Relax, don't do it.

Hey guys,

Kevin the Mod here. Right after lasts night flurry of posts about Ken, and deleted posts etc etc I have spoken to Ken regarding his legal action and it's effects upon the site.

He has agreed that it probably isn't a good idea to post in here or use his mod powers anymore, however, he is entitled to defend himself, whatever you or I may think of that, and so for the peace of the site, just for the time being whilst things are very raw and about to change, i would ask you, and this is only a personal request, and not an order, to not speak negatively about Ken and anything you may think about him.

If you do, he will respond and then we will see thread upon thread of arguements, instults and more people leaving due to the upset these kinds of things cause.

If you want there to be anyone of worth left after this blows over, and it will, let it go for the time being...not more speaking in hushed tones about Ken, calling him "you know who". E-mail him if you must express how you feel about him, e-mail us you want something to be known about the situation. Nothing is going to be forgotten or weakened by doing this.

And get into the "ways to improve this site" thread and put your energies there.

Things are about to change in here, for the better I promise.

Take it easy. Kevin.

^^^I finally realised who you are now.. Lol.

But yeah.

^^^ I am glad to hear this....every word=true.

It's not right to deprive us of our freedom of speech regardless of whom or what it involves.

Ismail, you are not the important issue here, whatever you may think of the mods, we are trying to keep this place together....maybe some of us do need training, but then if that be the case, then so do some of you, in how to be a good member, so it works both ways.

I'd be most pleased if all of you could pay attention to my first post, I really feel it will benifit things for time being.

We are still waiting on Janis.

This site needs serious changes.

Thanks for posting the thread Kevin, I hope people will take your advice.

~~

Ismail:

As a reasonable person, I'm sure that when you refer to the mods as a group you're making a generalized statement that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'm also sure, as you are an intelligent person, that you know that you sometimes get carried away with rude remarks and behavior in the course of your discussions/suggestions.

In any case, I would hope that people will be capable of reading the original post and understanding its intent and meaning.

THIS thread isn't so much about the freedom of speach as it is about reasonable respite from argument at a rough stage for the site.

"This site needs serious changes."

Changes are being made. Hopefully they'll make things better.

"If I identify the mods in question, then I will only make the situation worse, don't you think?"

I agree, but more importantly I don't feel this is the thread for you to be voicing your opinion about moderators in general either.

"Ofcourse I get carried away Sean, when I think something is wrong...I tell the person (mod), if nothing is done. I critique the work the mods have done."

This is, of course, a moot point in the scheme of things, but critique is different than attacking, and my statement above was concerning how you can get carried away into a realm of viciousness, not only to mods but to other members.

"I have seen for the past few days, how many members are either leaving at their own free will, or they are suspended and stripped of their right to speak."

And I think that is very unfortunate. Some of my favorite members have left/are planning on leaving/ were suspended.

"I was among those suspended, and I am utterly disgusted by the way the moderators sit back and do absolutely nothing...But I am mature enough to let all the past instances go..."

There are several reasons to be disgusted. I feel that one main reason to NOT be is that you did break the rules. However, if you are to be disgusted by the moderators 'lack of action', I think you should rather be disgusted by the bureaucracy of the site and how impossible it is to get simple things done without an active administrator.

"I have been a highly respected member not only because I voiced my opinions eloquently, but also gave a peppermint dose of the truth..."

The truth isn't a problem, and if it were a peppermint dose then it would definitely be welcome. It's when the truth is coated with rudeness that rules are broken and penalties are given, if I may digress into generality for a moment.

"infact this whole P&Q is there for evolving yourself poetically and giving your views expressively."

So long as your expressive views are within the rules set in place for the respectful conduct of all members, there shouldn't be a problem.

And I hope the changes get done as well.

Who allowed this individual moderator-ship?
Who backed him and supported his every corrupted move?
Who supported or kept quiet when he was running an army drill on the members?

Who protected him and even insulted some of the members on his behalf?

Who pleaded blind loyalty to him?

"The administrators will back us on everything we do" was the usual inyourface statement.

You knew that he was power hungry.
When one has authority over someone else in that fashion.. the results can only be abuse.

The lower will look up at the uppers with admiration. the uppers will look down on the lowers with contempt.

I will continue talking about this so that EVERYONE and their mothers who joined or is going to join this website will KNOW what to expect. To do the opposite would be uncivilized.

We have a suspected child predator in our midst!
This is NOT to be kept quiet and swept under the rug.

Blind loyalty kills democracy.
Quieted voices kills freedom.

A note on moderating.

Forums only need moderating when members do not moderate themselves.

Don't blame the mods, look to yourself first.

^^^^^^^^
Agreed.

...but when one of the mods went lock/delete/banning crazy the other mods should have at least acknowledge that something was wrong. On the contrary some ignored, while others protected these actions.

