open to alternate interpretation. Here's how this will work in actual practice:

  1. If the attack is something that will drive people away from the board, as expressed by the folks who were the impetus behind the Great Moderatorial Experiment, it will be deleted.
  2. If there is a reasonable doubt about whether or not it crosses the line, it will stand.
  3. Not all personal attacks will be considered equal, even if they say the same thing. For example, something that might technically be an attack but is nevertheless witty, sophisticated, or otherwise requires (even a little) brainpower to think up will be allowed to stand. On the other hand, attacks that are gutter-level, junior-high, or trailer park-ish will be deleted. For example, attacks like "It saddens me to see you suffering under the malignant cancer of Mopologetic dystrophy" would be allowed to stay, whereas attacks like "you stupid d__a__!" would not.

Now, I know what you're all thinking. While reading the above list, you thought to yourself, "Yes, but how can the moderators all agree in every instance? Aren't some of those things subjective determinations?" My answer is YES, they indeed ARE subjective. Not that I like it that way, of course, but because that's the simple reality of there being more than one moderator and all of us being human. I have already given each of my moderators strict instructions that, while in moderator mode, they must each become a clone of me, do things precisely the way I would do them, suppress any and all creativity and innovativeness, and otherwise surrender their free agency. (I think the recent goings-on were symptomatic of an unwitting departure from those instructions, nothing more.) Nevertheless, while considering "What Would Dr. Shades Do," it's inevitable that they'll guess wrong on occasion. Please cut them some slack; THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE BIASED AGAINST YOU, it's merely because we're all different people and sometimes interpret things differently, much as it pains us.

Hopefully this will put to rest any fears of us going the way of MA&D and simultaneously rebuild confidence in the future of MormonDiscussions.com.

.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:52 am 
Priest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:38 am
Posts: 298
Thanks for the board shades!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:01 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
You're very welcome! I hope that you, and everyone else, will continue to get much enjoyment out of it on into the future.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
Dr. Shades wrote:
Recent developments have convinced me that we need yet another course correction in our quest to perfect this message board. In other words, your concerns have been heard.

Sounds reasonable. Thanks, Doc!

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2425
Thanks, Dr. Shades! The bloviating Mormon Apologist pustules should be dealt with kid gloves since their obfuscations, ad hominems, and misdirections lead to various apologetic sundries that stimulate this discussion board in a manner most agreeable with the Mormon moderators and their apoplectic accomplices! It's a wonderful and momentous discovery to know that if one simply purchases his pithy and witty remarks with five-dollar words that the insult will be pegged (shout out to Chonguey) to the thread rather than be relegated to ethereal obscurity. THANK YOU!

So. Rather than call some professorial gasbag a "fat ____" all I need to do is call him a "pontificating cancer who demonstrated that the presence of maggots in putrefying meat does not result demonic damnation and an overinflated sense of self-importance and obstinate refusal to acknowledge deity, but rather a common sense reality of life" who chooses to enrich himself through his "academic" pursuit enfattening himself and his family at the expense of truth...

KUDOS!! I love this NEW reality!!! LOVE IT!! THANK YOU!!!

_________________
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32006
Location: Planet Perfume
Quote:
First change:

ALL threads in the Terrestrial Forum will be run like ALL OTHER threads in the Terrestrial Forum. (The same goes for all other threads in their own respective home forums.) If someone wishes to have a thread hosted in the Terrestrial Forum (instead of the Celestial Forum) in order to give it more exposure, then that person must also be willing to take the "hit" that Terrestrial-level discourse will take place within it. In the future, all thread originators must remember that that's simply the price to pay for greater exposure.

Of course, there's nothing preventing moderators to be more vigilant when it comes to splitting off derailments or off-topic posts at the thread originator's request. Even in such a case, only actual derailments will be split. Potential derailments will be allowed to stand, since we've learned that doing otherwise raises far more ire and thus engenders, paradoxically, much more potential for further derailment.


Wait a sec, Shades. The above makes it appear as if I expected the Book of Mormon Authorship thread to be treated as a Celestial thread.

