Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:09 pm wrote:
Yes, it is a cult, a cult of appreciation of her clarity of thought, vividness of expression, research abilities, and dogged depth of logical argument that should be a defining characteristic here. This is a discussion board. If the mods, of all people, don't have the time or inclination to deal with rational and non-abusive discussion of the rules within a subforum which exists for that purpose and no other, and turn instead to circumventing that discussion by suspending the participants, there is a problem here. That is what is un-goddam-fucking-believable.
Bruce Dazzling » 12 Jun 2013 08:52 wrote:It was at this point, amazingly, that she made the "officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" comment, which was clearly an abusive comment.
Project Willow » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:10 pm wrote:Bruce Dazzling » 12 Jun 2013 08:52 wrote:It was at this point, amazingly, that she made the "officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" comment, which was clearly an abusive comment.
"Officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" is a descriptive criticism of incidental behavior, which is not inherently abusive, as much as it might hurt. I don't see any purely insulting, non-constructive terminology, aimed at denigrating the central character of the person. But then, I'm not in any position to determine for another person what may or may not feel abusive. Mods are often required to put themselves in such positions however, the difficulty here is that one party in this conflict is a mod. I think once the discussion felt as if it were turning personally abusive to you, Bruce, it should have been referred to a third party, preferably to the other mods. That's one way to avoid officious, self-serving and petty abuses of power. Please forgive my presumption if this was indeed the case.
barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:36 pm wrote:There is simply no way that anyone on this board could have known before yesterday that using those words, in any combination, could result in a week's suspension. No way.
Bruce Dazzling » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:46 am wrote:Tell me, barracuda, where is the RI discipline matrix that you used to refer to when deciding on the length of suspensions?
barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:49 pm wrote:Bruce Dazzling » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:46 am wrote:Tell me, barracuda, where is the RI discipline matrix that you used to refer to when deciding on the length of suspensions?
It resides in your own sense of justice and proportion, brother.
barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:36 pm wrote:There is simply no way that anyone on this board could have known before yesterday that using those words, in any combination, could result in a week's suspension. No way.
Bruce Dazzling » 12 Jun 2013 11:16 wrote:But that sidesteps the bit that seemed to be your point, which was that no one on this board could have known before yesterday that they could be suspended for a week for referring to someone as officious, self-serving, and petty.
Well, now they do. Precedent and whatnot.
Project Willow » Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:43 pm wrote:Bruce Dazzling » 12 Jun 2013 11:16 wrote:But that sidesteps the bit that seemed to be your point, which was that no one on this board could have known before yesterday that they could be suspended for a week for referring to someone as officious, self-serving, and petty.
Well, now they do. Precedent and whatnot.
I find that a bit disturbing. If you're going to exercise any kind of authority over other people, you have to expect to be criticized, and sometimes rudely, and unfairly. Being able to remain measured and fair in these scenarios is part of what generates confidence and feelings of safety in those over whom you exercise power. Appearing to retaliate is going undermine that confidence.
I'm reticent to continue this discussion, but I'd caution about creating the precedent that you can't get angry at a mod.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests