Rhet-or-Ric wrote:To try to slam that "leeway door" shut this far along isn't a good moderation technique. And, yes, I meant to use the word "slam". When a moderator doesn't use "please" and attempt to show some expression of understanding of extenuating circumstances that may influence a member of this community as he/she responds to other posters (and there are a lot of extenuating circumstances in this thread) it starts to look like a door slamming type of moderation.
Fair points. Of course, extenuating circumstances could include a moderator's experience within the community. Moderators are supposed to attempt to give everybody a fair chance on the topic at hand. They are also supposed to protect the general sensibilities of a diverse community. In a delicate topic like this, where does the line go? In the case of moderators who are merely volunteers within the community and do what they do only as they have time, how do you protect continuity?
Nevertheless, it's not my intent to slam the door on discussion of the Pope's liability or the Catholic Church's liability over the horrendous act of sexual abuse. But phpBB.com's General Discussion forum is not outside the general purpose of phpBB.com and so has some stricter expectations of community participation than perhaps any of us prefer.
oleg-karow wrote:... personal insults ...
To be frank, your history of questioning both the intelligence and the motives of people here simply because they are moderators is not less insulting. I have no interest in trading insults, and I have no interest in abusing power. But I do have a job to do, and I learned long ago that I cannot meet everyone's expectations.
I apologize for the fact that you have felt insulted, for I have no interest in insulting you. And I am willing to apologize when I botch the moderator's call. Rhet-or-Ric's point that a "please" was appropriate is a good one.
So I will ask that everyone please stay on topic. It is absolutely necessary in the case of a sensitive topic like this that we stay fair and just (no one is guilty until proven to be guilty, for example, whether by trial or by the judgment of history) and yet stay sensitive to the pain of victims of sexual abuse. Staying strictly on-topic is, in my view, the best way to accomplish that end. However the topic has progressed to this point, please proceed going forward by staying on topic. There are issues worth discussing here that can be discussed profitably even under that restraint. I speak from experience.
Edit: I must add that anyone is free to take my moderating (or lack of it) up with the Moderator Team Leader, primedomain
. So that things stay as fair as possible, I encourage it.
oleg-karow wrote:I could have ripped what each of you said apart virtualy word for word but i didnt . If this ever happens again i will do it and you and they and even all of you together havent got a snow ball in hells chance against me in a fair debate .
I apologize for the edits, but I need to address this with one more comment. You seem to assume that I am taking issue with the factuality or accuracy of some of your comments. To be clear, I am asking you to be fair and on-topic in the context of this discussion. For all you know you would try to debate me and find that we agree on certain things. But you don't seem to think that even a possibility.
It would be fine to intelligently discuss the political and religious abuses of power of a Spanish king and queen (on the assumption that a reference to the judicial horrors of the Inquisition is likely a reference to the Spanish Inquisition), a German premier, and a whole host of American politicians. And you and I might agree on many things in the course of that discussion. What does any of that have to do with how I moderate this topic? It is nowhere near as personal as you seem to take it.
We should talk less, and say more.