Looks like I'm the "some people" that Linda refers to concerning the "snide remarks/implications"...I guess everyone's sense of humor evaporated with the new rules...
I suppose that I will have to be more mindful in the kinder and gentler greasespot cafe...no more shall we criticize anyone who defends an abusive cult leader...it would seem that the term "Wierwille apologist" is no longer permitted to be used (even though it is an accurate and gramatically proper term in every sense)...
...I know, I know...we don't want to offend anyone. We want to be a place that is user friendly for anti twi and pro twi alike! WOW (no pun intended)...now that's a revelation to my soul!
...wait a minute...am I being sarcastic?...oh oh, that's not permitted any longer either, is it?
It feels like if there are rules, someone is going to bit ch about the rules. If there are not rules, someone is going to bit ch 'cuz there are no rules.
I find it hard to imagine that NO place has rules that any of us frequent on these machines.
A place of employment has standard operating procedures, people follow those. A business one uses to buy their product has certain rules.
In our society, we have to follow the laws of the land, the rules of the road, the courtesy's of everyday functionality.
Why is this place any differant? What is the problem with having a few guidelines and practices to help things flow smoother?
Is it that actual word "rules" that bothers some? What if it were called guidelines, procedures, or some other word that fit your mind better?
I'd bet someone wouldn't like that, or whatever other word Paw chose. He's gotta do something and yet try to meet the need(s) of you and me and everyone else. Impossible task.
I've done the moderating duty; it's a pain! It's all voluntary and as evident here, very little, if any, thanks.
Sarcasm, anger, hurt, ugly words flying all over do nothing but produce more of the same and we know it. That doesn't promote changing of the rules according to our sarcasm, anger, hurt or ugly words. Would you want to do anything if it were presented to you like that with those emotions?
As has been stated, this is a volunteer-run board. These people work jobs like you, have kids and relationships just like you, but they add hours! of extra personal time in here.
I wonder how any of us might think we have claim to be frustrated with the rules, considering it's a courtesy that is provided us. I get that this isn't the point.
I wonder, also, if any think the rules were just tossed out there with no thought for the entire board in general? Seriously? I think they were worked on for weeks, perhaps months, in order to meet as many of the needs as possible.
If any of us have an aguement to present, what if we do so with more empathy of the bigger picture, with a lens of contributing toward the good and not just to 'have our say' cuz we think we can.
Then how helpful is it to express oneself in anger, hoping to make a point, finding it doesn't land where expected then express further anger? Then further still....
There has to be "rules" of some sort where human beings are concerned. Since you or I don't run the place, how about we just say thank you and enjoy the benefits given freely?
Simpler, less painful and the Admin and Moderators will sure be more likely to hear our further ideas.
please reconsider dear friend. i think this has not been the best communication thing going on
seriously
love you, i don't want you to go. and i don't paw or anyone does at all
I've been following this thread and have some opinions on some things that have been said, but have restrained myself on commenting because I didn't think it would do any good. Here is a post I can agree with, and that includes the "not the best communication going on" part. But IMO that can be fixed.
Naked vacuuming!!!!! Man, I always miss the good stuff!!!!
I highly recommend that no rules be invoked preventing nude vacuuming. I mean, after all, we need to allow for the outer extremes of dissenting voices and opinions. I think that in the interest of fairness it should be, no must be, allowed. Better than any rule, actions speak louder than words. Freedom to vacuum in all manners of dress, undress, clothing styles, accessories and accoutrements of all types needs to be allowed. Likewise with feather dusting and any other method of choice to reduce the amount of dust and dirt on floors, walls, window coverings, wall art and even ceilings.
Why is this place any differant? What is the problem with having a few guidelines and practices to help things flow smoother?
I'd bet someone wouldn't like that, or whatever other word Paw chose. He's gotta do something and yet try to meet the need(s) of you and me and everyone else. Impossible task.
I don't think there is a problem with having a few guidelines and rules...quite frankly, I think they are needed.
...and I appreciate all the effort that goes into this place by so many people. Over the years, the GSC has evolved. Personally, I don't think I would be so accomidating towards pro-twi attitudes...but I don't own this website and it's not my call...