The only requests I made of moderators or yourself with regards to requests for action on the thread was to split off topic remarks.

I want that made clear.

I don't know where the idea came from that I asked for or expected it to be treated like a Celestial thread because I didn't.

Here's a copy of a request I made 20 days into the thread:

Quote:
Request to moderators: I would like to see this lengthy thread remain on topic. If it's not asking too much, could a moderator comb back through the last 3-4 pages, weed out the off topic exchanges and split them off into their own thread? Please take this post along with the off topic exchanges that you find.

Thanks,
Jersey Girl


All I ever requested the entire time were that moderators remove off topic exchanges and initially, that it be pinned.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:49 pm 
I don't envy you, Shades. You should be paid for doing this.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:54 pm 
Jersey Girl wrote:
The only requests I made of moderators or yourself with regards to requests for action on the thread was to split off topic remarks.

I want that made clear.

I don't know where the idea came from that I asked for or expected it to be treated like a Celestial thread because I didn't.


Well I know now where the idea came from, and no one corrected it:




harmony wrote:

It's a Celestial thread in the Terrestial forum, so it gets the traffic it deserves. It's not sacred and it's not secret, but Celestial standards will be enforced.

Quote:
Yes, but IMO marg is moderating it in a biased way, which brings me to:


And when you offer to moderate, Shades will take into account your biases too. I've sure as heck got them, as anyone with eyes could see me jumping up and down with glee that Brent had showed up on that thread.

Quote:
What on earth does a "multi-billion dollar church" have to do with any of this? This sort of bias shouldn't even enter a moderator's considerations!

Furthermore, what on earth does Brent Metcalfe have to do with this multi-billion dollar church?


I suspect that marg doesn't know Brent's affiliation. Maybe we could cut her some slack, since she wasn't around for Z's meltdown?

Quote:
not "vulnerable to attacks" on message boards? Is marg talking about attacks, or just bold criticism she doesn't like?


harmony wrote:
Celestial standards on that thread, as was clearly stated at the beginning. It's a gem; let's keep it that way.

And yes, I know who started this pissing match. I'm just not sure why others have joined in like they have.


And Jersey Girl implied as much:

Jersey Girl wrote:

I asked Shades if marg could moderate the thread to perform a split. He approved that. I made the request because marg is assigned to moderate the Celestial Forum.


Off Topic Comments from Book of Mormon Authorship Thread


See you later. The real world calls.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32006
Location: Planet Perfume
I know where the idea of it being treated as a Celestial thread came from too and it has nothing whatsoever with ME requesting it be treated as such.

Jersey Girl "implied" nothing of the sort. I asked Shades if marg could split the thread because I assumed she needed admin approval to moderate outside of the forum she was assigned to.

Any other straws you'd like to grasp?

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:21 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Sounds reasonable. Thanks, Doc!

You're certainly welcome, Rollo.

Antishock8 wrote:
So. Rather than call some professorial gasbag a "fat f***" all I need to do is call him a "pontificating cancer who demonstrated that the presence of maggots in putrefying meat does not result demonic damnation and an overinflated sense of self-importance and obstinate refusal to acknowledge deity, but rather a common sense reality of life" who chooses to enrich himself through his "academic" pursuit enfattening himself and his family at the expense of truth...

YES. THAT IS 100% CORRECT.

Jersey Girl wrote:
Wait a sec, Shades. The above makes it appear as if I expected the Book of Mormon Authorship thread to be treated as a Celestial thread.

The only requests I made of moderators or yourself with regards to requests for action on the thread was to split off topic remarks.

True, but one or two moderators misinterpreted your intent. My clarification was meant to prevent any such problem from happening in the future.

Ray A wrote:
I don't envy you, Shades. You should be paid for doing this.

I agree, damn it! If anyone wants to mail me a check, PM me and I'll give you my address. :-)

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:43 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Of course it's all my fault! Did anyone ever expect anything different?

