If you going to moderate Part 2

[Hosakawa Tito]

To all, Tosa has apparently taken a much deserved vacation. He's probably THE hardest working administrator in this community. He will address this when he is available. In the mean time we need to be patient, if you've been 'suffering' for the last three years here, certainly you can wait a few more days.

Redleg, Gawain, etc... you assume that those members that have opposing views to your own have not been warned, carded, etc... by staff for breaking forum rules. That is totally untrue, and the ironic part of this; they probably feel they are being persecuted by staff and you guys are 'getting away with it'. The reason; we don't normally tell patrons that the member they had an altercation with was also warned, carded, etc... The first two cards are invisible to all but staff. So there seems to be a perception out there that I'm being held accountable, but everyone else isn't. Ask or pm your ideological opponents if they have been warned, carded, etc... by me or other staff in here, I think the answers will reveal that they have and in equal measure.

There is a hostile atmosphere in the Tavern that is directed at American foreign policy, and though there is justification for being angry and disgusted with the way this administration is bungling along, they don't operate in a vacuum, and neither do we. Patrons who strongly disagree with the US foreign policy post in anger, their anger comes out in how they word their post, people start to take things personal, the trouble begins. I've mentioned this in pm's with other staff that just like the hammering our French patrons went through a while back, this 'torture of a thousand cuts' that the US patrons are enduring now will ultimately lead to no good. There is damn little friendly debate, in fact, their seems to be a contest in earnest complete with a 'scoreboard' to tally the verbal bloodletting. Who have we to blame for this? I suggest we start by looking at that person in the mirror. We have met the enemy, and it is us. I wish I knew what the solution was, but I do know that it begins with each and every patron in the Tavern. It takes at least two to fight, we seem to have many more who are willing than that.

[Redleg]

Its actually pretty simple - don't allow it and then there is no misunderstanding that can happen from the different ways in which the word can be used. Profane words are just that - there defined as profane for a simple reason.


Main Entry: 1pro·fane
Pronunciation: prO-'fAn, pr&-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·faned; pro·fan·ing
Etymology: Middle English prophanen, from Latin profanare, from profanus
1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : DESECRATE
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use
- pro·fan·er noun


F*** has several definations all of them obscene.

Function: verb
Etymology: akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect fokka to copulate
intransitive senses
1 usually obscene : COPULATE -- sometimes used in the present participle as a meaningless intensive
2 usually vulgar : MESS 3 -- used with with
transitive senses
1 usually obscene : to engage in coitus with -- sometimes used interjectionally with an object (as a personal or reflexive pronoun) to express anger, contempt, or disgust
2 usually vulgar : to deal with unfairly or harshly


Noun
1 usually obscene : an act of copulation
2 usually obscene : a sexual partner
3 a usually vulgar : DAMN 2 b usually vulgar -- used especially with the as a meaningless intensive


A reasonable person will always be offended by the use of such words even if it not the intent of the poster. The word in itself causes the intent of the person's post to be immediately taken as offensive.

the forum rules expressily state

Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

The forum rule states it very clearily the word profane.

the abusive terms have been going on now for several years. And has steadily gotten worse over time. Until it has gotten to the point that the politicial discussion have always broken down to useless name calling and other abusive terms used. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. But everytime I attempt to stop - someone begins again with abusive terms and the moderators don't seem to do anything to stop the ongoing abusive language.

[Redleg]

Quote[/b] (Hosakawa Tito @ May 18 2004,09:54)]To all, Tosa has apparently taken a much deserved vacation. He's probably THE hardest working administrator in this community. He will address this when he is available. In the mean time we need to be patient, if you've been 'suffering' for the last three years here, certainly you can wait a few more days.

Redleg, Gawain, etc... you assume that those members that have opposing views to your own have not been warned, carded, etc... by staff for breaking forum rules. That is totally untrue, and the ironic part of this; they probably feel they are being persecuted by staff and you guys are 'getting away with it'. The reason; we don't normally tell patrons that the member they had an altercation with was also warned, carded, etc... The first two cards are invisible to all but staff. So there seems to be a perception out there that I'm being held accountable, but everyone else isn't. Ask or pm your ideological opponents if they have been warned, carded, etc... by me or other staff in here, I think the answers will reveal that they have and in equal measure.