I suppose my main concern is not that we have to follow rules, that's fine (and needed)...my concern is to see the truth about an insideous cult exposed and not watered down in favor of political correctness or politeness.
It's my opinion that revealing the truth about twi should be the priority and not trying to "meet the need(s) of you and me and everyone else"...it's nice to have a social gathering place where civility is the order of the day...but that's not really why I come here...
I don't think there is a problem with having a few guidelines and rules...quite frankly, I think they are needed.
I suppose my main concern is not that we have to follow rules, that's fine (and needed)...my concern is to see the truth about an insideous cult exposed and not watered down in favor of political correctness or politeness.
It's my opinion that revealing the truth about twi should be the priority and not trying to "meet the need(s) of you and me and everyone else"...it's nice to have a social gathering place where civility is the order of the day...but that's not really why I come here...
From the first paragraph of the "About us" link on GSC's splash page. While all are welcome according to it, please note what is in boldface/italics below. There is a significant mission to provide the other side of the story. In that I agree with Groucho
"GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery."
I also agree, but my opinion, as non-staff, is strictly advisory.
I think the staff would indicate the intent allows new arrivals who are still
suffering waybrain to post, which helps their recovery.
Naturally, I have rebuttals to that, as, no doubt, do you.
I don't know if I have any rebuttals. The rules themselves are reasonable, but like any set of rules, it often comes down to the execution of those rules which determines their usability. And yes I think that opening paragraph indicates that anyone with an interest in TWI is welcome to post and also indicates the desire to help in the recovery process.
Considering "your own" phrase (often cited by many others but since I am quoting you...) if you have someone with waybrain you have a pretty good recipe for some conflict. That, in and of itself, should not be a showstopper. I've seen plenty of posts that on one forum tear into TWI and in another forum are thoughtful to newbies with waybrain. I think that is appropriate - content does not need to be the same everywhere - I believe the word is "venue."
Thanks for your input WordWolf - always appreciated.
Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees.
This mission, this underlying theme, this defining statement is the reason that I have been involved with the GSC for as long as I have. It's also the reason why I was involved with "Waydale" and before that "Trancechat".
I've made a number of good friends here over the years and I enjoy the "social gathering" aspect of the gsc...there's a variety of things here to hold your interest...BUT... the bottom line for me is my desire to expose the truth about twi and the damage they have caused to thousands of people's lives.
One can disagree with someone's opinion and state that disagreement without attacking the person who posted it. Attack the message, don't attack the messenger.
and i think we should reduce the number of moderators
it's crazy
plus they should post under their own names
what the heck ?
no one should be trying to hide anything here
please
I was gonna stay out of this thread, but, Ex, I have to disagree.
I don't think there are that many active moderators. I think what is crazy is that people seem to have such a hard time being civil to others.
As for they should post under their own names, I don't see you doing that. If what you meant was they should post under their other screename, WHY? You have seen how moderators are lambasted at the cafe, do you REALLY think that they wouldn't be beeched about in their other names????????
Most likely, if you knew what name they post under in their other life, the beeches would carry over to that name also. I think the moderators should have the same opportunity for discussion here that Paw has so graciously afforded you, without needing to put up with complaints when they only want to play and chat on some topic.
I think moderators should be offended by your suggestion that they are hiding something. If I were Paw, I would flip this place on its head and go pursue love. Fortunately there are those who find good and comfort here, and I suppose they are the ones that Paw keeps this place alive for.
I was gonna stay out of this thread, but, Ex, I have to disagree.
I don't think there are that many active moderators. I think what is crazy is that people seem to have such a hard time being civil to others.
As for they should post under their own names, I don't see you doing that. If what you meant was they should post under their other screename, WHY? You have seen how moderators are lambasted at the cafe, do you REALLY think that they wouldn't be beeched about in their other names????????
(snip)
What the heck, you say? bah, humbug.
crazy, you say? think again.
She meant their screen names, not their real ones, (unlike you and I and others), use here at the GSC.
I've long been a proponent of Mods using their REAL screen name that they initially signed up here under;
but that ain't a happening thing. And (sadly), I don't fault them for it, given the posters *mentality* found here. You made a valid point. Folks would hold innocuous posts/ and or moderated posts made by the moderators all *suspect* regardless what they might say. It's time to grow up, folks.