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:41 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
No; little if any of this is your fault. There are simply experiences that teach us a more perfect way.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32006
Location: Planet Perfume
Dr. Shades wrote:
No; little if any of this is your fault. There are simply experiences that teach us a more perfect way.


Not so fast, Mr. Perfect.

Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how? She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment? Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress and have you taken a moment to thank her for her efforts?

Sheesh.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:28 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Jersey Girl wrote:
Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how?

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"

Quote:
She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment?

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"

Quote:
Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress . . .

It isn't Either/Or. I saw both taking place.

Quote:
. . . and have you taken a moment to thank her for her efforts?

Yes. More than once.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:37 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32006
Location: Planet Perfume
Shades,

She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to Mr. Peterson.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:42 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Jersey Girl wrote:
She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to Mr. Peterson.

I thought everyone was saying she had.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:23 am 
Jersey Girl wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
No; little if any of this is your fault. There are simply experiences that teach us a more perfect way.


Not so fast, Mr. Perfect.

Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how? She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment? Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress and have you taken a moment to thank her for her efforts?

Sheesh.


Shades has thanked and he even asked me to not leave, His request on the board was to not moderate the Book of Mormon Authorship thread.

The evening Ray started the smear campaign against me by started the "Does Dale get preferential treatment thread" was 1/2 hour afterr I believe he had posted in the Pearl Curran thread that he wasn't going to indulge me in further replies. He started up the smear thread, I saw it but was heading out the door. I posted quickly a "yes" I gave Dale preferential treatment, sure I cared about Dale but none of the moderating I did was preferentially biased. It's also obvious Dale doesn't need preferential treatment by the way he posts.

When I came back that evening I saw you had written a post bowing into the complainers and asking me to not moderate the thread. I quietly said sure, and nothing else. But within a short period of time that evening, I thought not only do I not want to spend more time in my life conversing with someone as underhanded as Ray but what was the point continuing at all if all that was required was some complainer with a personal grievance to complain and you'd cave. So I gladly posted and with no regrets that I no longer wished to moderate.

But as time has gone on, people coming out of the woodwork on this to add their 2 cents to criticize, yet I don't think any of them really knew what went down and with Ray still sticking to his "marg is biased" campaign, I feel it necessary to be more explicit of the facts. I don't blame you one bit, I made the mistake of replying that I gave preferential treatment when I hadn't and I am certain beyond a shadow of doubt that what motivated Ray was a function of our discussion in 2 threads which evolved over the month.

I'm not sure what we learned. Ray learned that he can mistreat others and get away with it. I learned that perhaps responding in exasperation without thinking wasn't wise, though it's not that I regret not moderating. The moderation issues boiled down to Brent being angry about his first post being moved, essentially a one line question which was off topic as Dale's personal life is not the issue of that thread. Though it was moved along with 4 others of a similar vein. And a warning to Mikwut who unjustifably and excessively described Dale as being flippant and dismissive in response to a post of mine, which given the massive number of posts by Dale and that the response was meant to be concise because I asked for it to be,seemed inwarranted. Also, Dale & Mikwut previously had an exchange of 4 posts in which both acknowledged one of them had insulted the other, and I was taking care that a repeat wouldn't happen. But a warning is not a deletion, no post was moved, just a warning that in the future I might delete ad homs. Certainly one warning is not indicative of overzealous biased moderating.

Rays motives were spiteful. He spent a whole month responding to me frequently , oftentimes seemingly in anger with replies of "Marg is biased, closed minded, and ill informed. Although the issues had nothing to do with the S/R he tied them together such that 'Marg is biased closed minded on these issues and therefore biased on S/R theory and therefore what she says should be dismissed'. Addressing issues did not seem to be Ray's intent but rather attacking the person did. He made comment that his intelligence had been insulted and numerous times tried to put words in my mouth that I was labeling him gullible when in actual fact I hadn't until he explicitly asked me and when I asked him questions his response indicated on that particular question he was and I told him so.

