MMMMMM Advocates Violence Against Americans

[andyfox]

"a good penis discussion"

Is there any other kind?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
that you MUST recuse yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Mat doesn't seem to think MMMMMM needs to do that, and neither do I. If he ever starts behaving in an unfair manner, that's an entirely different situation. But unless that happens, there is absolutely no reason for him to do what you suggest just for the sake of things appearing to be more fair.

He is fair, and that's all that really matters.

Myrtle, I don't know what your problem is with seemingly every moderation decision that ends up with a ban, but it's time to let it go. If you have a problem with the way MMMMMM does things, you should have an even bigger problem with virtually every other moderator on this site, because he is easily one of the most fair mods on 2+2.

[John Cole]

Adios has been posting here under the name "Adios" and one other, I believe, for a number of years. What you are accusing him of is simply untrue; however, I can see how his post may have been misinterpreted.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My take is that being concerned about *any hint* of impropriety is too high a bar in this instance. I don't think anyone's trying to get elected or approved for a judgeship or anything like that; and moderators are given considerable latitude to exercise their best judgment. I don't think recusement is fully appropriate or necessary here. I'm sorry but we'll just have to disagree on this point. .



[/ QUOTE ]

I see it as reasonably simple.....You may not be up for appointment to a judgeship, but where is it written that you shouldn’t strive to have to same high ideals? I believe that you are equivocating......essentially saying (without speaking the words).......This isn’t as important, so I don’t have to live up to the highest standards.

I must tell you, in all candor, I find that attitude unacceptable. Perhaps if more of us were willing to make the extra effort, we, as a group would not find ourselves in the homogenized, lowest-common-denominator, 2nd rate society that we are rapidly becoming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to say that I (or we) shouldn't strive to the highest ideals. Rather I'm saying that I don't think the ideal of "beyond the slightest hint of impropriety" should be considered to be amongst the highest ideals in the first place. I actually find the notion to be rather faulty, that such considerations should be placed above a sincere effort to do the best and fairest thing. I would think that someone running for a judgeship would NOT be striving to uphold the highest ideals if they blindly place such considerations as "appearing beyond the slightest hint of impropriety" above doing what they actually believe is right.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I offered jokerswild a chance at a fresh slate along with a warning and an assurance. He promptly violated both and the T of C *and* the warning as well, and in very unmistakable fashion. As far as I'm concerned this shows he didn't want another chance; and now he's gone.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please explain to me how you justify your action of ‘offering jw a fresh slate’? There is an insinuation and implication in that statement that could lead many reasonable people to believe that your point of view is more narrow than it should be. By offering him a ‘fresh slate’, are you forgiving him for his supposed indiscretions of the past? I don’t believe you have the moral authority to do that. He should stand or fall on what he has said, or how he has acted. The idea that you have the power of absolution because of your position as moderator is wrong-headed, IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant it from my moderating perspective, and provided of course he doesn't violate the very clear warning I gave him at the time. I also strongly advised him *not* to continue in the previous vein.


[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I’ve been here almost since the inception of the site, and I don’t think it has anything to do with what we’re discussing. I’ve seen the incidents you’re speaking about. You’re barking up the wrong tree here if you’re looking to validate your point of view in this manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. So are you of the opinion that he has never done anything he should have been barred for? Are you of the opinion he should not have been barred for this?

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about a very fine line here. I am saying that because jw’s attack was directed torwards you, that you MUST recuse yourself, as you hold the sword, and once you use it, you can rationalize your actions until the cows come home, but, in the end, you’ve created a bigger problem than you may have resolved.

You may not like the idea that I’m drawing parallels to ‘bigger’ issues, but you must realize that it is right here, in these kinds of small, personal debates that the seeds of our character either grow or wilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't think recusement is necessary or even warranted in this case. Therefore I don't think it has anything to do with the "seeds of our character" growing or wilting. And I'll even go so far as to make a counter-argument that I think standing up for what one believes in is even more important to our character than is striving to avoid any possible hint of the appearance of impropriety.

I'll also note that just because something involves someone personally, *does not* necessarily mean they are incapable of making an objective determination about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed that sensitivity to impropriety goes only so far. In this case, I disagree with your assessment of how far it goes. I believe you have cut it short of what I consider prudent and due process.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't my purpose to give everyone "due process". My job as moderator necessarily involves some degree of unilateral judgment and decision-making. I believe I've done this fairly and impartially in this case, and intend to strive to do so in the future. And my default stance is leniency.

[ QUOTE ]
The essence of the disagreement between us is somewhat similar to the ongoing ‘separation of church and state’ debate.

This onion has lots of layers. How many have you peeled off? Are you sure that you are at the core?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I don't see how either of these statements relates to the issue at hand. Would you care to elaborate a little?