I Pm'd one of the mods (it's immaterial which one), about this very question, and that mod replied with a thoughtful and detailed reply.
IMO -- dual identities are being used by the mods, because the folks here can't recognize that some on this site have dual responsibilities, all wrapped up into the one poster who has valid opinions of their own, and has a responsibility to say *enough is enough* at times.
Let me put it this way --- being a parent is the same thing. You've got Mom and Dad and the kids. The kids recognize the parents as some one to interact with, have fun with, enjoy life with --- but by the same token, the kids ALSO recognize parents as an authoritarian figure who will correct them in times of disobedience. Right?? Does the parent be a *loving* person under one name, and be the disciplinarian under a different name?? Of course not. Families can be divisive too. Argumentative, dis-functional, kinda reminiscent of GSC, eh??
The same should hold true on the GSC. The folks here should be made to understand that some folks hold certain responsibilities and either accept that fact or leave the board. I'm not the biggest fan of authoritarianism, but I have to admit it works in more cases than one. And if one is going to be an authority figure, they shouldn't have to *hide* behind a second name, to accomplish the rules of this board, or any other.
So while I understand the need for the *dual identity* that is taking place right now (and has been taking place), I'm also of the opinion it's time for the mods to say something like --- "We are us. Accept us for who we are, or find another board to post on".
That would be the fair and just thing to have happen. Flame away.
Oh wait --- no one can do that right?? That would be a personal attack.
Plus -- I'm defending the mods, while offering a suggestion. ;)
While I understand the points of those who think that there should not be a second screen name for moderators, I disagree that we should moderate under our primary handles.
Mainly because of the anitipathy towards moderators here at GSC. Using the mod handle allows us to participate in discussions without bringing the moderator baggage. With the adversarial attitude that many here have toward moderators, could a moderator post on a hot topic without the suspicion that he or she would edit out opposing views?
With the utter contempt with which many of you treat the mods, why would any of us "unmask"?
While I understand the points of those who think that there should not be a second screen name for moderators, I disagree that we should moderate under our primary handles.
Mainly because of the anitipathy towards moderators here at GSC. Using the mod handle allows us to participate in discussions without bringing the moderator baggage. With the adversarial attitude that many here have toward moderators, could a moderator post on a hot topic without the suspicion that he or she would edit out opposing views?
With the utter contempt with which many of you treat the mods, why would any of us "unmask"?
Mod Cow -- no disrespect intended by me, so I hope none is perceived by you.
If you (and others) are the *law*, In my (imho), you need to lay down that law.
Posters here need to realize that some folks can operate on several cylinders, not just one.
That was the entire point of my other post.
For what it's worth --- I've had several posts deleted, moderated, (recently and in the past),
and changed to the point I barely recognized them myself over the past 5 or so years I've been here.
With 13,780 posts (here at GSC), I invite you to find ONE where I've criticized a Mod, for their actions.
I understand your *angst* on the matter. I also understand others aren't as *compassionate* as I.
I don't criticize your concern, as I said in the other post, since it is MORE than a valid point.
What needs to be corrected here is the fact that poster's are *modding* the Mods.
As I said in the other post: I honestly think you should all stand up as a group and say "We are us. Accept us for who we are, or leave the board. Nother words --- force folks to realize (ginosko) that a person who is a mod can be passionate about one thing as a poster, and be totally objective when dealing with fractious posters (such as myself) in an objective way.
If (and again this is my imo) you were to do so, I'm willing to bet that the "utter contempt" (which I admit you all are receiving now), would disappear, and fade out like so much smoke over the water.
That smoke isn't going to dissipate, if you (all -- not you personally), don't make waves, for it to do so.
Again --- my imo, and no offense intended. Just a coupla lessons I've learned in life.
We moderators are not a group of "thems," as in "us versus them." We're regular posters, just like all of you, and we're all on the same side. We really aren't hiding in the bushes hoping someone will break a rule so we can pounce on them. We want everyone to have their voice here, and to feel free to say whatever they want as long as they're civil to each other. We agreed to moderate because we care about GSC and the people who make it what it is, not because we have a secret desire to control or censor anybody.
