There has been much discussion lately about private contact between moderator and offender being more kind than public intervention, which frequently results in humiliation. If you vote yes on this question, I will amend the rules and submit them for approval before making them official.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I think that for minor problems, particularly for first offenses, the moderator should make an attempt to contact the individual and request they self edit. Perhaps a time limit, like 12 or 24 hours, and then the moderator takes action if the individual has not corrected the problem.
If egregious sins are committed - and we would need to define what falls in that category, for example obscenity - the moderator should have power to edit or delete a post immediately upon discovery.
I also think that, particularly for minor edits, no announcement need be made by the moderator. If the author of the edited post wishes, they may post a public complaint in the moderation forum. Posting an announcement every time a moderating action is taken just turns molehills into mountains, as we've experienced over the last few months. Poncho's inadvertant use of an emoticon deemed offensive by the moderator comes to mind as an example of this type of case.
And so far it looks like we are all in agreement about adding closed moderation.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
The problem with not taking immediate action and waiting 12 hours is that things can and often do snowball... or everyone and their dog comes along and has to type their reaction to the offense or nonoffense as the case may be.
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I advocate a third way--a way I teach my Kindergarten kids to repectfully resolve their own conflicts without me always having to moderate for them.
"When _____, I feel _____ because _____. Please _____.
Describe the specific situation. Take ownership of your feelings. Provide a reason for your feelings. State the expectation.
"When you posted that joke, I felt hurt because it seemed to be racially biased. Please consider removing it."
Most of the time, that approach works. If it doesn't, then it's time for moderation.
We're adults here. Ideally, we shouldn't need moderation among the members of this community. Arbi does an amazing job with the technical aspects of the board and in protecting us from outside attacks. He shouldn't need to use his time and talents to resolve our conflicts for us.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
I second Roper's approach 100%. In fact after prayerful consideration and reflection I had come up with a similar scenario... and that approach is about the only way I believe will feel comfortable about continuing my participation here for a very long time. That is certainly NOT the end of the world... nor is my admitting my disappointment with this process some effort to manipulate anyone... I simply find it hard to express all that I feel, without sounding like I am trying to pick a fight... and I have been very confused by this event... Not really how it happened, but why it happened...
Please believe me when I say that I am completely aware that my participation as a member/moderator is not essential for anyone's enjoyment in this forum... Hubby and I have talked a lot about my feelings even before this happened... I was struggling not to feel that I should spend my time more wisely... But I have to admit my feelings have been multiplied 10 fold... and I have been completely surprised in several way over the last 48 hours... So I am think that if f I didn't express the feeling I have, I would not be communicating honestly with anyone, least of all myself.
My reality check tells me that it would not have mattered who had participated in the thread that disappeared... My mother always taught me that 2 wrongs don't make a right... I would venture to say that neither does 5-20... I believe I would have felt this same way no matter who were moderators/contributing members.
Arbi, I am feeling completely incapable of moderating at this moment as well, and offer my duties for reassignment, should you desire to hand them off... I will keep trying to moderate if you want, but I don't know how effective I can be...
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
I've decided to share my experience with our current system of moderation and the mod discussion area, because I think it pertains to this discussion. These are my perceptions and experiences and I'm sharing them to show a problem I've had and not to reopen discussion of the previous situation. I want to be VERY clear about that.
So, I had an issue with a couple of things that a mod did a while back. So I did what I was encouraged to do by that mod and the guidelines of the forum. I posted my concerns on the mod discussion forum. Very quickly things got heated. The mod in question came to strongly defend the actions. A lot of others came to jump in on one side or the other or the middle. In my eyes, the whole thread became a big contentious mess.
Many harsh words were let loose. I felt that although some of my concerns were talked into the ground, another was almost ignored and none were validated. I felt accused of starting the whole thing just to cause trouble.
I became ashamed of myself for ever starting the thread, because of what went on there. It seemed to me that people were hurt and that it was worse than if I would have just not said anything. And I decided that no matter what the preferred policy around here I would NOT be taking concerns to that forum again.
Recently (say the last 2 weeks or so), I had been seriously considering just quietly leaving this forum. I felt like I had no recourse to express concerns and that I must just not be a good fit for here. I felt like I had no real voice, because to speak was to hurt. The only reason I was dragging my feet about leaving was that I do actually like it here. I enjoy it a lot when things are going well.
