Charles Manson wrote:There was Henke's thread in the forum bit where he was pre-emptively warned because of a reputation on a different forum. General consensus was that was unfair.
Indeed, and that was acknowledged, I believe. The intention wasn't to be unfair there. The intention to monitor was for a legitimate reason, even if the method used proved to be wrong in terms of appearing divisive.
Could also mention the debacle involving [the illusion of] letting us vote you in as mod but I'll forget about that.
It was a debacle, but the continuing reference to it as an "illusion" remains incorrect since we went by the result, and I said throughout the thread that I would - despite Steve's comments to the contrary.
Mean spirited post? What do you expect I do, brown nose instead and say you're doing a perfect job? Maybe all you folk in charge are finding the responsibility a little hard to handle because smart folk (who aren't bluehats, mods or admins) are questioning some of the decisions or implications put forward.
Not at all. It just seems that you're deliberately rabble-rousing and interpreting things I've said in a way they weren't meant. If that's not the case, then I apologise - that's the way it's coming across to me. Look at the way you phrased that second sentence - it's provocative, isn't it?
All I'm saying is that the self same mods on the previous GR were never so quick to bring up the rules when they were never even broken, and public consultations on the issue were avoided in favour of keeping it in the mod room!
There was a discussion here about whether the rules were being broken or not. The fact that the opening post turned out to be on the right side of the line didn't mean that pointing out the rules on pornographic links was wrong. As KKLEIN himself admitted, it was rather grey. And throughout the entire GRcade setting up process, everyone was complaining whenever something wasn't discussed openly! As this is the first grey area when it comes to these rules that I've personally come across, I was carrying on that tradition.
However, it seems clear now that both on the rules and when it comes to other important decisions, you only want consultation about it until that actually happens, at which point you complain. But I'd bet my house on the fact that if we acted arbitrarily without your input, you'd then complain about us being Nazis.
So if you could explain how we can "win" here, then that would be great!
But hey, I'm talking crap, so, y'know, I'm obviously wrong.
Well, as I know what the Staff discussions have been regarding rules and their application here, I am in a position to say that when you talked about the flippant use of powers, you were wrong. So wrong, in fact, that you were talking crap. But if that language was too colourful and confrontational, then I apologise - it was used because of my strength of feeling about this issue.
The impression this week is that we're now being pilloried for little to no reason, and mean-spirited conclusions on the staff and their actions are being reached without full knowledge of the facts. As Canton intimates: when you consider how much work went into this place, and how much thought has gone into the rules and how GRcade should operate, many of the staff think that we deserve to be given slightly more of a chance than some of you guys are giving us right now. We've fully admitted that we're in a shakedown period, and I wish you wouldn't be so quick to jump on us as if our intentions weren't fully geared towards making the forum better for everyone.
EDIT: Who were you on GR, anyway, Charles?