There is a hostile atmosphere in the Tavern that is directed at American foreign policy, and though there is justification for being angry and disgusted with the way this administration is bungling along, they don't operate in a vacuum, and neither do we. Patrons who strongly disagree with the US foreign policy post in anger, their anger comes out in how they word their post, people start to take things personal, the trouble begins. I've mentioned this in pm's with other staff that just like the hammering our French patrons went through a while back, this 'torture of a thousand cuts' that the US patrons are enduring now will ultimately lead to no good. There is damn little friendly debate, in fact, their seems to be a contest in earnest complete with a 'scoreboard' to tally the verbal bloodletting. Who have we to blame for this? I suggest we start by looking at that person in the mirror. We have met the enemy, and it is us. I wish I knew what the solution was, but I do know that it begins with each and every patron in the Tavern. It takes at least two to fight, we seem to have many more who are willing than that.

The main difference is that we get cautioned publicily by the moderators where I rarely see that done to others.

That is a big difference in the way things are handled and leads to preceptions that one side is indeed treated differently

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] ]The main difference is that we get cautioned publicily by the moderators where I rarely see that done to others.

And we've come full circle back to my question....

[Redleg]

To the moderators of the forum.

I posted a message in the tavern about how I plan to fix my bad behavior. I appreciate the oppurunity to post here in this forum, and I also appreciate that some of you allowed me to vent in this particlur thread.

Thanks - sometimes it just helps to vent when you begin to become overwhelmed.

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]the line was crossed by the individual when he used the term "f***ing." when you add that word to a sentence you are no longer making an opinion - you have crossed into insulting and being offensive. Certain things should never be tolerated and using that word in context of any statement - makes that statement offensive or insulting.

While I agree that everyone should have the right to express their opinion - it should not cross clear establish lines of common decency and respect for other's beliefs. The use of foul language and certain terms insures that the comment can not be taken anyother way then as an insult.

I agree with you completely. The post in question was offensive, there can be no doubt about it. That´s why I told the author not to do it. But is has always been praxis that the first offensive post doesn´t immediately lead to a penalty. The people involved are usually offered at least one chance to change their behaviour. Only in extreme cases punishment comes on the spot. And such an extreme case is in my opinion not given because it´s only the vulgarity that violates the rules at all. As such we cannot see this as something worse than a direct insult.
This is as I see this issue. You can disagree with me, but I can only judge by what I think is right.

[Redleg]

Well I have gave it futher thought.

And in all honesty my initial points are still correct and need to be addressed. There is an atmosphere of hositility in the tavern that should not be there. Part of the problem is the nature of the discussions, part of it comes from the diverse politicial spectrums, the age of some of the patrons that post in the forum, and some from the actions of the moderators.

A couple of ideas that come to mind.

That we as forum patrons abide by the rules of the forum. The rules clearly state

Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law

Some of the terms have different meanings to different people in different parts of the world. However common definations are available in web dictionaries for anyone to find. Profane, vulgar, and obscene language however is generally defined the same throughout the world. For instance the term F*** is considered obsence no matter how it is used and it should be constantly discouraged in its use on this forum.

Then everything else gets a little hazy - based upon one's own personal beliefs and opinions. That many of the posters from the United States get a little heated when certain terms are applied to different things. The same can be said of Europeans also. If I was to state certain comments concerning Europeans in the same why they refer to the United States - its almost for certain that I would upset at least half of the forum European population. Calling one's government facist and nazi falls within an offensive and abusive insult which many on this forum would find offensive if it was direct at their country's government.

Having said that if a poster informs a moderator that they found the post to be offensive - the moderator can not dismiss it as something that isn't offensive. If its offensive to someone - it has to be considered offensive and not dismissed. This has happen numerous times both in posted comments for the general forum in the tavern and thru PM where I have been told its not offensive and I am confusing hate for the US Government with the population in general. Well in certain terms are used over and over again - just maybe the line has become blurred by both.

Just because an European poster or European Moderator does not find something offensive when its direct at the United States - does not mean that an American does not find it offensive. We live in different parts of the world and different people have different ideas of what is offensive and what is not. SO if the complaint is made either by PM or for general knowledge in the tavern the moderators should not dismiss it, or allow the type of speech to continue.