I don't understand why the number of moderators matters one way or another, as long as the GSC rules are enforced fairly and objectively so that everyone can post freely. Of the moderators who were on board before we newbies were added, I think only 3 or 4 were active, and one of them only monitors the Prayer Room. Because this isn't (and shouldn't be) a full-tme job for anyone, more moderators were needed. As far as I know, we all have jobs, families, and a life outside GSC, and we have limited time to spend on moderating. None of us can read all the posts every day, so it takes several of us reading what we can when we can and responding to complaints.
I think it's a good idea to keep the moderators' screen names different from the names they use as posters. When I come here as your fellow GS poster, I want to do so without anyone thinking, "Oh, that person's a moderator. I'd better watch what I say," or, "That moderator deleted one of my posts. I don't like him/her anymore." Human nature being what it is, people tend to either suck up to or shun anyone they perceive as an "authority figure." Who needs that? Especially lately, when some people paint the mods as some sort of evil force that has descended on GreaseSpot to forever put an end to free speech.
I can certainly understand why a group of people who have had their lives micromanaged by twi (or at least attempted to be) would have issues with anyone they see as an authority figure. I know I still do at times. But I none of us wants to control what you say or think. That's not why we're here.
The moderators are a real cross-section of GS posters, with a whole range of opinions about twi represented, with differing poliitical views and, in fact, with differing views on just about everything! Some of my fellow mods and I have had some pretty heated debates at times. But despite that, I've been impressed by how they leave their personal biases behind when wearing their moderator's caps.
So please, we're not out to "get" anyone. We're not out to promote any agenda of some perceived group of "insiders." We have no agenda. We don't even agree with each other sometimes, so how could we possibly get an agenda together?
I would like to stress one point about enforcement of the rules and that is sometimes we moderators miss violations. Therefore if you think a post violates the rules, please report it. Don't be shy or think you are bothering us. All reports are considered. :)
I hadn't even thought about the moderators being "real GS posters." I think it's reasonable for moderators to have "dual identities," so to speak, although I think it would be good if there were a rule prohibiting a moderator from "moderating" a thread he/she posts on in the other identity. Otherwise, there would be a conflict of interest, IMHO.
I'm not certain that there is such a "rule" George, but it has been my experience that generally moderators do not moderate in threads they are posting in - generally they ask another mod to take a look at it, if they think there is a problem.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
6
4
6
Popular Days
Sep 18
13
Sep 24
10
Sep 25
7
Oct 18
6
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 15 posts
pawtucket 6 posts
vickles 4 posts
Mod Kirk 6 posts
Popular Days
Sep 18 2008
13 posts
Sep 24 2008
10 posts
Sep 25 2008
7 posts
Oct 18 2008
6 posts
excathedra
please reconsider dear friend. i think this has not been the best communication thing going on
seriously
love you, i don't want you to go. and i don't paw or anyone does at all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Looks like I'm the "some people" that Linda refers to concerning the "snide remarks/implications"...I guess everyone's sense of humor evaporated with the new rules...
I suppose that I will have to be more mindful in the kinder and gentler greasespot cafe...no more shall we criticize anyone who defends an abusive cult leader...it would seem that the term "Wierwille apologist" is no longer permitted to be used (even though it is an accurate and gramatically proper term in every sense)...
...I know, I know...we don't want to offend anyone. We want to be a place that is user friendly for anti twi and pro twi alike! WOW (no pun intended)...now that's a revelation to my soul!
...wait a minute...am I being sarcastic?...oh oh, that's not permitted any longer either, is it?
I hear the footsteps of the mods!.... :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
It feels like if there are rules, someone is going to bit ch about the rules. If there are not rules, someone is going to bit ch 'cuz there are no rules.
I find it hard to imagine that NO place has rules that any of us frequent on these machines.
A place of employment has standard operating procedures, people follow those. A business one uses to buy their product has certain rules.
In our society, we have to follow the laws of the land, the rules of the road, the courtesy's of everyday functionality.
Why is this place any differant? What is the problem with having a few guidelines and practices to help things flow smoother?
Is it that actual word "rules" that bothers some? What if it were called guidelines, procedures, or some other word that fit your mind better?