Ultimately, I decided to try one more thing before leaving. (And then this latest conflict came up.) Basically, I decided to see what I could do to try to make things better with my own actions. (But the option to leave was still there to be honest.)
Anyway, though, for me, the current method of very public moderation and moderation discussion has not been helpful. I haven't seen it as effective towards soothing or settling conflicts, but rather the opposite.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
I'm sorry to hear about your frustrations with the board, Hick. I think that we're all part of a disconnect as to how things should be run.
Bountiful was supposed to be more democratic--founded upon concensus and a more deliberate approach than the heavy-handed dictatorship of a single admin.
If you think it's tough to be a board member, I can assure you it's just as fun being a moderator or the admin. Just as some people desired a "king" and the brother of Jared prophesied "This thing will lead into captivity" I think the same thing is happening here.
I'm sure we're all very well intended, but the problem is the captivity we're headed for if we just abdicate all powers to a single despot. Public moderation was a means by which one could air grievances without petitioning a single power to take over and just fix everything. It places a burden upon you to be willing to compromise and work out solutions amongst yourselves...
Here are some bulletpoints of ideals...
1. I think we should be free to express whatever topic, feeling or expression that we see fit to feel.
2. I think we should look at our fellow board members as covenanted members of God's kingdom, and try not to take disagreements personally, but rather think of the wellbeing of fellow boardmembers.
3. We should forgive each other our own personality quirks.
4. When we disagree, we should disagree about ideas, not people or personalities.
5. We should not be so attached to our ideas that we cannot distinguish the person from the idea. None of us is an idea.
6. I think no one should PM the board admin about a corrective action EVEN when it regards a moderator or fellow boardmember--such a grievance is SUPPOSED TO be handled by the whole board, not by a single power. That places the board admin in the precarious position of having to exercise "absolute power". And that's not what Bountiful was supposed to be founded upon.
7. I think moderators should try to resolve something they see as requiring moderation in private first. My only concern with this point is that it leaves the offense open to comment by other board members should the offender not be immediately available to respond to a moderator.
8. Even when a moderation event occurs, the board members are free to discuss it in the Moderation Forum. This is a crucial distinction from Nauvoo, which bans all discussion of an action taken by moderators, and I think it's important to keep, for recourse. In most cases the moderation cannot be undone, but we can at least admit our mistakes and try to make better the next time the situation comes around. In some cases the issue can be undone... and should be.
9. No one should be above moderation. Including the board admin. And this is where our charter is grossly undefined, and processes are a matter of opinion and vaguery.
10. Everyone makes mistakes, and we should be willing to forgive and forget. We should not keep score. We should not feel that so and so was not sufficiently flogged before the town square...we should be willing to let it go... it's a messageboard... after all...
I don't pretend to live up to these ideals. I admit the coronation of a king would be nice, but I feel that such leads to captivity. ANd so I'm in favor of creating means by which the members of the board have public and private redress... I know that we've failed in this responsibility in the past, but I don't think further ruining things will make things better... It will only further serve to isolate us.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Well, I've been busy the last few days, but I've been watching some threads closely.
I feel that attempts at private moderation are a good idea, for the reasons stated here. I feel a few unintended things have happened on this board is as moderation has occurred publicly. 1. Certain moderators have moderated small things publicly, imposing their peccadilloes or idiosyncrasies upon someone in a way that fosters humiliation and/or ire. 2. Most members, not wanting to 'get into it,' see the moderation of tiny things and, if they don't agree with the moderation, pull away. The moderators have the power. The public voice seems to often agree -- at least with the petty things, IMHO because no one feels the petty thing is worth raising a stink over. 3. Members feel less inclined to truly speak their mind, not wanting to come under public scrutiny for violating a moderator's or other's peeve. 4. People notice the forum isn't as deep and interesting in conversation as it used to be, so they become disillusioned and may participate less.
These are not going to happen 100% of the time, but I think that they happen enough to affect the forum as a whole. I know that *I* have felt much less inclined to post the last few weeks due to the manner of much of the moderation.
IMHO, across the river seems, aside from political discussions, much less heavily moderated, not because it IS less heavily moderated necessarily, but because we SEE it less. And that perception has a powerful effect upon how users perceive freedom in discussions.
Bountiful was supposed to be more democratic--founded upon concensus and a more deliberate approach than the heavy-handed dictatorship of a single admin.
