Who are . . .

[Larry N Moore]

. . . the moderators of Greasespot?

I will explain my reason for asking when this topic makes it on the board (and if there is a response from someone).

[Tom Strange]

...people who care a lot more about the people here and what goes on here than you do.

[doojable]

At the top of your page, click "My Assistant" and there is a link called, "The Moderating Team."

Not sure if this is what you want...

[dmiller]

Do what Dooj says. Click on Moderating team, and you will see all 7 listed.

Click on any of the names, should you wish to speak with any or all personally.

[excathedra]

whatsa matta

larry ?

[Suda]

Doojable and dmiller "beat me to the punch" and told you the same information I was going to share.

Is this what you were looking for?

Suda

[dmiller]

. . . the moderators of Greasespot?

I will explain my reason for asking when this topic makes it on the board (and if there is a response from someone).

Well, it made it Larry! :) And you've got responses. ;)

What were the reasons for asking??

David

[oldiesman]

It is my understanding that Larry's posts are getting screened, monitored, before they appear.

This happened as I understand it, because the moderators thought that Larry was engaging in personal attacks.

If my suspicion is correct, Larry would like to be treated like every other poster here, with no double standards.

i.e,

if he gets monitored because of personal attack, then other posters who engage in personal attack, should also be monitored.

or,

since other posters engage in personal attack and their posts are not getting monitored before they appear, neither should Larry's.

Seems fair to me...

[oldiesman]

I'd like to see Larry receive his full posting privileges back.

Any comments?

[Tom Strange]

Well OM, I've always found that there has been a pretty good reason when folks have been moderated...

I also think that is proven out by the fact that it rarely happens...

Whatever is going on is between him and the moderator(s) and neither you nor I know any of the details...

And not knowing the details I know I couldn't make a judgement on it... how can you?

Bottom line: This board has functioned pretty well as far as I can tell in the limited time I've been around... IMO.

[oldiesman]

I have great respect for the moderators. They have done an excellent job.

But I still want Larry back. :)

[Tom Strange]

I have great respect for the moderators. They have done an excellent job.

But I still want Larry back. :)

I don't think he's "gone"... I think he's just on "delay"...

[Abigail]

I want Larry back too. :)

[RainbowsGirl]

Quotes from Oldiesman:

"It is my understanding that Larry's posts are getting screened, monitored, before they appear.

This happened as I understand it, because the moderators thought that Larry was engaging in personal attacks.

If my suspicion is correct, Larry would like to be treated like every other poster here, with no double standards.

i.e,

if he gets monitored because of personal attack, then other posters who engage in personal attack, should also be monitored.

or,

since other posters engage in personal attack and their posts are not getting monitored before they appear, neither should Larry's.

Seems fair to me..."

"I have great respect for the moderators. They have done an excellent job.

But I still want Larry back."

"I'd like to see Larry receive his full posting privileges back.

Any comments?"

I wholeheartedly agree with all of your remarks here Oldiesman, because what You says here is true! l want Larry back too! He has not been treated fairly here by many IMO!

[socks]

Screening is for kids. If something's out of whack, so out of whack that the person's posts have to be looked at by someone, it's not worth the trouble. Why bother?

Missed the personal attacks part - Larry, be nice. Everyone else - be nice. Let's have a Nice Week, and give Larry back his writes.

[pawtucket]

Larry caused alot of problems about a month ago. He asked if he could gather some stuff from his PM's before I banned him (I never said I would ban him that I recall) I let him do that and he said he would be gone at the end of that week. Many of his held posts right now are directed at me, some of them just plain Flaming. I would like to know why he decided to break his word and come back, then I will consider whether or not I will take him off moderation. In my opinion, he has many of the attributes of a troll, that is why when he left I put the account on moderation.

He also likes to start threads that would be better treated as emails.

Oldies, other have been put on moderation when they do personal attacks, in fact a number were put on moderation when they attacked you. They just decided not to publicly complain about it.

Socks, you don't know all the facts, hopefully this enlightens you a bit. It's really easy to side with a self made victim when you don't have the facts.

