Hippie3 said:

Quote:

4. We are among the smartest members of this community.

---

not to forget being the most
modest and humble as well.

---

Quote:

We are among the smartest members of this community.

---

Anyway I would love to put an end to my bellyaching about the mods. I think that this new policy could be great for the shroomery. I do love the Shroomery and spend a ton of time here instead of being a productive member of society. Let's tie up any loose ends and move on.

Thank you Thor for the positive news." God bless us every one." (Tiny Tim)

trendal said:

I'd really rather not get into this discussion, but as you seem to like speaking my mind for me, Cervantes, I'll have to

Although trendal had NO PROBLEM with Swami's posts

I certainly did have a problem with his posts. If you read my posts in the thread in question, I think it's rather blatantly obvious. However I wasn't a moderator of the forum, so I couldn't do anything. I had to wait for a S&P mod to come along and handle it.

---

Quote:

Trendal said:

For the record, I don't think Swami came into my thread with any "malicious intent" on his mind. I'm 99.999% sure that his first post containing a book title was just an attempt at a joke. He was just trying to be funny...

...I wasn't the one who banned him, nor did I request a ban, but I fully support the 12hr ban he received.

---

That is what I meant by you had, "No problem".


I should've said, "You didn't take it serious."

Sorry for the confusion. Even a LONG post needs to skim over a FEW details.

Thor said:

Swami is smart enough to word things a certain way to argue that he never broke a rule, while his intent might be blatantly obvious to all, even the uninvolved observer.

---

Hippie3 said:

not that it's any of my business-
cervantes would make a great attorney
but shroomery is not a court of law,
with precedent and legislative intent,
rules of evidence and chains of custody-
it relies upon the insight and discernment
of its' moderators.

prudence further dictates the necessity
of backing up the mods' decisions
even when they might have erred-
as loyalty should be repayed.

while the mods might have let
their emotions cloud
their strict objection interpretation of the 'rules'-
their primary intent was protective,
to uphold and enhance the principles
upon which shroomery has been built.

to second guess the mods' decisions,
without an overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence
of malicious bias,
would serve in the long run to
undermine the entire community.

one must return loyalty to those who volunteer their service.

it may not be 'fair'
but it is entirely practical and beneficial to
staff morale.

---

Cervantes said:

Same old complaint.

---

Hippie3 said:

not that it's any of my business-
cervantes would make a great attorney
but shroomery is not a court of law,
with precedent and legislative intent,
rules of evidence and chains of custody-
it relies upon the insight and discernment
of its' moderators.

prudence further dictates the necessity
of backing up the mods' decisions
even when they might have erred-
as loyalty should be repayed.

while the mods might have let
their emotions cloud
their strict objection interpretation of the 'rules'-
their primary intent was protective,
to uphold and enhance the principles
upon which shroomery has been built.

to second guess the mods' decisions,
without an overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence
of malicious bias,
would serve in the long run to
undermine the entire community.

one must return loyalty to those who volunteer their service.

it may not be 'fair'
but it is entirely practical and beneficial to
staff morale.

frankly i'd say, as an admin myself of a rather large site,
that this fellow cervantes will never be satisfied
and is content to beat a dead horse into stains.

---

Hippie3 said:

i'm sure most who have never run a large website would disagree,
the members take a different view of things than does staff,
members always think their own concerns are paramount
and rarely think of the impact on the site itself.

but my experience has taught me that if i undercut my mods
then i end up with no mods.
frankly i'd rather lose a few unhappy loud members
and keep a good mod.
that way the mods learn on the job,
gaining experience and competence over time,
knowing that i'm behind them 100%.
keeps them happy.

---