I'd bet someone wouldn't like that, or whatever other word Paw chose. He's gotta do something and yet try to meet the need(s) of you and me and everyone else. Impossible task.
I've done the moderating duty; it's a pain! It's all voluntary and as evident here, very little, if any, thanks.
Sarcasm, anger, hurt, ugly words flying all over do nothing but produce more of the same and we know it. That doesn't promote changing of the rules according to our sarcasm, anger, hurt or ugly words. Would you want to do anything if it were presented to you like that with those emotions?
As has been stated, this is a volunteer-run board. These people work jobs like you, have kids and relationships just like you, but they add hours! of extra personal time in here.
I wonder how any of us might think we have claim to be frustrated with the rules, considering it's a courtesy that is provided us. I get that this isn't the point.
I wonder, also, if any think the rules were just tossed out there with no thought for the entire board in general? Seriously? I think they were worked on for weeks, perhaps months, in order to meet as many of the needs as possible.
If any of us have an aguement to present, what if we do so with more empathy of the bigger picture, with a lens of contributing toward the good and not just to 'have our say' cuz we think we can.
Then how helpful is it to express oneself in anger, hoping to make a point, finding it doesn't land where expected then express further anger? Then further still....
There has to be "rules" of some sort where human beings are concerned. Since you or I don't run the place, how about we just say thank you and enjoy the benefits given freely?
Simpler, less painful and the Admin and Moderators will sure be more likely to hear our further ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I've been following this thread and have some opinions on some things that have been said, but have restrained myself on commenting because I didn't think it would do any good. Here is a post I can agree with, and that includes the "not the best communication going on" part. But IMO that can be fixed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Naked vacuuming!!!!! Man, I always miss the good stuff!!!!
I highly recommend that no rules be invoked preventing nude vacuuming. I mean, after all, we need to allow for the outer extremes of dissenting voices and opinions. I think that in the interest of fairness it should be, no must be, allowed. Better than any rule, actions speak louder than words. Freedom to vacuum in all manners of dress, undress, clothing styles, accessories and accoutrements of all types needs to be allowed. Likewise with feather dusting and any other method of choice to reduce the amount of dust and dirt on floors, walls, window coverings, wall art and even ceilings.
It just seems like the right thing to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm fine with most of this as long as you don't post naked
hey, i'm thankful, i'm grateful, beyond words, for greasespot. i want to give you my firstborn -- he'll be 14 on wednesday
but just remember we're people, excultheads, for crying out loud. and to be fair, so are the moderators :) lol i just thought of that !!!!!
we don't like being micromanaged (we palefaceposters)
and we don't like being criticized and not appreciated (we modcowbakercrow) i lost the list of mods sowwy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Hey Ex they are at the top under my assistant........
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I don't think there is a problem with having a few guidelines and rules...quite frankly, I think they are needed.
...and I appreciate all the effort that goes into this place by so many people. Over the years, the GSC has evolved. Personally, I don't think I would be so accomidating towards pro-twi attitudes...but I don't own this website and it's not my call...
I suppose my main concern is not that we have to follow rules, that's fine (and needed)...my concern is to see the truth about an insideous cult exposed and not watered down in favor of political correctness or politeness.
It's my opinion that revealing the truth about twi should be the priority and not trying to "meet the need(s) of you and me and everyone else"...it's nice to have a social gathering place where civility is the order of the day...but that's not really why I come here...
...peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
From the first paragraph of the "About us" link on GSC's splash page. While all are welcome according to it, please note what is in boldface/italics below. There is a significant mission to provide the other side of the story. In that I agree with Groucho
"GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I also agree, but my opinion, as non-staff, is strictly advisory.
I think the staff would indicate the intent allows new arrivals who are still
suffering waybrain to post, which helps their recovery.
Naturally, I have rebuttals to that, as, no doubt, do you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I don't know if I have any rebuttals. The rules themselves are reasonable, but like any set of rules, it often comes down to the execution of those rules which determines their usability. And yes I think that opening paragraph indicates that anyone with an interest in TWI is welcome to post and also indicates the desire to help in the recovery process.