If you think it's tough to be a board member, I can assure you it's just as fun being a moderator or the admin. Just as some people desired a "king" and the brother of Jared prophesied "This thing will lead into captivity" I think the same thing is happening here.
Um, I strongly disagree with applying the idea of kings to message board administration. It's not the same thing at all to me. My livelihood and freedom are in no way dependent on how Bountiful is run.
I'm sure we're all very well intended, but the problem is the captivity we're headed for if we just abdicate all powers to a single despot. Again, capitvity is a very strong and overstated way of putting it, I feel. My liberties are not in danger of captivity here. Public moderation was a means by which one could air grievances without petitioning a single power to take over and just fix everything. It places a burden upon you to be willing to compromise and work out solutions amongst yourselves... I feel like what public moderation does is set us up to fail. It places us at odds from each other at the get go. If I say, "I have a problem..." what happens after that? In my experience, the things that happen after that are not good for me or others. And I've rarely seen anything near a consensus be reached about issues discussed.
Here are some bulletpoints of ideals...
Ray, your points 1 through 5 are fine ideals to strive towards, though realistically, people are at different places when it comes to how ready they are to live those kinds of ideals. It's also human nature to tend to apply ideals unevenly. I sometimes want people to behave better than I am realistically willing to behave in my imperfect state.
6. I think no one should PM the board admin about a corrective action EVEN when it regards a moderator or fellow boardmember--such a grievance is SUPPOSED TO be handled by the whole board, not by a single power. I feel that is something that couldn't and shouldn't be enforced. I will absolutely want to have the option of a private PM instead. I do not believe most grievances need to be public. And to be candid, disallowing me the ability to keep them private would be enough to cause me to leave a forum.
Regarding your points 7 through 9, ultimately this board has an owner. And even if that owner does have final say on how things that happen here, that in no way places him in a position of kingship over me. Bountiful's owner has been very gracious and has devoted much of his time to the setting up and running of this place, so that is available for our use. And while we might not agree on every decision he has made, I personally, would feel like I was being ungrateful if I said he was reaching towards being a king.
10. Everyone makes mistakes, and we should be willing to forgive and forget. We should not keep score. We should not feel that so and so was not sufficiently flogged before the town square...we should be willing to let it go... it's a messageboard... after all...
You know, I can only take care of my own self and my own actions. Other people come as they are and that's ok. That's about them, not me. Additionally, it's very possible to forgive and let it go and still want change to happen.
The change I would like to see is a shift towards a more private way of moderating most times. I don't think anyone likes to be corrected publicly. And I do not believe that it has benefited the forum as a whole when it has been done in the past.
I will repeat that I like Bok's ideas and think that is the direction I would like to explore.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
As y'all can see, I haven't left completely yet. :) Decisions around here are still pending... I can't speak for Cat, nor am I inclined to. Plus, we've got a busy week ahead of us.
I think we've all seen what has happened when public moderation has taken place lately and how il-received it has been at times. Public moderation in theory should work. But, from what I've seen no one likes to be moderated. Period. People don't want to leave things alone or they take offense. Then people go and PM one or more of the mods about something they didn't like, wanting them to do something about it...ya da ya da ya da...
So, I don't really know what the solution is. I think that perhaps that closed moderation should be tried first depending on the circumstance and in some cases, make it open if necessary.
On the main page of this forum it says "this is a community funded forum." So, no one person really owns this forum, because a number of people have contributed financially to it and will do so in the future I imagine. We should all act as a community of brothers and sisters, but at the same time be willing to accept that sometimes a moderator must take action for one reason or another. Those actions though should be responsible ones and not done so lightly. We have a panel of moderators so sometimes things need to be discussed by the panel. The reason a panel is a good idea is so that there can be checks and balances for each other.
As a point of clarity, what the main page says is "This is a community funded forum. The contributions of our members help keep this forum ad-free." There is no implied ownership resulting from those contributions. Activeboard won't be checking with contributors before letting Arbi make changes or anything. As far as they are concerned, this is Arbi's forum. Contributions are simply donations to the cause of keeping this forum ad-free with nice features.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
There are. I was addressing Poncho's remarks about monetary contributions, though. Not more than that, not less.
Everyone who posts here might be justified in feeling some form of ownership for the entity that is Bountiful.