So when someone complains about the speech it also might help if the moderators inform the complainer by PM that action has indeed been done and that they should inform the moderator immediately if it happens again.

Second thought goes along the lines of if a moderator happens to post in a thread that has potential to become very heated - they should refrain from making judgements on that particlur thread. Kind of like a judge reclusing (SP?) from a particlur case because of their own personal bias on it. With four moderators in the Tavern this should not be a hard task to accomplish. For instance if Tito posted in the thread that now becomes to abusive instead of making judgements - he should close the thread and inform the other moderators to make a judgement on the posts contain within the thread and then they could reopen it.

I think this will go far in helping to reduce some of the preceptions of unfair baised moderation that some of us have.

[Papewaio]

Actually F**K is also a clothing brand FCUK. Also it is not considered as vulgar as it used to be in Aus... overusage has diminished its clout. As for C**T that is as bad as ever but I am sure if it is said enough times it will diminish in offensive value... English/American is/are living languages.

I am sure a more literate patron can find examples of words that used to be very offensive and are now used in common parlance.

[solypsist]

Tosa is still on vacation, unfortunately.

[A.Saturnus]

I understand what you´re saying Redleg, the problem however is that there´s a fine line between inflammatory posting and personal opinion. It happens that people take offense at something that´s just an opinion and that shouldn´t be censored. That someone takes is in my view not enough to forbid something. With degrading comments directed at another member it´s easy to decide, with other offensive remarks it´s not so easy. There are cases where it´s obvious that something isn´t really offensive and those who object just want to forbid others to say it. In other cases it´s not at all obvious.
Your example of calling a government fascist is a borderline case. I readily understand that someone takes offense at that even when one isn´t a supporter of that government. But at the same time I think critique of a government is very important. I think we can agree that in some cases calling a government fascist is an accurate description. If one says Nazi Germany was fascist it wouldn´t be reasonable for me to take offense because there´s no doubt that it was fascist. If someone calls the German government of today fascist (which some do) I´d strongly disagree and I might even take offense but still I don´t think that should be censored. Criticizing governments is the most important part of free speech.
It´s important that we protect people from offense but also freedom of speech.

[Redleg]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ May 20 2004,08:29)]I understand what you´re saying Redleg, the problem however is that there´s a fine line between inflammatory posting and personal opinion. It happens that people take offense at something that´s just an opinion and that shouldn´t be censored. That someone takes is in my view not enough to forbid something. With degrading comments directed at another member it´s easy to decide, with other offensive remarks it´s not so easy. There are cases where it´s obvious that something isn´t really offensive and those who object just want to forbid others to say it. In other cases it´s not at all obvious.
Your example of calling a government fascist is a borderline case. I readily understand that someone takes offense at that even when one isn´t a supporter of that government. But at the same time I think critique of a government is very important. I think we can agree that in some cases calling a government fascist is an accurate description. If one says Nazi Germany was fascist it wouldn´t be reasonable for me to take offense because there´s no doubt that it was fascist. If someone calls the German government of today fascist (which some do) I´d strongly disagree and I might even take offense but still I don´t think that should be censored. Criticizing governments is the most important part of free speech.
It´s important that we protect people from offense but also freedom of speech.

I would agree in principle - but it often goes to far.

An examble would be someone calling me a facist because I support actions of my government.

The line does indeed get blurry and its often crossed - because the above statement does happen a lot in the politicial discussions.

Another examble from a recent topic

Quote[/b] ]geez...hmmm...come to think of it, I think I remember some of the U.S. soldiers (evil evil men) forcing me to try to lick my anus, and sniff some of theres............

umm...

Am I on the news yet??.......

Can someone reimburse me with loads of money...

This can be taken several different ways - two of of them offensive to the person who reads it. Its a higly criticial statement made in a very aggressive way - but does not in my opinion violate the rules of the forum, even though I find it personally offensive. In a posting style that is almost assured of a inflammatory response from someone depending on how it is percieved.

And the following message shows just how certain statements get turned into inflammatory comments in a direct way.

