Moderators

[Teaos]

Yeah the forum used to rather dead during my daytime but now we have several new members its picked up a bit.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yeah, nowadays I come on in the morning to find a dozen or so topics to respond to.

[Teaos]

Gives me something to do when i need to give my fingers a rest. Typing losens them up from holding tools all day.

[Mikey]

Well... yeah, that and the fact that we bribed them.

SSSH!

[stitch626]

Congradulations. Now I have to get used to green letters.

[Monroe]

Yeah, nowadays I come on in the morning to find a dozen or so topics to respond to.

Yeah I've given up trying to read them all
Grats on your gamma ray bursts.

[Sionnach Glic]

Thanks.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

What exactly are the moderators supposed to do? I thought they were supposed to just enforce the rules, yet I had Seafort forcing me to continue a debate that I didn't want to continue with threats of him using his powers, so what limits are there on what these moderators are allowed to do?

[Aaron]

What exactly are the moderators supposed to do? I thought they were supposed to just enforce the rules, yet I had Seafort forcing me to continue a debate that I didn't want to continue with threats of him using his powers, so what limits are there on what these moderators are allowed to do?

Unless this forum is run radically different from any other sci-fi one, simply go "I conceed" and then bring your concerns about abuse of power to the attention of the admins.

[Sionnach Glic]

What exactly are the moderators supposed to do? I thought they were supposed to just enforce the rules, yet I had Seafort forcing me to continue a debate that I didn't want to continue with threats of him using his powers, so what limits are there on what these moderators are allowed to do?

If you didn't want to continue the debate then concede the debate to those who are opposed to you in that thread.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

What exactly are the moderators supposed to do? I thought they were supposed to just enforce the rules, yet I had Seafort forcing me to continue a debate that I didn't want to continue with threats of him using his powers, so what limits are there on what these moderators are allowed to do?

If you didn't want to continue the debate then concede the debate to those who are opposed to you in that thread.

Gee...maybe because he threatened me to continue or else.

Blackstar, in your next post you'd better cut out the evasive bullshit and respond to people's points. I'm telling you this as a moderator, not a debater

You see, he didn't give me a choice, he said respond or he'd take action as a moderator.

[Sionnach Glic]

Nowhere in that thread did you show signs of wanting to discontinue the debate. If you had told Seafort you didn't want to continue and conceded to the rest of us, then you wouldn't be in this position.

[Mark]

Guys, with all friendship and respect, I kind of side with Blackstar on this one. So far as I know, s\he didn't really break a rule per say that I am aware of at least, and (no offense Blackstar) being stubborn isn't a violation. I could be wrong, but from what I have seen, Blackstar doesn't like to admit to being wrong (I could be wrong, but this is just what I've seen), and tends to try and change the subject at hand rather than formally address and debate certain points. If the powers that be want to institute formal rules for debates, no problem then. This however, seems like a grey area, especially because if I'm not mistaken, Seafort was involved in the debate as well ( I could be wrong, so please let me know if I am ), as well as other recent and HIGHLY FRUSTRATING debates, where I admit to having the desire to shake Blackstar myself, which COULD call his impartiallity into question, especially if nerves are beginning to fray. I respect how hard it is to try and play the moderator (I had a similar job recently, playing "moderator" to 48 seperate personalities at a residence I managed), but before issuing a formal warning, I feel a formal rule should be broken, involving a second moderator. If debating with Blackstar is frustrating and THAT aggrivating, unless there are formal rule ammendments, then just don't do it.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anybody.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Nowhere in that thread did you show signs of wanting to discontinue the debate. If you had told Seafort you didn't want to continue and conceded to the rest of us, then you wouldn't be in this position.

He didnt' give me wiggle room. Perhaps you didn't read the quote I provided, but it was basically "Continue the argement or else", and I'd like to point out I did continue the arguement in question. If he had a problem with something I missed, he should point it out, not give me a warning.

Guys, with all friendship and respect, I kind of side with Blackstar on this one. So far as I know, s\he didn't really break a rule per say that I am aware of at least, and (no offense Blackstar) being stubborn isn't a violation. I could be wrong, but from what I have seen, Blackstar doesn't like to admit to being wrong (I could be wrong, but this is just what I've seen), and tends to try and change the subject at hand rather than formally address and debate certain points. If the powers that be want to institute formal rules for debates, no problem then. This however, seems like a grey area, especially because if I'm not mistaken, Seafort was involved in the debate as well ( I could be wrong, so please let me know if I am ), as well as other recent and HIGHLY FRUSTRATING debates, where I admit to having the desire to shake Blackstar myself, which COULD call his impartiallity into question, especially if nerves are beginning to fray. I respect how hard it is to try and play the moderator (I had a similar job recently, playing "moderator" to 48 seperate personalities at a residence I managed), but before issuing a formal warning, I feel a formal rule should be broken, involving a second moderator. If debating with Blackstar is frustrating and THAT aggrivating, unless there are formal rule ammendments, then just don't do it.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anybody.

It's nice to know someone's on my side. The response I got from Ian was that I am Almost trolling. Emphasis on almost.

[Sionnach Glic]

Mark:

Well, the first thing is that this site doesn't really have any debating rules at all. So it's down to us mods to regulate what goes on. As such, there were no rules to break. However, Blackstar was issued a formal warning by Seafort to adress the points several people had raised and informed hir of what actions would be taken against hir if shi didn't. Blackstar responded with vague handwaving in which shi basicaly ignored the points in question, and Seafort did exactly what he said he would.
Moreover, Seafort was not a participant in the debate in question. He was an impartial observer, so he didn't just do this out of frustration at Blackstar. He saw intellectual dishonesty, and he called hir on it.

He didnt' give me wiggle room. Perhaps you didn't read the quote I provided, but it was basically "Continue the argement or else", and I'd like to point out I did continue the arguement in question. If he had a problem with something I missed, he should point it out, not give me a warning.

He told you to respond to the six or so people you ignored. "I concede" is a response. Ergo, you had the possibility of saying so.