AND last but not least, the whole logic about the moderation is to stop the incendiary comments before they reach the page. I can't possibly discover each and every one, but I do act on the ones that I do find out about. It's real easy to attack the moderators. It takes a little more work to find out the facts.

Edited October 23, 2007 by pawtucket

[sprawled out]

who remembers that old song by the buckinghams, "Kind of a Jerk?"

[pawtucket]

who remembers that old song by the buckinghams, "Kind of a Jerk?"

Who is that directed to?

[oldiesman]

Oldies, other have been put on moderation when they do personal attacks, in fact a number were put on moderation when they attacked you. They just decided not to publicly complain about it.

Thanks for letting me know PAW, I had no idea about that.

I'm sure you will work this out and do the right thing.

[Belle]

Why, oh, why, do they promise to leave and never keep their word? <_<

Just a cursory view of larry's profile and past posts, especially his most recent ones, shows someone just out looking for a fight. He's a troll and, imo, it's not really anyone's business why or how Paw runs this board.

How much are we paying for the privilege of hanging out here at the cafe? Are we not getting our money's worth?

Wanna complain? Put your money where your mouth is.

At least, that's the way I see it.

[WordWolf]

It is my understanding that Larry's posts are getting screened, monitored, before they appear.

That makes Larry part of an "elite" group. Out of hundreds and hundreds of posters that have ever

posted at the GSC, only a handful have ever worked hard enough to "achieve" the status of having

their posts screened. Those are the tiny few that proved to the staff-beyond all hope of a reasonable doubt

to their satisfaction- that these posters needed moderation. That takes a lot of work. People have to put in a

lot of time, and a lot of effort, to get that.

Having made that a goal, and having achieved that goal, it's silly not to accept one's status.

This happened as I understand it, because the moderators thought that Larry was engaging in personal attacks.

If my suspicion is correct, Larry would like to be treated like every other poster here, with no double standards.

i.e,

if he gets monitored because of personal attack, then other posters who engage in personal attack, should also be monitored.

or,

since other posters engage in personal attack and their posts are not getting monitored before they appear, neither should Larry's.

Seems fair to me...

Since personal attacks by themselves do not get moderation, then your premise is incorrect,

and it's far more than just a poster making personal attacks.

And whether or not something's a personal attack IN YOUR OPINION does not guarantee the STAFF sees it the

same way you do. They certainly don't see it the same way I do.

Well OM, I've always found that there has been a pretty good reason when folks have been moderated...

I also think that is proven out by the fact that it rarely happens...

Whatever is going on is between him and the moderator(s) and neither you nor I know any of the details...

And not knowing the details I know I couldn't make a judgement on it... how can you?

Bottom line: This board has functioned pretty well as far as I can tell in the limited time I've been around... IMO.

[year2027]

God first

Beloved Larry N Moore and others

God loves you my dear friend

calm down Lary and friends pawtucket and The Moderating Team are doing their best

if we even known all they have to deal with we might understand better

I for one think its a blessing to have a team that tries to keep order

how many been to boards with no order or team trying to keep things peaceful

try

http://www.jehovahswitnessonline.com/index.php

there no rules here from what I see

try it for a while you run back here fast let me tell you

I been watched and I got in trouble with the team some what

big deal I just rethink the thing I was doing at that time

I may not like everything the Moderating Team do but it a blessing that they are there

they help me feel peace here

other wise we may not like some times but we must deal with them

because they are needed

Lary keep posting and give it time after a while your get off report has long as your goal is good and just

and yes I did not see the fire works

thank you

with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy

[anotherDan]

I'm fairly well informed, having been a part of the thread that Paw mentioned, and things really did get out of hand. I appreciated Larry, and I too "want him back," but I think he should recognize why his behavior has become subject to moderation. Another person that had run-ins with moderators was "Mike," a unique case, I admit, but it seems that he's worked things out, and knows his boundries.