Quote[/b] ]And again we see the desperate defence that the accusations must be malicious and mischeivous Becuase its quite unthinkable they might actually be true.

Look, this is now part of a recognised and PHOTOGRAPHED pattern of abuses by US forces. Almost every other party in the war has accused the US of such depravity, even its most loyal allies. The British military has publicaly stated that while it must fight WITH the Americans it sees no need to fight AS the Americans.

This is the reality. This is what is happening. But seeing these desperate defences trotted out again and again, its clear that America simply cannot be trusted to clean its own house.

Notice that someone now has turned it into a case of bashing instead of discussing the issue. The response right after this then becomes even more direct and personal because that is exactly the intent of this post to inflame someone with a different opinion. No longer is the discussion about the right and wrong of the issue as it is percieved by the different individuals within the forum, but a post that can be taken as a personal attack on other peoples thoughts. I have been guilty of this style in the past, and I recongize it for what it is.

Censorship is a concept that is mis-understood by many people. This is a public forum held by a private person or group of persons. You can censor material - because your forum rules state already what is allowed and what is not, its not censorship if your enforcing already established rules.

Only governments can censor, and violate freedom of speech. Moderators on a message forum already have the right to censor because the forum rules state what is allowed and what is not

[A.Saturnus]

Yes, as moderators we can and have to censor. But we don´t want to quelsh political discussion. Personally I can´t see why it shouldn´t be possible to discuss everything entirely civil. It´s not that becoming personal and offensive serves one´s argument in any way. But I also know that the topics in the Tavern are emotional and it´s not easy too restrict oneself. If we are too quick with censorship, it might get so frustrating that no one wants to engage in any serious discussions. Another point is that most people tend to see own posts as less offensive than those of others. It´s not uncommon that people feel as if we had it especially on them. Being stricter may increase overall fairness, but it may also increase the feeling of oppression some already have.
Another thing is that it often depends how a discussion goes on after a possible inflammatory comment. I remember that I used once a hyperbolic argument that some people took quite badly. They interpreted in way I didn´t mean at all. After noticing that there was a misunderstanding, I explained how I meant it and that it was only a hyperbole. No flame war occured. Something like that happens actually quite often. Now, I don´t want to appear lazy (well, I am) I think it´s always better when members sort out problems themselves. Usually we want to give them the opportunity to do that. We have to choose the lesser of two evils, stepping in to late is bad, but stepping in to soon also.

Believe me, a dictatorship would be heck of a lot easier.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]Believe me, a dictatorship would be heck of a lot easier.

And what do we have here. Were you guys elected? I know Dephee certainly was not. At least not by us. The mods are sheriff judge and jury all rolled into one. Its worse than a dictatorship. If there are meetings they meet in secret and hand down secret decisions on people. Also if two or more people are having a problem and you punish both but don't tell anyone how are we to know you are being fair. I suppose we should just accept it on faith. I would say the mods are more like gods than dictators. Heaven forbid you anger the gods.

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 21 2004,15:10)]I suppose we should just accept it on faith.

I don't see what's the big surprise about that. We're all just guests here, and the moderators are the staff. They can be reasoned with, but ultimately they are in charge of this "institution". If you went to a bar that bans smoking, would it matter if the patrons in the bar vote that they would like to smoke anyway, or is it the staff/owner who's going to have a final word on it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]I suppose we should just accept it on faith.

I don't see what's the big surprise about that. We're all just guests here, and the moderators are the staff. They can be reasoned with, but ultimately they are in charge of this "institution".

So were the guards at stalag 17. There is no accountability here for them. They can do as they please and you have no recourse. If you are treated unfairly tuff luck. Arbitrary decisions decided upon and handed down in secret are worse than a dictatorship to me. I do not know how it works here but I wouldn't let anyone be a mod for more than a year. It is too much power and can go to ones head.

Quote[/b] ]If you went to a bar that bans smoking, would it matter if the patrons in the bar vote that they would like to smoke anyway, or is it the staff/owner who's going to have a final word on it?

Nope the government would have the final word. Plus at least they would have it very posted no smoking. The rules against flaming here are obviously far more obtuse. People can say things that you consider to be the worst insult you ever heard and be told little or nothing while you can poke a little fun at some one and practically be banned. So I guess your saying if you do not like how you are treated here don't bitch just pack your bags and get the hell out.

