How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_Bond...James Bond]

Well you'd know. Being a similar pain to everyone on this board.

Thanks, Bond so now you are being honest with your agenda in this thread. You've been talking with Liz by the way, in pm's about this thread and complaining about it by any chance? Why play dishonest games and pretend your post was just an innocent one, about pointing out everyone has an agenda.

Sarcasm my dear.

But if you want total honesty I'm turned off by your constant nitpicking and need to dissent on moderating issues. Frankly it gets tedious and you aren't going to get any ground breaking changes. The moderating is what it is, and the spirit of this board suggests that less is more. We'd rather let one ad hom go through than moderate once too many times. That's how we roll. If you want an overmoderated board I'm sure you can find one.

You see this is the problem with the Celestial, people do focus on harassment, it is ad hominem, and it is as much an ad hominem and just as offensive often times even more so, plus a deterrent to good discussion than just a few offensive direct words like stupid or idiot.

Your continual bugging about moderating policy could be considered harrassment.

[_marg]

But if you want total honesty I'm turned off by your constant nitpicking and need to dissent on moderating issues. Frankly it gets tedious and you aren't going to get any ground breaking changes. The moderating is what it is, and the spirit of this board suggests that less is more. We'd rather let one ad hom go through than moderate once too many times. That's how we roll. If you want an overmoderated board I'm sure you can find one.

Right, of course this thread doesn't bother you personally, because the opening post is not about YOU. There is no attack on you. And the opening post by the way, is not about ad hominems. My bickering in this thread started as a complaint about the opening post, not about ad homs, but if this thread is supposed to be about how to improve it, then a policy on getting rid of them would in my opinion improve it.

You see this is the problem with the Celestial, people do focus on harassment, it is ad hominem, and it is as much an ad hominem and just as offensive often times even more so, plus a deterrent to good discussion than just a few offensive direct words like stupid or idiot.

Your continual bugging about moderating policy could be considered harrassment.

You are misreading this thread. My first complaint is about the opening post. In my view it is bogus for the most part. It is not about justified warranted mistakes. Shades does not mention ad homs are an issue in the Celestial in the opening post. The opening post is set up as ad hominal against myself, JAK and Kevin. Ad homs came up as a sub argument and relevant because of the chain of events, as well as Shades opening post and subject heading implying the thread is about fixing the problems in the Celestial. As the discussion evolved, it has come out Shades thought I was overly sensitive to Kevin, he didn't appreciate what my concerns were, probably still doesn't, he still thinks I, JAK and Kevin were the reason the thread evidence for Jesus was moved.

As far as moderation, yes it is a joke to move threads around from Celestial to Terrestial. Good for you guys that you figured out it doesn't fix a problem but exasperates it. Now if Shades wants to improve the Celestial, rather that sticky a thread about mistakes "we" made which were not warranted, that is Kevin did not use direct offensive words, I was not overly sensitive to Kevin, JAk was only going by the assumption religious axioms could be challenged, ..so rather than Shades writing that offensive opening post and stickying it, if he really wants to improve the Celestial, and I mean "if" his focus should be on ad homs, make it a zero policy, not on attacking "us" to appease his complainers behind the scenes. And by the way, I think his main complaints behind the scenes the one he is most concerned about if from those who are relgious who do not want their religious axioms challenged. All Shades had to do was write JAK a pm on it. As far as myself, I asked Shades on the board what his policy was in the Celestial on ad homs and he said he was preparing a statement to post on that. Well I get what his policy is, there is no policy, they are allowed. So as well all he needed to do was write that, he didn't need to write an offensive attack post instead.

[_Yoda]

So, Marg, are you spinning your wheels, basically in hopes of gaining an apology from Shades? Is that what this is all about?

Frankly, I don't really see where he "attacked" you in his opening post:

MARG:
Although I'm not going to make any rules about this (we saw how the last one went over like a lead balloon), will you, as a personal favor to me, not worry so much about what dartagnan says? I really, really need you to do the following things:

1. Please see things from a moderator's perspective. To whit, although dartagnan dances on the line (and perhaps even crosses it) quite often, please recognize that it's somewhat difficult for us moderators to make an uncontroversial decision on just what has crossed the line to the point that the integrity of the thread should be compromised by either a split or a delete. To please you, we're risking displeasing X amount of others.
2. Please realize that, at the end of the day, yes, even the Celestial Forum is about entertainment. It is not about changing the world. YES, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, you are wasting your time here (just like you're wasting your time on any discussion board, for that matter).
3. Please realize that when we say this forum is "scholarly," we mean that scholarly discussions should be placed here, not that scholarly discussions are the only type allowed here. Please also realize that fallacious arguments are perfectly O.K. here, just so long as they're delivered politely.
4. Please grow thicker skin. If dartagnan says something which displeases you, please just take it in stride. YES, WE KNOW THAT DARTAGNAN'S MANNER OF DISCUSSION ANGERS YOU. Your point has been noted. WE GET IT. Have patience with us.