Considering "your own" phrase (often cited by many others but since I am quoting you...) if you have someone with waybrain you have a pretty good recipe for some conflict. That, in and of itself, should not be a showstopper. I've seen plenty of posts that on one forum tear into TWI and in another forum are thoughtful to newbies with waybrain. I think that is appropriate - content does not need to be the same everywhere - I believe the word is "venue."
Thanks for your input WordWolf - always appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
This mission, this underlying theme, this defining statement is the reason that I have been involved with the GSC for as long as I have. It's also the reason why I was involved with "Waydale" and before that "Trancechat".
I've made a number of good friends here over the years and I enjoy the "social gathering" aspect of the gsc...there's a variety of things here to hold your interest...BUT... the bottom line for me is my desire to expose the truth about twi and the damage they have caused to thousands of people's lives.
...Fair enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
For some reason... this seems appropriate right now, in light of this thread....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well done Chas!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i think groucho and rummie have very valid points
and i think we should reduce the number of moderators
it's crazy
plus they should post under their own names
what the heck ?
no one should be trying to hide anything here
please
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I was gonna stay out of this thread, but, Ex, I have to disagree.
I don't think there are that many active moderators. I think what is crazy is that people seem to have such a hard time being civil to others.
As for they should post under their own names, I don't see you doing that. If what you meant was they should post under their other screename, WHY? You have seen how moderators are lambasted at the cafe, do you REALLY think that they wouldn't be beeched about in their other names????????
Most likely, if you knew what name they post under in their other life, the beeches would carry over to that name also. I think the moderators should have the same opportunity for discussion here that Paw has so graciously afforded you, without needing to put up with complaints when they only want to play and chat on some topic.
I think moderators should be offended by your suggestion that they are hiding something. If I were Paw, I would flip this place on its head and go pursue love. Fortunately there are those who find good and comfort here, and I suppose they are the ones that Paw keeps this place alive for.
What the heck, you say? bah, humbug.
crazy, you say? think again.
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
She meant their screen names, not their real ones, (unlike you and I and others), use here at the GSC.
I've long been a proponent of Mods using their REAL screen name that they initially signed up here under;
but that ain't a happening thing. And (sadly), I don't fault them for it, given the posters *mentality* found here. You made a valid point. Folks would hold innocuous posts/ and or moderated posts made by the moderators all *suspect* regardless what they might say. It's time to grow up, folks.
I Pm'd one of the mods (it's immaterial which one), about this very question, and that mod replied with a thoughtful and detailed reply.
IMO -- dual identities are being used by the mods, because the folks here can't recognize that some on this site have dual responsibilities, all wrapped up into the one poster who has valid opinions of their own, and has a responsibility to say *enough is enough* at times.
Let me put it this way --- being a parent is the same thing. You've got Mom and Dad and the kids. The kids recognize the parents as some one to interact with, have fun with, enjoy life with --- but by the same token, the kids ALSO recognize parents as an authoritarian figure who will correct them in times of disobedience. Right?? Does the parent be a *loving* person under one name, and be the disciplinarian under a different name?? Of course not. Families can be divisive too. Argumentative, dis-functional, kinda reminiscent of GSC, eh??
The same should hold true on the GSC. The folks here should be made to understand that some folks hold certain responsibilities and either accept that fact or leave the board. I'm not the biggest fan of authoritarianism, but I have to admit it works in more cases than one. And if one is going to be an authority figure, they shouldn't have to *hide* behind a second name, to accomplish the rules of this board, or any other.
So while I understand the need for the *dual identity* that is taking place right now (and has been taking place), I'm also of the opinion it's time for the mods to say something like --- "We are us. Accept us for who we are, or find another board to post on".
That would be the fair and just thing to have happen. Flame away.
Oh wait --- no one can do that right?? That would be a personal attack.
Plus -- I'm defending the mods, while offering a suggestion. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
While I understand the points of those who think that there should not be a second screen name for moderators, I disagree that we should moderate under our primary handles.
Mainly because of the anitipathy towards moderators here at GSC. Using the mod handle allows us to participate in discussions without bringing the moderator baggage. With the adversarial attitude that many here have toward moderators, could a moderator post on a hot topic without the suspicion that he or she would edit out opposing views?
With the utter contempt with which many of you treat the mods, why would any of us "unmask"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mod Cow -- no disrespect intended by me, so I hope none is perceived by you.