[hrvojej]

I did say they can be reasoned with, didn't I? Bottom line is, it's the administrators who decide what to do about the mods. Have you been to any other forums that don't have it this way?

This is not a state establishment, this is only an internet gaming forum after all. And I'm not saying that you should do anything, that's entirely up to you and totally not my thing to say or to meddle in your decisions. I personally hang around this forum because I like it here; on many other forums that I don't like for this or that reason I don't.

[Voigtkampf]

So I'm back from my trip and Tavern is still the hottest kitchen.

Gawain, like it or not, hrvojej is 100 % right.

The offenders mentioned before in this thread have been punished. I don't know whether the Org will switch to the system of public announcements of who was punished and for what, but I don't believe it; it would open another endless trail of debates and discussing and finally flaming upon whether the justice has been done and to what extent.

Gawain, one more reminder; even in democracy, the people do not rule - they choose their representatives that govern upon their behalf for a limited time period. Not every decision can be debated ad infinitum. And Org is just a gaming site for Total War fans, with a staff that tries to be fair and impartial to all of it's members.

Basically, this is how things work; you can like it or not, but you can't change it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nope you cant fight city hall. Now some of you might think that I am rue or an inflammatory poster but I don't see it that way but I must be wrong. I think I am one of the apologetics people here although I am very opinionated and have a sarcastic sense of humor. I have been here for about 4 months and for almost 3 of them I have had the restriction of 255 seconds between posts and no editing. Why not just throw some one out at that point as posting is almost impossible. Now if someone could show me how I deserve this treatment while many others say things I find not only offensive but down right disgusting and get away with it is beyond me. It is totally arbitrary and if a mod doesn't like you your in trouble but if they do like you you can get away with murder. Its funny at the Net I am a Supreme court judge respected for my fairness and elected by my peers yet here I am an outcast go figure.

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 21 2004,21:39)]So were the guards at stalag 17. There is no accountability here for them. They can do as they please and you have no recourse.

That was a cheap shot Gawain - and a cliche. There must be a universal law that at some point in discussions such as this somebody is required to make the Nazi comparison. Happens everytime. But, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last to say something like this. It is just frustrating to read that comment after spending countless hours volunteering our time to moderate these forums. There, had to get that off my chest.

You are incorrect on the accountability issue. We are accountable to Tosa, who runs this site. And he, in a sense, is accoutable to you. The Org forums have a generally good reputation as far as content and atmosphere are concerned. It obviously is in Tosa's best interest to maintain that reputation. If patrons start walking out the door and spreading the word that our forums are bad due to our iron-fisted, biased moderating, our audience will start to shrink, quality will go down and the forums will go on life-support. So Tosa has a vested interest in keeping the Org forums a good place to be.

As for the staff, except for BKS, we were all asked to help moderate the forums. The criteria is simple: is the patron a good, level-headed person? Specialized knowledge in some areas is also a consideration (Dungeon/Apothecary). There is never the question "what are their political/religious leanings?"

Who is the Org staff? We are here because we love the TW games. We all give up precious game time to moderate these forums. We are from all parts of the globe. We all have different occupations. We cover a very wide age range from teenager to the 50's. We are of both sexes (thanks to froggy) and a few of unknown types. Our staff members have different levels of international/cultural experiences, from almost none to "globe trotter". We are not professional moderators. We receive no training. We are not here 24x7, nor do we have time to read every post in these forums. We moderate to the best of our ability and experience given the situations confronting us. And finally, we are not perfect. We are quite a diverse group. Tough getting any concensus bias from such a group I'd think.

BTW, you do have recourse. This topic is an example.

Last comment, the gist of this issue is that there is a bias against American, Christian conservatives. As I recall, that last batch of patrons who left our forums due our "biased" moderating were European liberals. I don't recall their religious leanings.