This was a big factor in what lead to this unfortunate situation.

"Who allowed this individual moderator-ship?"

Confusing question, especially because moderating has, since it was enstated, an individual affair. Maybe it shouldn't be that way. We're discussing it.

"Who backed him and supported his every corrupted move?"

Some people. Not everyone. I'm not sure who you're attempting to refer to. I'll say this: I defend people when there is no substantial evidence against them. Once realistic evidence is presented, I no longer defend that person.

"Who supported or kept quiet when he was running an army drill on the members."

You forgot the question mark on this one. And I'm not sure who the 'he' is, nor do I really want it posted in this thread. Nor do I remember the army drill you speak of. If you're referring to chatroom business, that's an entirely different story that I'd prefer to go into in private, if you don't mind.

"Who protected him and even insulted some of the members on his behalf."

I don't know. I know I didn't, and I don't recall any mods insulting members on 'his' behalf either.

"Who pleaded blind loyalty to him."

It's hard to say I plead blind loyalty to 'him' when I don't even know who you're referring to, but I make a point about being loyal to people who have done nothing wrong. Once they do something wrong, I remain loyal to those who haven't.

""The administrators will back us on everything we do" was the usual inyourface statement."

The administrators are the ones that can REVERSE what we do. If they always backed us up, then we wouldn't tell people to take their arguments to them. We don't have the power to remove penalty points, unsuspend members, etc.

"You knew that he was power hungry. "

Nope.

"When one has authority over someone else in that fashion.. the results can only be abuse."

I don't know what you're talking about. Theoretically speaking, if one were to have dominion over another, then I could understand the above statement, but no such dominion exists.. unless you're referring to the benevolent dictatorship under Janis and Dainz.

"The lower will look up at the uppers with admiration. the uppers will look down on the lowers with contempt."

A general statement that rings true only when applicable to a situation. Which it isn't.

"I will continue talking about this so that EVERYONE and their mothers who joined or is going to join this website will KNOW what to expect. To do the opposite would be uncivilized."

What is uncivilized is being uncapable of finding the correct venue to talk about this. This is not the thread for it.

"We have a suspected child predator in our midst!
This is NOT to be kept quiet and swept under the rug. "

I don't think you understand the charges that were placed against the 'child predator', nor will I go into the fact that your statement isn't entirely correct. If anyone has a question about what Chatbot is talking about, they can email me and I'll privately discuss it with them. Public conversation on private charges can be considered libel or slander. Stop it.

"Blind loyalty kills democracy.
Quieted voices kills freedom."

Another neat catchphrase that applies better to grander schemes. There is no case of blind loyalty here. There is also no real case of democracy here. We, the mods and members, are not the executive, the legislative, nor the judicial aspects of this site. The moderators are only a facet of the executive and judicial. Power remains in the hands of two individuals: you can call it an oligarchy if you'd like.

Quieted voices kills freedom. But I'd like to point out that pure, unadultered freedom isn't easy to find, and isn't always conductive. All over the world, there are limits placed on the freedom of speach to ensure the respect of other individuals. This site has similar guidlines.

I can see this turning into another arguement. *cries* Haha! =(

Yeah, I'm sorry everyone. I got caught up in things. =P

Ye-eah. You better sorry Sean =P Lol..

{P.S. You've missed mine and Darien's collab}

What is the "whole story" ...I don't even know what everyone is arguing about. :/

Email someone about it, it isn't something to go into here.

Mmkay, Sean. {Thanks for the comment too.}

That's why I used the word "suspected" and didn't mention any names. I too have family lawyers who advice.

Ken to each story there is 2 sides. You failed to present your side basing it on legalities.

And it's because you remain to keep quiet while threatening to sue is what's making people suspicious and causing them to fold toward the right.. or left.

It's the constant deleting of threads and post that make you look bad.

It's the I dont care attitude that angers people.

It's the lets not talk about it anymore logic that scares me.

Chatbot
Evilchatbot@yahoo.com

Mods are only a small part of the site. If they do get training, sure that's good. But just Mods isn't enough to contain everybody on here since we get several new joiners everyday.

It's the Members that matter the most. If all the responsible members and Mods work as team to eliminate all problems including their personal problems such as downvotes. It may be Better.

I say you Post some more warnings when New joiners sign in.

Lacetears, that is one of the many suggestions we have already sent to Janis, that new members need to answer some simple questions upon joining up to ensure they understand the rules, and then they have to agree to them with a click box. Not exactly a foolproof way of keeping the peace, but it does mean no one will be able to claim ignorance.

This thread, like so many others, has gotten away from the point I was trying to make and turned into a "he said she said", which is a pity.

PS, Bret, your point about members looking after this place more so we don't have to step in was gospel. respect.