I have to go with Paw on this one. Terms of use are very reasonable and necessary. Many sites don't have the manpower to pay attention to the sites, and they become burdened with all kinds of trash. This site is well managed and overseen. Larry, if you don't yet see why you came to the attention of the moderators, or think it's unfair, I suggest you re-read the thread in question, and note how often and with what character your posts were on that thread, and listen to how folks responded to you in that thread. As Rainbowsgirl said, at times you were not treated fairly. That's the nature of all discussion groups, but there are lines that should not be crossed. If you're not willing to admit or are unable to see that you're not the "victim" here, then I'd suggest taking another time out. If you are, then I'd be the first to vote for full reinstatement.

[WordWolf]

(Emphasis mine.)

Larry caused alot of problems about a month ago. He asked if he could gather some stuff from his PM's before I banned him (I never said I would ban him that I recall) I let him do that and he said he would be gone at the end of that week.

Sure would be nice if we could take our posters all at face value.

Many of his held posts right now are directed at me, some of them just plain Flaming.

This is the first board I've participated in that doesn't consider that a banning offense- attacking the staff.

It's almost as if he's begging for a ban.

Either that, or thinks he runs things here, and the staff just have to bend over when he wants them to.

I would like to know why he decided to break his word and come back, then I will consider whether or not I will take him off moderation. In my opinion, he has many of the attributes of a troll, that is why when he left I put the account on moderation.

He also likes to start threads that would be better treated as emails.

Oldies, other have been put on moderation when they do personal attacks, in fact a number were put on moderation when they attacked you. They just decided not to publicly complain about it.

I prefer not to warrant moderation. However, if I did so, I'd like to think I'd bear earning it with the grace

of an adult, and skip the tantrums or public displays.

Socks, you don't know all the facts, hopefully this enlightens you a bit. It's really easy to side with a self made victim when you don't have the facts.

"Victims of GSC" are generally of the self-made kind. I don't remember the last time that wasn't the case.

AND last but not least, the whole logic about the moderation is to stop the incendiary comments before they reach the page. I can't possibly discover each and every one, but I do act on the ones that I do find out about. It's real easy to attack the moderators. It takes a little more work to find out the facts.

I suspect most of the people who criticize moderators rather than just asking or just trusting them

have never been moderators themselves.

I've been both- and in several cases, I was drafted as a moderator, meaning I discovered after-the-fact

that an announcement had been made that I was now made a moderator.

I've also recruited moderators, and screened moderators. It's a LOT more difficult than a lot of people think.

To be a moderator, you have to continually put the good of the board overall over your own opinion.

It's usually a thankless job, but people will sometimes be swift to criticize you as soon as they disagree.

(As in "when I do right, no one remembers, when I do wrong, no one forgets."

Even on boards where I don't like the staff, I give them the benefit of the doubt on their duties.

As for the behaviour that warrants staff here, I often suspect people pull it here because if they pulled it

anywhere else, they'd get slapped down quickly. So, they abuse the laissez-faire posting policy until they

REALLY go over the line.

[Larry N Moore]

it's not really anyone's business why or how Paw runs this board.

I find it ironic that for a group of people who think it's their business what the leaders of TWI and CES do, someone would make this kind of argument. For a group of people who complain that they weren't allowed to question the decisions and policy of leaders of the same two groups to say that I have no right to challenge the policy of the leaders (moderators and/or administrators) of Greasespot imo seems hypocritical.

Paw if you want to know why I came back it's really simple. I have the freedom of will to change my mind. And I have the freedom to voice my opinion about what I believe to be wrong. If you don't think so, then the whole concept of Greasespot is a lie. To call me a troll because I don't share the same opinion that the majority does is pure crap.

I think it's wrong for you to voice your opinion of why you did what you are doing without affording me the opportunity to defend myself publicly. If I'm wrong (in my opinion) then at least have enuf confidence in the intelligence of the members of Greasespot to make up their own minds. All they're hearing is your side of the story. I can't believe you are so insecure about your actions that you aren't willing to defend them -- PUBLICLY.

P.S. This post was edited to draw attention to what I told Paw in another post (which is not intended to be viewed by the general populace.

A little common courtesy is all that is necessary Larry.

Funny I thought if some of the members of Greasespot had shown me a little common courtesy, then perhaps I wouldn't be where I am today. Of course, I'm sure you and many others won't see it that way.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Larry N Moore