Suggestion for moderation

[Angelo222]

First of all any moderator who uses their position as you allege should lose their moderator priviledges. Secondly, in my opinion, this is attempt by you to continue the argument you were pursuing on another thread.

Agree and agree. Nobody likes being moderated and especially so if the person landed with the task is taking part in the discussion. As far as I am concerned my fellow mods would never use their position to upstage an opposing viewpoint.

[Mr Gray]

Agree and agree. Nobody likes being moderated and especially so if the person landed with the task is taking part in the discussion. As far as I am concerned my fellow mods would never use their position to upstage an opposing viewpoint.

you and your fellow mods continually post opinion as fact and fail to give cites...gunit tonight has failed to give a cite and you have both failed to moderate faith for the same because you share her viewpoint

[Venturi Swirl]

I moderate any poster who breaks the rules, I don't moderate according to which 'team' they represent. This is checkable, although not by you.  The deviding line on this board isn't between 'opposing teams', imo, it's between those who enjoy debating and those who enjoy quarrelling.

You didn’t remove Faithlilly’s claim that Kate didn’t answer any questions about the disappearance despite the fact that it is a patently false statement, designed to mislead any passing reader of the forum.  Why not? 

[Venturi Swirl]

Hey folks, join me in a celebration of my big 5-0!  Yep, 50 warnings since joining, here's to the next 50.

[Robittybob1]

Hey folks, join me in a celebration of my big 5-0!  Yep, 50 warnings since joining, here's to the next 50.

You're up to 59 now.    You might get your wish.

[Venturi Swirl]

You're up to 59 now.    You might get your wish.

I now view them as medals, it’s one way to deal with the unfairness (as I perceive it) of the system- turn a negative into a positive.

[G-Unit]

I now view them as medals, it’s one way to deal with the unfairness (as I perceive it) of the system- turn a negative into a positive.

That's like a burglar being proud of how many times he's been caught and punished. 

[Eleanor]

That's like a burglar being proud of how many times he's been caught and punished. 

Or a way to deal with bias.

[Angelo222]

I now view them as medals, it’s one way to deal with the unfairness (as I perceive it) of the system- turn a negative into a positive.

You're sailing very close to the wind.

[Eleanor]

You're sailing very close to the wind.

So are a lot of other people.

[G-Unit]

Or a way to deal with bias.

Bias isn't an acceptable reason for sanctioning a member. In order for a moderator to issue a sanction Forum rules have to be shown to have been breached. Otherwise the decision can and will be reversed on appeal.

Breaking Forum rules and then claiming bias by moderators is not going to work, as has been demonstrated. Refraining from breaking the rules is the only way to avoid sanctions in my opinion.

[Venturi Swirl]

You're sailing very close to the wind.

I love sailing, the windier the better.

[Venturi Swirl]

That's like a burglar being proud of how many times he's been caught and punished. 

Except "being nadty (sic) to Wonderfulspam" (one of my warnings) isn't a criminal offence - yet....

[Eleanor]

Bias isn't an acceptable reason for sanctioning a member. In order for a moderator to issue a sanction Forum rules have to be shown to have been breached. Otherwise the decision can and will be reversed on appeal.

Breaking Forum rules and then claiming bias by moderators is not going to work, as has been demonstrated. Refraining from breaking the rules is the only way to avoid sanctions in my opinion.

Are there any Sceptics with this number of Warnings?  All as white as the driven snow are they?

I never have understood this penchant for awarding Warning Points when a Deletion is often quite enough.

[Venturi Swirl]

Bias isn't an acceptable reason for sanctioning a member. In order for a moderator to issue a sanction Forum rules have to be shown to have been breached. Otherwise the decision can and will be reversed on appeal.

Breaking Forum rules and then claiming bias by moderators is not going to work, as has been demonstrated. Refraining from breaking the rules is the only way to avoid sanctions in my opinion.

The problem is - inconsistency as witnessed by the recent debacle over the slurring (aka libelling) of a perfectly innocent man, with accusations that he was a hustler, a liar who made money out of selling lies to the tabloids.  You refused to condemn this, repeatedly.  Points were eventually awarded to the culprit, which were then removed on appeal - why?  If you can't explain this then you can't expect anyone to take the rules or the punishments seriously.  No doubt this home truth will win me another warning or even a ban, it's worth it to highlight the issue though IMO.