Back to the original topic, though, I feel that having private moderation (even if PM is involved) is not mutually exclusive to the psuedo-democracy of moderation currently in place.
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
Even on my family's forum... there is no form of moderation that everyone likes. For a percentage any moderation that is done behind the scenes appears to have a "secretive" nature... I understand the reasons behind the wanting a more open moderation... but some percentage take that as a "public flogging". It is very often a no-win situation. You will never please everyone.
However, that said... one of the things that is affecting my view of that is that as a moderator I currently don't feel that I can trust either process. It is as though my "moderating wind" was knocked out of me. I don't think that is a good place to be.
I agree with Dynie too, The pretense to forgive really is at the root of past mistakes. Essentially It is a failure to make things public because it seems like a small thing, and so it snowballs.
But I think the threat of making a problem public SHOULD be impetus for all of us to FORGIVE EACH OTHER... That's the crux of my point that Hick disagrees with, about PMing the board's admin. What happens is we pretend to forgive each other by not explaining our feelings (or ignoring each other's feelings, which again is just ignored or not mentioned again or misconceived by both parties) and slowly it accumulates.
People are going behind the established channels of authority and method of problem handling to express their dissatisfaction, rather than discussing it openly.
That is innappropriate. It places undue power upon One person. The board was originally organized so that Arbi wouldn't be placed in a situation in which he would be forced to make arbitrary decisions--or execise ABSOLUTE POWER, which is what some have petitioned him to do.
If a change needs to occur on the board in terms of administration, that change needs to be addressed PUBLICLY. And hey, it may be that you think really really bad that someone needs to be changed out, but if it isn't according to the board's population, then you're a special interest group, you're not the whole board.
It may be that the latest administrative action was done according to the popular will of the board, but WE'LL NEVER KNOW, because we have been robbed of that opportunity to make that point publicly or to have any form of public debate about it. Instead there will be a few very happy people, and as a general whole a very disatisfied feeling that absolute power has been exercised without warning just because of some arbitrary whim.
And that's wrong. That was not the founding principle of Bountiful, that may work on other boards, but it wasn't supposed to be the way of things here.
Either we live by principles of freedom, and forgiveness or we have just another board based upon the tyranny of a single administrator and a sham pretense of fair moderation.
I'm all FOR moderators quietly trying to encourage members in their efforts to discuss things civilly, but I'm not a fan of secret complaints going over the moderator's heads... the moderators serve the board, they should receive public feedback.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I agree with Dynie too, The pretense to forgive really is at the root of past mistakes. Essentially It is a failure to make things public because it seems like a small thing, and so it snowballs.
Ray, I'm pretty sure that's not what Dyany was saying. I will defer to her to clarify that, though. Was that what you were trying to say, Dyany?
To the rest of it, though, I have a few comments.
I am highly uncomfortable with the assumption that because some people may have had concerns with some of the moderation, those people with concerns are somehow not forgiving. That is just not neccessarily true. I, for one, am getting tired of having it implied that I would have no issues with the running of this board if I could only become a better person and forgive.
Back to this idea of democracy that keeps getting brought up. And the idea that private messages to the board owner should be disallowed in the spirit of democracy. Let's look more closely at that. If I understand correctly, Ray, you are proposing that moderators be able to moderate privately, but issues with moderation must all remain public. That double standard would make the moderators a special interest group with special protections and it would limit the average poster. Particularly if that average poster has compunctions about the ramifications of publicly calling out another person.
-- Edited by hiccups at 19:03, 2007-11-25
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
I'm suggesting they send PMs to offenders privately before taking public action.
All moderation is private action, because inevitably someone sees the action taken.
Further every action a moderator takes in official capacity as moderator should be recorded and announced in the moderation forum.
I'm also suggesting it's not appropriate to PM the board admin to try to convince him to use absolute power to override moderators, but that such conflicts MUST be resolved publicly.
I don't think there's a double standard.
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 19:58, 2007-11-25
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I have to agree with hiccups, Ray, in that I don't think the fault lies with the posters' perceptions and not forgiving. The problem is, we are human. And therefore fallible. To have a board where everything can be open and public requires us to be perfect -- to NEVER say the wrong thing, to NEVER say anything with the slightest hint of meanness or pride, to NEVER be hurt by another's innocent comment, to NEVER hold a grudge, to NEVER withhold out of fear, to NEVER moderate any of our pet peeves or idiosyncrasies, etc. We aren't perfect. We aren't even close. So people are gonna get hurt. And people are gonna withdraw. And forgiveness, while helpful, isn't enough to perfect this board in the sense that even if people forgive they will become wary. So for the 'capacity of the weakest of the Saints', I feel that private moderation wherever possible is the best course of action.