I think he was being honest with you about his perspective on how he wants the Celestial Forum to be shaped, and the part that you played in it, according to him. You have stated where you disagreed with him. You made your points known. If Shades chooses to accept your points and apologize, that's his call. But, frankly, I don't think there's a whole lot more that you can say.

Am I stomping my foot in hopes of an apology from you for attempting to malign my character? No, not really. I could care less. I stated my side of things so that everyone would have the full story, and I'm leaving it at that.

[_marg]

So, Marg, are you spinning your wheels, basically in hopes of gaining an apology from Shades? Is that what this is all about?

No I don't want an apology. It's really done and overwith isn't it? So I'm just stating my case, just like you are, so that if anyone wants to read this sticky thread which you thought was such a great idea by the way, they get another perspective. In addition this board prides itself on little moderator interference and yet this came about because of mod interference, by the women. This is all about you guys complaining behind the scenes, (yes, Jersey Girl your complaint in pm to Sam about me, gave her the impression that attacking me would be supported) complaining to Shades, listening to Kevin, and then stepping in and creating more of a mess than existed. All of you have downplayed Kevin's negative contributions and have escalated mine and JAK's.

Frankly, I don't really see where he "attacked" you in his opening post:

I see, you don't think writing an entire post with the focus being to say "we" made mistakes and then telling everyone to take note and not do the same following on the heals of my complaints regarding the moving of the thread as well as my disagreement over ad homs in that thread with Sam, so that it looked like it was all part and parcel of the same thing, isn't an attack? I do.

Am I stomping my foot in hopes of an apology from you for attempting to malign my character? No, not really. I could care less.

Well you previously posted a complaint to me, so you are stomping to an extent. And it is you who attempted to malign my character. Did I or did I not, do anything in that thread which justified as a result moving it? What exactly did you not like about the tone or feel of that thread? And by the way, must you really go elsewhere to Kevin's board to complain about me. Is that an indication of the sort of comments you carry on in pm's with other mods on this board?

I stated my side of things so that everyone would have the full story, and I'm leaving it at that.

Good.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh hmmm...

yes, Jersey Girl your complaint in pm to Sam about me, gave her the impression that attacking me would be supported)

What the hell are you talking about, marg? I never once complained to Sam about you via PM's. I have no problem whatsoever dealing with you one:one and haven't in several years. She independently chose to use the situation as a vehicle to attack you so get your facts straight.

Impressions aside. WAS her attacking you supported? Get it straight and since when are you or I strangers to attack? Are you kidding me with this ad hom business?

[_marg]

What the hell are you talking about, marg? I never once complained to Sam about you via PM's. I have no problem whatsoever dealing with you one:one and haven't in several years. She independently chose to use the situation as a vehicle to attack you so get your facts straight.

Well if you go to Kevin's web site in a post she writes:

"But it did tick me off that because I defended someone who where no one could see expressed that she was upset that she was being attacked, I got attacked and turned on by the person I defended. "

"What happened was that I defended someone who had set up her own rules, and I guess I didn't know that I was supposed to be a lackey and follow them too. I honestly should have let the hens cackle on their own, but like a fool I fell for the "I'm so upset at what she said about me" line. "

I only can think of one person who fits that bill. Are you saying she is referring to someone else? Or are you saying she is misinterpreting things said to her?

And I'm sorry to bring this to a thread, but at this point I don't like pm's. They get miscontrued. I'd rather it all be out in the open.

[_marg]

Impressions aside. WAS her attacking you supported? Get it straight and since when are you or I strangers to attack? Are you kidding me with this ad hom business?

Right, I'm used to this ad hom business, what I do is most of the time ignore. But I'm not used to threads being moved so that perpetrators can legitimately continue, that's not "heavily moderated" give me a break. I also didn't like the fact that when it got moved the implication is "we" were doing something wrong. Heck I wasn't even complaining, but I got blamed for that. And when I asked Shades for what his policy was on ad homs in the Celestial in a post he responded that he was writing something up, I believe he referred to it as a treatise. I didn't expect he'd respond with an attack post and essentially have no policy.

[_Jersey Girl]

What the hell are you talking about, marg? I never once complained to Sam about you via PM's. I have no problem whatsoever dealing with you one:one and haven't in several years. She independently chose to use the situation as a vehicle to attack you so get your facts straight.