[solypsist]

We wear assassin's robes for a reason

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]That was a cheap shot Gawain - and a cliche. There must be a universal law that at some point in discussions such as this somebody is required to make the Nazi comparison. Happens everytime. But, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last to say something like this

I did not mean to infer that anyone here was a Nazi and you have my apologies if thats how you thought I meant it. I guess it was a bad choice on my part to show how it looked to me like the mods were in total control of this instition with no one to answer to. Now with your information I stand corrected. I will take my complaint up with Tosa when he returns. What ever happens I want you all to know that I have enjoyed my time spent here more than at any other forum I have visited and want to thank you all for some of the best and most enlightning disscussions I can remember.

[frogbeastegg]

Gods? Does that make me a small deified amphibian?

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 22 2004,02:39)]The rules against flaming here are obviously far more obtuse.

The rule runs: "Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times."

What would you suggest to improve it? A small note on what is considered to be each of those things, for example a list of banned swear words?

The rules are nothing to do with me, outside of my job to uphold them as best as possible, but I would think if enough people think they need refining or clarifying the request would at least be listened to.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well according to those rules 90% of the posts here should fall afoul of those rules.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How about for starts not calling anyones religion or God derogatory names. You can say that you dont believe in it without insulting those who do. This is the most flagrant abuse I have noticed here yet some mods think its ok, Saying things like if you don't believe something like that Jesus was god then you can call him names on the basis that he is a historical figure. Thats fine if you don't believe he was god but if you do as many of us here do its quite apparently extremely inflammatory.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] ]There must be a universal law that at some point in discussions such as this somebody is required to make the Nazi comparison.

It's called Godwin's Law. It states that whoever compares the other side in a debate in an internet forum to the Nazi's automatically loses.

Quote[/b] ]As for the staff, except for BKS, we were all asked to help moderate the forums.

Heh-you make it sound like I forced my way in.

[Voigtkampf]

Gregoshi; the man of wisdom and all-around "good guy". Ever since I joined the Org I could do nothing but agree with him.

Gawain, I for one have a strong tendency to act harsh when it comes to religion issues, and I will never allow that any deity or religion will be addressed to in a disrespectful or, more often, hateful manner. Christian, Orthodox, Islamist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, I respect all religions and will not tolerate no defamatory posts that will offend any of the large groups that come to the Org.


Interesting observation I feel compelled to share with all of you; I haven't noticed yet that a religious person would attack any other religious person and levitate his own religion above the other or accuse the other religion of being evil et cetera. That is, in my opinion, a good and sound development, and all the bashing and hateful posts comes from other groups, which I find to be unnecessary and most unfortunate to point out.

[Gregoshi]

Sorry BKS. You are actually the opposite. You are the "voice of the people". What can be better than that?

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 22 2004,11:22)]How about for starts not calling anyones religion or God derogatory names. You can say that you dont believe in it without insulting those who do. This is the most flagrant abuse I have noticed here yet some mods think its ok, Saying things like if you don't believe something like that Jesus was god then you can call him names on the basis that he is a historical figure. Thats fine if you don't believe he was god but if you do as many of us here do its quite apparently extremely inflammatory.

I don´t think any mod thinks that´s ok. As I stated before, I certainly don´t. What I wanted to bring to mind is this:
for you it´s extremely inflammatory, I understand that. For others it´s less inflammatory. Further above in this thread you say you don´t have the impression that your posts were that offensive. Again that is your view, that may not be the same as that of others. Do you think that the staff should always adopt your view? I guess not. Somehow we have to find a compromise. Compromises have the disadvantage that no one likes them.
Lately I got from some people the impression, as if they think I somehow have established an autocratic rule in the Tavern. That is not so. There are several other people that have a say as well. If you don´t agree with my view - which is likely the case - you have always the option to involve the rest of the staff into a case.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]. Again that is your view, that may not be the same as that of others. Do you think that the staff should always adopt your view?

Of course you are correct my view or opinion is only correct as far as I am concerned. I don't think I am infallible or always correct for from it. My comments were supposed to be amusing while still being critical. Obviously I failed miserably. The problem is that the view of the mods is always correct or so it seems. If a mod thinks you did something wrong thats it you are done. I can understand where you are coming from. I just think that the punishment handed out is way out of line with my comments. Of course this again is only my opinion.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ May 22 2004,15:33)]Sorry BKS. You are actually the opposite. You are the "voice of the people". What can be better than that?

Being unquestioned dictator