I think there's waaaay too much moderation going on in the first place.
I don't think people should trash the church, use foul language, troll or disregard thread organization (post in the wrong place).
Other than that, I feel like I'm trying to have a conversation in a politically correct vacuum of fuzzy-feelings and percieved intent.
This thread (moderation discussion) the the most exciting thing that ever happens here...
And before anyone interprets this wrong, I'm just sharing my feelings, I have no beef with anyone. I do, however, have an authority-figure-complex-problem-thingy. I don't like to be moderated. There are, maybe, 2 situations I would allow it. This probably isn't one of them. So the fact that I am still here shows how much I like all of you.
So, I vote for less moderation in general. If we can keep it between the participants, all the better. Then it doesn't have to remind me constantly that it's only a matter of time before I'm thrown in a pond to see if I float. (Monty Python, people....you know...witches float, so they're made of wood....so they burn.....nevermind...)
__________________
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
Ros wrote:I vote for less moderation in general. If we can keep it between the participants, all the better. Then it doesn't have to remind me constantly that it's only a matter of time before I'm thrown in a pond to see if I float.
I would like to RE-encourage all participants in any given thread to think before posting a "purposely snippy" post. I often ask myself when I am feeling snippy...( which is a lot of the time lately, because I have decided that constant pain just does that to you...) "would I say this to anyone's face???" I honestly post less than 1/4 of the things I would like to respond to... A lot of the time I don't even try to come up with a comment because I recognize that my opinion comes off as intolerant and holier than thou... My problem is that the older I get and the sicker I become... there is very little about the gospel that is gray to me... More and more I see black and white... but I know I am rarely in the majority in my view of the world...
Someone wrote that we should try to see our posts with the other person's eyes... But, I think it goes beyond that... We need to TRY to NOT offend... (I know we won't always succeed, but we CAN all try a lot hard not to "purposely" offend...) Then everyone reading a post needs to take a chill-pill for a few moments before reacting and flying off the handle at something said in reponse...
I am guilty of this "snap reaction/response" too, nevertheless over this weekend I have decided that I am going to try harder not to take things personally. Especially when it would be easy to.
Ros wrote:I vote for less moderation in general. If we can keep it between the participants, all the better. Then it doesn't have to remind me constantly that it's only a matter of time before I'm thrown in a pond to see if I float.
I would like to RE-encourage all participants in any given thread to think before posting a "purposely snippy" post. I often ask myself when I am feeling snippy...( which is a lot of the time lately, because I have decided that constant pain just does that to you...) "would I say this to anyone's face???" I honestly post less than 1/4 of the things I would like to respond to... A lot of the time I don't even try to come up with a comment because I recognize that my opinion comes off as intolerant and holier than thou... My problem is that the older I get and the sicker I become... there is very little about the gospel that is gray to me... More and more I see black and white... but I know I am rarely in the majority in my view of the world...
Someone wrote that we should try to see our posts with the other person's eyes... But, I think it goes beyond that... We need to TRY to NOT offend... (I know we won't always succeed, but we CAN all try a lot hard not to "purposely" offend...) Then everyone reading a post needs to take a chill-pill for a few moments before reacting and flying off the handle at something said in reponse...
I am guilty of this "snap reaction/response" too, nevertheless over this weekend I have decided that I am going to try harder not to take things personally. Especially when it would be easy to.
-- Edited by PollyAnna at 06:36, 2007-11-26
Thank-you for giving a perfect example of what i speak of.
It wasn't a "snap reaction/response," I considered and edited for some time. It wasn't to "purposefuly offend," I specifically said it wasn't. And, yes, I would say it to anyone in person.
I could now go on about how 'offended' I am about being told to take a chill pill but that would be silly.
If I have to "carefully consider" how everything I say and how I say it is going to be percieved, how can I carry on a conversation worth having??
The fact is, we dont' know each other, or how we work, speak, think. For a forum like this to succeed there has to be a higher level of tolerance and less sensitivity. I feel like I'm at home with two adolesent boys. All they want to do is fight.
