wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
snip

you missed it I object to the fact that one of the pronent (paul) of
the moderated aserts from himself preveledges that he attacks me for
for when I do the same thing

particaularly when this person proposes to be a moderator


One on the team of many, and hopefully more folks will be willing to
help with the moderation tasks.

snip
Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to
evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it
will be used fairly?

I don't know that I understand the criteria so I don't know/. some
RRAP poster such Dave Heil have argued that My sexuality is relavant
to RRAP as somehow reflecting on my trustworthness and other charter
related isses I conceed he has SOME point in this but how your
crtieria would deal with this I don't know. Given the inclusion in the
moderating team a man that has expressed strong antiBLGT views I don't
realy excpect even handed treament

I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group.
Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't
intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be
respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts.

snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the
moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts.

so what? your moderator are indeed stil human

Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it
100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center
of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking
at it objectively.


You and I have had debates on these forums in the past.

have we realy? I honestly don't recall any

Perhaps we haven't, but I thought I was responding to a different
person "an old friend" with whom I recall having a few debates over the
last year.

I cannot speak
for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read,
but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected
based on the conditions in the proposed RFD.

where I recall post of my own that I would HOPE you would rejected I
would also HOPe that I would not find need to resort to those tactics

I hope that if the RFD ends up generating the new group that merely the
threat of being moderated would keep things under control and the
actual moderation task will be very limited.

Indeed from reading Ruals Post I believe I am personaly am one of the
targets of this effort. Indeed Paul seem to begin to complain about
RRAP when I choose to finaly RESPOND in something like kind to the
treatment that he began to object I can recall posts and private email
from Pual derected at my posts and I saw no posts from him comending
the posts that drove to those unpleasent tactics

Having been involved in the formation of the RFD and involved in the
debate of the moderation policy, I don't think any of these personal
issues matter to the proposed group and certainly is not part of any
discussions the proposed moderators have had by my mail records. I for
one would not stand by and let personal differences knowingly impact
moderation decisions by me or others in the team. This is why the
appeal process in the RFD was included and why we are even now
appealing for more volunteers to help with the moderation tasks.

-= bob =-