Ped said:

It's quite possible that the ban against Swami was a mistake, and that our moderators are not in fact cold tyrants imposing a totalitarian regime.  It's also possible that the moderators themselves had a personal vendetta against Swami.  That would be extremely unfortunate, but yelling at them and accusing them of this is not going to cause them to concede.  It will exacerbate the problem.

We need to put down our torches as well as our pitchforks, and turn off the Bandwagon-Banjo cassette.

---

Well said.  Let me make clear that I firmly do not believe our moderators were acting with mal intent.  I will also admit that I was quick to extend Swami's ban based on the perceived notion that he had disregarded a very clear final warning that was sent to him via PM by trendal.  I have readily stated amongst the staff and to some in private, but I will now state here, that I believe I in fact was misguided by my own failure to appropriately review the situation at hand before extending Swami's ban.  Do I think he deserved a ban?  Absolutely, and I stand by that decision.  However, if I could go back I would not have extended the ban for the length that I did.  I have initiated an administrative review of this situation, but a few admins are currently absent and it is difficult to come to a concensus on the matter.  Particularly in light of Swami's demands that Phluck related to us in another WA&F thread, it is hard to come to a resolve on reducing the ban because he has in effect exhibited that he has learned next to nothing from this experience, and rather has concentrated his efforts on trying to win over his own freedom through argument and debate rather than through compromise.

This situation is still under review and I hope those who have figuratively yelled until their fingers were ready to fall off, can now lay some of their distress to rest.  As I stated, we in fact are listening to you, but coming to a unified resolve is very difficult when things have become such a public spectacle and any action we take could spark more negative implications to certain persons. 

I'd also like to note that I'm not here to get drawn into an argument so this will likely be the last post you see from me here unless the administration comes to a different collective resolve.  I have admitted that I acted in haste by erroneously assuming I understood more about this issue than I actually did, and for that I apologize and hope those raising cries of tyranny will be able to forgive me and the staff for the perceived administrative inconsistency arising from Swami's ban.

/geo out

geokills said:

Well said. Let me make clear that I firmly do not believe our moderators were acting with mal intent. I will also admit that I was quick to extend Swami's ban based on the perceived notion that he had disregarded a very clear final warning that was sent to him via PM by trendal.

---

Quote:

Particularly in light of Swami's demands that Phluck related to us in another WA&F thread, it is hard to come to a resolve on reducing the ban because he has in effect exhibited that he has learned next to nothing from this experience, and rather has concentrated his efforts on trying to win over his own freedom through argument and debate rather than through compromise.

---

Quote:

Rumor has it that I will be banned permanently for merely asking pointed questions about my incarceration. Especially after I point out the major lies:

Countless PMed warnings: = 1 in the last few months

Banned from another website: fabrication

Practically told Trendal to fuck-off: I will post my POLITE response unedited in it's entirety.

I notice that few seem to care that Huehuecoyotl has left for good because of repression.

---

LunarEclipse said:

Sure people "should" be tough skinned, and ignore other people.

Psilygirl gave up on posting certain things because she didn't want to see her thread derailed. That's too bad she feels that way, she may have some great ideas.

Telling her to toughen up and use the ignore function seems a little harsh. What I got from her post is that she was trying to be impartial in that she wasn't a regular here. She gave an honest opinion of her reaction to reading the thread.

---