Everyone has bias. The point here, is whether or not a moderator acts in such a manner as to hinder one side unfairly from advancing their argument with undue actions. While Ray may claim that's so, there really was nothing of significance to back up his claims. Certainly though there is plenty of evidence for whatever reason, that instead of addressing issues, time and time again in discussion with me, he'd resort to the attack of "marg is biased and closedminded". I kept trying to reason with him about concepts of skepticism but to no avail.

As I said I really don't know what the lessons are. I do believe that good moderation is better than poor, no moderation is better than poor moderation. I've experience no moderation, I have experienced very poor moderation, but in recent months this has been the only time I've seen moderation which does seem to have generated an improvement in quality of posts.

As far as a comment you made Shades previously that the Book of Mormon authorship thread is not Celestial I believe there was a discussion briefly on that in the Mod forum and it was decided rather than move it to leave in Terrestial but treat it much like Celestial. In any event, that doesn't make any difference because the moderation was minimal. For the most part the skill of the participants is what kept the thread on track and free of personal attacks.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:36 am 
Dr. Shades wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to Mr. Peterson.

I thought everyone was saying she had.


This was and is the problem, few people know the facts.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 32006
Location: Planet Perfume
Popping back in for a sec to clarify with you, Shades.


Me: Did marg act with bias on the pinned thread and if so, how?

You: "Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"



Me: She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment?

You: "Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"



Me: Or do you see a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress . . .

You: It isn't Either/Or. I saw both taking place.

Me again: Are you saying that when you examined the split thread you saw both a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress and bias in the form of how the "Danny Boy" remark was handled?

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:33 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13871
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
Rays motives were spiteful.

I'm not worried about his motives. I'm only worried about whether or not there's some merit in what he says.

Quote:
Everyone has bias. The point here, is whether or not a moderator acts in such a manner as to hinder one side unfairly from advancing their argument with undue actions. While Ray may claim that's so, there really was nothing of significance to back up his claims.

The utterance of the two unutterable words was enough to destroy confidence and raise ire. That was the damage.

Quote:
As far as a comment you made Shades previously that the Book of Mormon authorship thread is not Celestial I believe there was a discussion briefly on that in the Mod forum and it was decided rather than move it to leave in Terrestial but treat it much like Celestial.

If so, I either missed it or forgot about it. Even so, I should've put the kibbosh on it.

Jersey Girl wrote:
She made a statement which was explained to you as posting in haste regarding "preferential treatment". In point of fact, when you look at the split thread, do you see any preferential treatment?

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson"

Quote:
[b]Me again: Are you saying that when you examined the split thread you saw both a moderator splitting off topic remarks from a thread in progress . . .

Yes, although there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I would've waited until after a derailment had taken place, not just a potential derailment.

Quote:
. . . and bias in the form of how the "Danny Boy" remark was handled?

It may not have been bias, but it wasn't how Terrestrial threads are handled, thus garnering ire.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:14 pm 
Dr. Shades wrote:
The utterance of the two unutterable words was enough to destroy confidence and raise ire. That was the damage.


I agree that was the damage but I can still say I made a mistake as far as that response went and I will post after I post this ...a clarification on it. In addition I will note you didn't ask me for a clarification in private or on the board, before your decision.

Quote:
As far as a comment you made Shades previously that the Book of Mormon authorship thread is not Celestial I believe there was a discussion briefly on that in the Mod forum and it was decided rather than move it to leave in Terrestial but treat it much like Celestial.


If so, I either missed it or forgot about it. Even so, I should've put the kibbosh on it.[/quote]

Really Shades? You don't appreciate there is a difference between that thread and the majority of most other threads in the Terrestial? You have no appreciation that Dale is a treasure trove of research information with the ability to present it well and that thread offers something of value the vast majority of other threads don't? Come on Shades..

Quote:
. . . and bias in the form of how the "Danny Boy" remark was handled?

It may not have been bias, but it wasn't how Terrestrial threads are handled, thus garnering ire.[/quote]

Well that is a flat out lie, that i garnered ire. No one noticed it. Why because it was done retroactively, it wasn't evena blip on anyone's radar screen. You really are being dishonest and grasping at straws, if you are using that as an example of egregious moderation.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Manetho and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group