Dr. Shades wrote:fetchface wrote:My understanding was that MG was not to start threads like the "derailing" thread he just started, that he specifically promised not to, and that he was explicitly warned not to, as quoted by grindael above. I would love to have Shades weigh in with his thoughts on that recent thread.
Weighing in:
He would've crossed the line if nobody else had started a thread about him. Once four or five of threads had been started about him (directly or indirectly), I lost the moral authority to expect him to refrain from doing something that everyone else was allowed to do.
Wait a minute. Here's the problem. On October 25, 2017, you issued this instruction to him.
mentalgymnast wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:MODERATOR NOTE: mentalgymnast, if you intend to refrain from doing something, simply refrain from doing it.
From now on, it is no longer necessary for you to start a thread announcing what you will refrain from doing.
I hereby alleviate you from that burden henceforth and forever.
RULE OF THUMB:
Has something to do with Mormonism: Thread start yes.
Has NOTHING to do with Mormonism: Thread start NO.
Fair enough. Thread is closed.
Regards,
MG
And he agreed.
You did so because he has been a chronic offender. "Everyone else" are not chronic offenders. They are simply reacting to the loss of posters over what they saw as a "too little, too late" ruling on your part.
And now it looks like you're waffling on the above by not delivering a consequence for the "Derailing" thread he started which violates your above directive, which he himself agreed to.
I've been defending your primary directive to him all over these threads. I see no way to defend the above. Either "no" means "no" or it doesn't. Either "forever" means "forever" or it doesn't.
This is why I've said prior that many in this community have lost a sense of trust in the principle of unbiased moderation here.
It's just getting ridiculous at this point.