Banned a trustee?

My thoughts in red. Looks like we're still a ways apart, but that's OK.

KilnRed;11151 wrote: ...Since we can agree that Malcolm may have made this decision out of frustration, can we not also agree that Malcolm not return to these forums with the same "frustrated" attitude? You're assuming he would return the same as he departed, I would give a respected member of the community the benefit of the doubt A break may not be a bad thing for Malcolm and I am glad that we can agree that Malcolm has traditionally been a positive force here. Agreed, I figured that's what he was doing - taking a break. When, and if, Malcolm expresses he is ready to make a peaceful return to these forums, he will be allowed. All it takes is reaching out. See, to me this smacks of him having to "kiss the ring", which I wouldn't blame him for refusing to do. He left on his own, why should he have to ask to return? He wasn't banned until he was already gone. Banning him was no attempt at "having the last word." You are mistaken. See prior point. There was no negative exchange between myself and Malcolm, either publicly or privately. The lack of negative exchange further mystifies me as to why he was banned Had there been, I would've advised Brad to handle the matter as there would be an obvious conflict of interest as I am a moderator.

stepson;11158 wrote: I think the reason posters are disgruntled is more of a cause for alarm than the post itself. If we just "ban" those disgruntled posters, we never get to the root of the problem that made them unhappy to begin with. Discourse should be allowed and encouraged as long as it is healthy.

Hi John,

Agree! Plus, closing and deleting threads doesn't help get to the root of, or helps resolve problems/issues either...it just causes them to spread and pop up again and again in other Forum areas or threads.

Cheers,

Dave

stepson;11158 wrote: Austin,
For the most part, I think you guys do a fine job moderating.

I do think that after Sept 15, most all of these "problems" will resolve themselves.

Not speaking of any one person(s) in particular, it seems as though some people have gotten their feelings/egos/butt hurt and are having a hard time getting over it. I can see theoretical instances where a cooling off period can sometimes be needed and maybe no further action will be required.

I think the reason posters are disgruntled is more of a cause for alarm than the post itself. If we just "ban" those disgruntled posters, we never get to the root of the problem that made them unhappy to begin with. Discourse should be allowed and encouraged as long as it is healthy.

John, thank you for the kind words but I hope that we agree that the discourse has been all but positive lately in a majority of these exchanges. I wonder how the moderators of Rennlist would respond if I were to begin a thread requesting any submissions I had previously made to the forums be deleted. The same poster who did so continually used profanity in his posts and said things like, "Thanks for the laughs" in reaction of moderator decisions here to delete posts made by anonymous users. It seemed an easy decision to ban SeanR. In a job where it is important to be consistent, I made the decision to handle Malcolm's account the same way when he made similar comments, "goodbye, farewell", etc..

When either poster decides they can contribute in a positive way, as they each have before, they may return. Having a difference of opinion is fine, John. As you say.. A positive discourse is possible, so these forums will not be an "anything goes" venue.

DR928;11162 wrote: Hi John,

Agree! Plus, closing and deleting threads doesn't help get to the root of, or helps resolve problems/issues either...it just causes them to spread and pop up again and again in other Forum areas or threads.

Cheers,

Dave

Threads have been closed only when they have shifted from the original topic, and that will continue to be the rule.

Any poster may delete a topic that they originally begun for any reason they choose. I have not deleted any threads. I have, on the other hand, deleted posts. Posts which were requested to be deleted by the original poster, and thus, deleted many threads by default where the posts originally began the topic.

JWise;11161 wrote: My thoughts in red. Looks like we're still a ways apart, but that's OK.

Jarrod, can you provide where I said either he or Sean must ask to return? All I'm looking for is them to tell me or Brad that they wish to return. That's enough evidence for me to see and determine that they are have cooled their jets, so to speak. It's a simple process and I don't feel it is a foul by a moderator, at all, to use this standard.

DR928;11159 wrote: The first time I did it as a rookie Mod...it was the current Super Moderators post...OOPPPSSS He laughed at me about it, so did all 3 of the Admins and all 12 of the other Mods on staff.



I agree, but it could also seem really "inconvenient" since Malcolm had made some posts in other threads about a meeting at the OCIC that was sternly questioned by the Admin, and just an hour prior to this "Edit issue" he made a post supporting Andrew(in Andrew's Thread), you see that is just an example of how things can be justified in a variety of ways....BUT, even taking that way, and being completely benign, aren't things a little more "active" around lately AND couldn't that just as easily explain the "timing" of his honest mistake???



Really? Have you never Quoted another person and either removed part of the Quote leaving just what you wanted to respond to, or separated the quote like I am doing yours now???? We all do it, it is normal to do so. Again, honest mistake....AND once you hit that rectangular gray button it is too late...no matter it you noticed it said "Submit Reply" or "Save Changes"..or not. Long time habits can trick the mind easily.



Fair enough, I have honestly observed you trying to be mostly fair in your Moderation and don't doubt this as all....but if you think now about what he tried to say then, combined with some of the things I have said...are you still confident Malcolm had "malicious Intent" or was up to "mischief"...enough that he should have been canned as a MOD without any sort of review process or discussion among other Mods and Admin?

Dave, you have a skill at making good points as I have seen in other exchanges and see here now. I haven't considered the possibility that Malcolm may had erased a portion of the text to only include text that he wished to quote. I will consider the possibility and review the situation further. Thank you for your constructive input.