Enough with the petty arguments. It isn't fun.
__________________
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
Ros... I was not speaking to your post... I agree with most of what you said... I was adding/stating MY OWN opinion... That we as a forum NOT DO this... not that YOU as a member DID this...
This is the kind of problem I am getting ready to stop posting over, I can't even count the # of times I have been misunderstood, and hurt someone unintentionally. I am getting tired of doing that.
Ray, one of my issues with the public moderation is that it defeats the purpose. Poncho, I'm going to use you as an example. Remember when Poncho used an emoticon and it got edited? In the moderation area it was explained that it was edited because that emoticon used inappropriate language. Poncho, being the innocent Mormon that she is, didn't know what that word meant. So, a detailed explanation with some history lesson was given to explain why that emoticon shouldn't be used.
How ironic is that. The emoticon was edited because it was inappropriate, but the explanation was way worse than that dumb little cartoon. In a case like that, a simple PM to Poncho to edit it would have been so much better. Poncho, naturally, would have asked why and she would have been given an explanation in private. Thus, my dirty mind would not have been muddied even more by a public and detailed explanation.
__________________
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
People are going behind the established channels of authority and method of problem handling to express their dissatisfaction, rather than discussing it openly. That is innappropriate. It places undue power upon One person. I think we should consider the reason why people are going behind the established channels of authority. Are they doing it because taking their complaints to the public forum resulted in having their feelings and concerns dismissed and invalidated? What would you do, if you felt you were treated rudely by a store clerk, and after expressing that to them, were told that you were just too sensitive and should grow a spine? Would you go to the manager for redress? Would you stop shopping at that store?
You assume the worst: that people are being vindictive and petty because of personality conflicts. There are other possibilities. Why don't we explore those as well?
The board was originally organized so that Arbi wouldn't be placed in a situation in which he would be forced to make arbitrary decisions--or execise ABSOLUTE POWER, which is what some have petitioned him to do. Do you know for a fact that some have "petitioned" arbi to exercise absolute power? Or is this another of your assumptions? (Many of which have been shown to be false, I might add.)
... I can't even count the # of times I have been misunderstood, and hurt someone unintentionally. I am getting tired of doing that.
Polly. I'm not hurt.
It's the "we can't say what we want because it will get misunderstood" situation that I would prefer to change.
Seriously, either I'm way too detached when it comes to relationships in general (which is a distinct possibility) or I just don't get offended easily. But I have never been on a board where there is so much bickering and moderating going on.
We're arguing about how to argue.....does this bother anyone else?
__________________
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
The way I see it, you have many choices besides expecting the board admin to override the moderators.
1. Forgive. 2. PM the person who offended you and discuss your feelings in a mature adult manner. 3. PM the moderator in which the infraction took place. That's the established line of authority. 4. Take your complaint public.
If you don't want to take it public, then forgive or do #2 or #3. My belief is that #1 will always be the best option, because everyone has a bad day, and I'd like to think that if I do that, someone else will do it for me.
The very nature of taking something public creates the social pressure needed to encourage all of us to play nice and get along.
The board admin should not be in the business of ousting moderators.
If there needs to be a process for that, then let's discuss that. Perhaps we should establish a model of electing and reelecting board moderators, we could establish term limits also, so that the board has common consent over time, they can evolve. That's a solution that doesn't require the utterly humiliating treatment that one of our board moderators has been subjected to because so many people don't want him to be reinstated.
We want all members of the board to feel "validated", but I believe there are plenty of avenues for that to occur. It should not be Arbi's job to personally validate every disgruntled member of this board. I think it's wrong to seek a heavyhanded solution that leaves another "invalidated" so that others can feel validated. And that's what will occur if you continue to press for the ousting of Cat in this manner.
If you feel he's not modding correctly, he should have just as much chance to change his behavior as we afford board members. He was given no chance of that.
In the church we put people into positions of authority all the time that we may personally feel don't "validate" the position, but we trust in God that they are trying to live their covenants and improve themselves. We hope that by giving them a position of authority, they will grow spiritually from the experience and learn to better themselves. It seems to me that that sort of trust is what we need here, and is lacking, cuz at this point, I see very little point in having moderators at all if they're not permitted to actually moderate without the fear of invalidating someone's feelings.
I would love for you to show me a scripture where the word "Validating someone's feelings" trumps forgiveness.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