[ QUOTE ]
Closing your post with ‘Sorry about that’ doesn’t lead me to believe that you are, but rather that you are falling back upon you position of power as moderator to dismiss any points of view that disagree with yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not dismissing your points; I just don't agree with them. I don't think attaining a perception of zero hint of impropriety is as high a goal or as important as you seem to believe it to be. And if I had to go through life worrying about that all the time I would probably never get anything accomplished.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks, Scoot. Unfortunately however there is some problem with the transfer; can't imagine what it might be...;-)

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that you MUST recuse yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Mat doesn't seem to think he needs to do that, and neither do I. If he ever starts behaving in an unfair manner, that's an entirely different situation. But unless that happens, there is absolutely no reason for him to do what you suggest just for the sake of things appearing to be more fair.

He is fair, and that's all that really matters.

Myrtle, I don't know what your problem is with seemingly every moderation decision that ends up with a ban, but it's time to let it go. If you have a problem with the way MMMMMM does things, you should have an even bigger problem with virtually every other moderator on this site, because he is easily one of the most fair mods on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC,

My problem here is based around abuse of power. I have taken issue with one other moderator surrounding that issue. Your above statement implies that I have had more. For the record, that is untrue.

For the record:

I also happen to believe that M is a damned good moderator. I am not impugning his character or intent.

I am disagreeing with his rationale in this case.

I have not as yet seen any argument advanced that has addressed that issue in a way that has caused me to change my mind.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not as yet seen any argument advanced that has addressed that issue in a way that has caused me to change my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor have I. Have a nice night.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem here is based around abuse of power. I have taken issue with one other moderator surrounding that issue. Your above statement implies that I have had more. For the record, that is untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well is your problem with actual abuse of power, or only with the possible perception of possible abuse of power? To me the former is many times of more concern than the latter.

I don't believe I've abused power here. A few do, however.

[ QUOTE ]
For the record:

I also happen to believe that M is a damned good moderator. I am not impugning his character or intent

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks and glad to hear that.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be missing something, but if the issue is that M abused his power by banning Joker, I'm totally Ok with that decision. When I look at his posts, he seems like an ordinary troll. If there's more to this, I did indeed miss something.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is difficult to believe that more people don't feel the same way. That idiot's schtick got old a long time ago, and it sucks to think that the reason some people are coming to his defense is the direction from which he trolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record.....

I am NOT coming to jw's defense in regards to what he posted.

I am taking exception to the way it was dealt with.

[Myrtle]

M.......

Things are getting confused here. Instead of me quoting you quoting me quoting you, let me try it a different way......

The concept of ‘beyond the slightest hint of impropriety” is not number one on my list of ethical considerations, but where the issue is combined with power over others, it’s not far down on that list either.

Doing what one actually believes is right at the top. The problem with that is what happens when what one actually believes is right is not right? Shouldn't one leave room in any consideration that what one believes is correct may not be? Leaving that door open, allows one to be open minded enough to revisit a situation when it is called for.

That is what I have been asking you to do here.

I can’t say for sure what the real intent of JW’s post was. Why? Because words can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I saw the warning that you gave him. It was clear & fair. IMO, it’s 50/50 as to whether or not he was testing you with his subsequent post. As far as my opinion as to whether he should be banned or not? Honestly, I really don’t remember many of his posts. All I can say is nothing sticks out in my mind as being outrageous, where I can remember many other posts from other posters that could be considered that. Please don’t misinterpret what I just said. Just because I don’t remember all of his posts, doesn’t mean that some of them weren’t trolling.

It seems to me that what you might be saying is that this last post was the straw that broke the camels back?

Again, for the record: He made a post that he was banned for. The complication here is that he was banned by you, for attacking you. You hold the power. You must have the wisdom to use that power appropriately. I think you could have done it another way, and I’ve outlined that in an earlier post......that’s all.

You will get no argument from me when you hold ‘standing up for what you believe in’ as being more important than ‘striving to avoid any hint of possible impropriety’ when comparing those two virtues in an absolute vacuum. But this situation is not an absolute vacuum. I believe further examination is called for, and by saying that, I am standing up for what I believe in, as I believe you are. We have a disagreement. I feel no ill will or malice towards you because we disagree on this point. I will continue to debate with you on this issue in an attempt to achieve clarity.

You noted that just because something involves one personally, that it does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of making an objective determination about it. We do not agree on this point. I believe that a more appropriate question is......to what degree can some someone who is personally involved make a totally objective decision. My experience tells me that it is less than 100%. If it’s less, how much less? Does the degree of objectivity achieved then not have something to do with the decision?

At this time, for the sake of clarity, I’ll leave the ‘separation of church and state’ for anther post.

As far as “abuse of power’? Perhaps semantics may intervene. Is there a difference between abuse and misuse?