Well if you go to Kevin's web site in a post she writes:

"But it did tick me off that because I defended someone who where no one could see expressed that she was upset that she was being attacked, I got attacked and turned on by the person I defended. "

"What happened was that I defended someone who had set up her own rules, and I guess I didn't know that I was supposed to be a lackey and follow them too. I honestly should have let the hens cackle on their own, but like a fool I fell for the "I'm so upset at what she said about me" line. "

I only can think of one person who fits that bill. Are you saying she is referring to someone else? Or are you saying she is misinterpreting things said to her?

And I'm sorry to bring this to a thread, but at this point I don't like pm's. They get miscontrued. I'd rather it all be out in the open.

marg,

How long have you known me? How many times have you seen me "upset" because I was being attacked and viciously so? What? We haven't shared board space for the last 8 years? Upset? You've got to be kidding me. At what point in our week long discussion did you see me "uspet"? When have you ever known me to dissolve into despair and ask for help defending myself? Do you see that type of behavior from me or do you see me dig in my heels? Does the phrase "pit bull" ring any bells for you?

The communication that Sam was probably and ambigiouosly referring to had to be discussions in the moderator forum where my comments could best be described as sarcastic. Does that sound like the Vicki that you know?

Sam has a case of the ass for you. Did you notice on her blog here where she characterized me as kissing your ass? Do you know of one single instance in which I have ever kissed your ass in what, 8 years? Do you know why she wrote that? Because she didn't see that the outcome of our week long discussion in the Off Topic resulted in an apology from you to me. She doesn't understand that you and I can go nose to nose and still end up on another thread engaged in topical discussion. What you and I think of as business as usual, she thinks of as a crisis.

No one asked her get involved. No one. She elected to get involved without researching the exchanges as you well know. She elected to set a "trap" that ended up blowing up in her face because she failed to research the exchanges. She USED them as a vehicle to attack you.

Look through that Off Topic thread and let me know if you see even one instance of me replying to or even acknowledging her attacks and you tell me, in heated exchanges who defends me except for myself? She wasn't defending me. She was attacking you.

Let's take a look at this:

What happened was that I defended someone who had set up her own rules, and I guess I didn't know that I was supposed to be a lackey and follow them too. I honestly should have let the hens cackle on their own, but like a fool I fell for the "I'm so upset at what she said about me" line. "

Tell me, marg, in eight years when you've ever once seen me express myself to the effect that "I'm so upset at what she said about me". Name one time. Is that me or is the Vicki you know more inclined to dig in her heels? Again, she didn't "defend" me. She attacked you. What she is attempting to do is avoid taking personal responsibility for her own actions that include attacking you in the Off Topic and creating the so called "trap" in the Celestial. The "rules" she is talking about is my rule of not moderating a thread where I'm involved. This, I have stated several times publicly on this board. Now you tell me, what has that got to do with her "defending" me.

Nothing.

My choice to refrain from mod action on a thread where I'm involved in no way effects my ability to defend myself. It infact, leaves me room to do so.

Take a step back and instead of shooting out copy/paste jobs of her comments....sit back, read them and then you tell me if it makes rational sense to you or not.

Put any of her comments up here on the screen and I'll refute every single one with truth and reason.

Does it occur to you that she chose to post that on another board where she thought I wouldn't be able to refute it? And why do you think that is so?

And just so we're clear here, marg, I have never made a statement such as this:

I'm so upset at what she said about me" line. "

About any poster on any board including one who regularly attacks me elsewhere. Upset? I'd sooner kick verbal ass than be "upset".

[_Jersey Girl]

Impressions aside. WAS her attacking you supported? Get it straight and since when are you or I strangers to attack? Are you kidding me with this ad hom business?

Right, I'm used to this ad hom business, what I do is most of the time ignore. But I'm not used to threads being moved so that perpetrators can legitimately continue, that's not "heavily moderated" give me a break. I also didn't like the fact that when it got moved the implication is "we" were doing something wrong. Heck I wasn't even complaining, but I got blamed for that. And when I asked Shades for what his policy was on ad homs in the Celestial in a post he responded that he was writing something up, I believe he referred to it as a treatise. I didn't expect he'd respond with an attack post and essentially have no policy.

marg....the flippin' thread was moved back to the Celestial as per richard's request. The "heavily moderated" statement is largely about language itself.

What is it that you expect to happen here? Do you think moderator's are going to step in here and referee the threads the way rpcman used to do? If Shades gives me the go ahead, I'll be willing to give that a go in summer when I have time to do so. However, marg...I couldn't do that on the Evidence Thread because I was involved in it. Again, that is my personal standard with regard to moderating threads that I'm on. I feel strongly that I have to hand those off to other moderator's to handle or allow my possible bias guide my actions.

[_Jersey Girl]

FYI: You won't find the blog entry that I referred to here because she deleted it. I saw that and also the remarks on Kevin's boards probably not long after they were posted. Were either series of remarks posted publicly on the main board here, I would have probably chosen to address them.