If you (and others) are the *law*, In my (imho), you need to lay down that law.
Posters here need to realize that some folks can operate on several cylinders, not just one.
That was the entire point of my other post.
For what it's worth --- I've had several posts deleted, moderated, (recently and in the past),
and changed to the point I barely recognized them myself over the past 5 or so years I've been here.
With 13,780 posts (here at GSC), I invite you to find ONE where I've criticized a Mod, for their actions.
I understand your *angst* on the matter. I also understand others aren't as *compassionate* as I.
I don't criticize your concern, as I said in the other post, since it is MORE than a valid point.
What needs to be corrected here is the fact that poster's are *modding* the Mods.
As I said in the other post: I honestly think you should all stand up as a group and say "We are us. Accept us for who we are, or leave the board. Nother words --- force folks to realize (ginosko) that a person who is a mod can be passionate about one thing as a poster, and be totally objective when dealing with fractious posters (such as myself) in an objective way.
If (and again this is my imo) you were to do so, I'm willing to bet that the "utter contempt" (which I admit you all are receiving now), would disappear, and fade out like so much smoke over the water.
That smoke isn't going to dissipate, if you (all -- not you personally), don't make waves, for it to do so.
Again --- my imo, and no offense intended. Just a coupla lessons I've learned in life.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ModRocker
Hi everyone:
We moderators are not a group of "thems," as in "us versus them." We're regular posters, just like all of you, and we're all on the same side. We really aren't hiding in the bushes hoping someone will break a rule so we can pounce on them. We want everyone to have their voice here, and to feel free to say whatever they want as long as they're civil to each other. We agreed to moderate because we care about GSC and the people who make it what it is, not because we have a secret desire to control or censor anybody.
I don't understand why the number of moderators matters one way or another, as long as the GSC rules are enforced fairly and objectively so that everyone can post freely. Of the moderators who were on board before we newbies were added, I think only 3 or 4 were active, and one of them only monitors the Prayer Room. Because this isn't (and shouldn't be) a full-tme job for anyone, more moderators were needed. As far as I know, we all have jobs, families, and a life outside GSC, and we have limited time to spend on moderating. None of us can read all the posts every day, so it takes several of us reading what we can when we can and responding to complaints.
I think it's a good idea to keep the moderators' screen names different from the names they use as posters. When I come here as your fellow GS poster, I want to do so without anyone thinking, "Oh, that person's a moderator. I'd better watch what I say," or, "That moderator deleted one of my posts. I don't like him/her anymore." Human nature being what it is, people tend to either suck up to or shun anyone they perceive as an "authority figure." Who needs that? Especially lately, when some people paint the mods as some sort of evil force that has descended on GreaseSpot to forever put an end to free speech.
I can certainly understand why a group of people who have had their lives micromanaged by twi (or at least attempted to be) would have issues with anyone they see as an authority figure. I know I still do at times. But I none of us wants to control what you say or think. That's not why we're here.
The moderators are a real cross-section of GS posters, with a whole range of opinions about twi represented, with differing poliitical views and, in fact, with differing views on just about everything! Some of my fellow mods and I have had some pretty heated debates at times. But despite that, I've been impressed by how they leave their personal biases behind when wearing their moderator's caps.
So please, we're not out to "get" anyone. We're not out to promote any agenda of some perceived group of "insiders." We have no agenda. We don't even agree with each other sometimes, so how could we possibly get an agenda together?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modwildcat
I would like to stress one point about enforcement of the rules and that is sometimes we moderators miss violations. Therefore if you think a post violates the rules, please report it. Don't be shy or think you are bothering us. All reports are considered. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I hadn't even thought about the moderators being "real GS posters." I think it's reasonable for moderators to have "dual identities," so to speak, although I think it would be good if there were a rule prohibiting a moderator from "moderating" a thread he/she posts on in the other identity. Otherwise, there would be a conflict of interest, IMHO.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modbaker
I'm not certain that there is such a "rule" George, but it has been my experience that generally moderators do not moderate in threads they are posting in - generally they ask another mod to take a look at it, if they think there is a problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i thought this had some good points
http://www.communityspark.com/the-real-pur...ators-revealed/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.