You said I have a history.
Let's examine it.
When I was a member of the .com site, I had one of the highest like to post ratios on the board.
Anyone can go check. Science is to investigate claims and verify.
My science was sound.
My arguments were generally pretty solid.
My math was weak... I admit that. It still is.
I was passionate, yes, but it invited readership.
And far more often than not, I got along with most everyone well. Even the ATM'ers, because I firmly believe that ATM discussions should be encouraged to test the mainstream ideas for accuracy. That IS the scientific method and it is a good, solid method. Not always, though. We all scrap on occasion.
At a time in this history, Moderator John Galt admitted he had been using sock puppets deceitfully to toy with people on the forum. He expressed that he was sorry and he did not want to discuss it any further but to just leave it at that.
Because he had violated the trust and ethics of the board.
His claim of sorrow would not hold in law; if a person committed some sort of crime, he could not say, "Sorry, I regret that. Let's just not talk about it and leave it at that."
And it had gone on for quite a long time, maybe even years- where is the Sorrow There?
Holding the person accountable, just as moderators routinely do to us members is just as important to mods as it is to members. I learned then that Mods were not accountable.
This started the tension, true and simple.
Adelady even PM'ed me and while I will not quote without permission, she asked a question about whether being "right" was really that important to me; couldn't I just let it go?
My answer was and is "YES." There is little that is more important to me than that.
The tension continued to where any time there was debate, heated or otherwise, any action on my part, any interaction...
I could do nothing right.
I was always the one at fault.
I was always guilty.
During all this, my posts continued to climb in like to post ratio. The evidence remains in the forum archives, anyone can see for themselves.
Eventually, something had to give.
What it boiled down to, simply enough...
Moderators hold that position for too long. At first, they want to do what is right, too. Mods are not bad people. I do not hate any of you. I'm angry at some of the fallacies, but that is perfectly normal.
But they are HUMAN and that includes the same biases and faults that are human nature. Nature that requires we use the scientific method to overcome them.
Mods become complacent in justifying themselves. They become complacent with their authority to where they can do no wrong.
Once in that position of power, as is human nature, they are very hesitant to give it up. Sound like any other Power Figures in history and what happens when they held it for too long?
I leave it to the current readers: Have you ever felt like a moderator was overreacting, but because of their position, you felt they might be right simply because they are the authority?
Have you ever felt like you wanted to speak up, but you did not because you feared Moderator action?
Have you even ever felt like you were the one at fault because your inability to measure up to their standards was to blame... that you caused the moderator to react to you?
Just a point: These are common discussion themes at Battered Womens Shelters.
You see, quite often, the abuser does not realize that he has become and abuser and the abused is afraid or ashamed and blames themselves for being abused.
My common history, my thread is that I WILL speak out.
I will speak out even when threatened. I Will question the authority, correctness and actions or attitudes of Moderators.
And. They. Do. Not. Like. That. One. Bit.
This is MY version, MY perception of that history. Is it biased?
Most likely. I have no illusions about my fallibility.
But I am quite certain it is not heavily biased. I am quite certain that I am close to the mark.
Because, under observation, I got along fine with the mods until I questioned the unethical actions. Until I questioned their authority. And... because of my high like to post ratio. That is my history.
Moderatorship should not be held too long. Moderator duties should be assigned in groups on rotation shifts, just as the military and police do to avoid the established problems outlined above.
Moderatorship should be seen as an obligation and a duty to members to account for their active participation of the board.
By rotating the Mod Duties to All Active members, everyone has a time to fullfill that duty for a short time. It puts the membership of all contributors on more equal footing. Some may do it well, some may not, but the group polices eachother. Moderators are subject to the same rules as they are during their shifts as members. Bans can only be enacted by ruling majority and appeals to those bans carefully considered by the active members.
No forum will Ever Consider this (Except possibly one...) because...
Once a person who enjoys their position of power has it- They will not give it up without a fight.
Now, I know I said I'm done and for the most part, I really am but...
I like to confront when people attack me. I like to defend myself instead of just taking the abuse.
And as always- my posts, both good and bad, even the ones where I made a fool of myself or acted badly too- they ALL stand as a record for any scientist to review and make up their Own Mind.
You, iNow, John Galt. I do not like you and you do not like me. But I don't hate you. I am sure that generally, you are good people. But you are just as human as I am.
The only difference is that your positions sadly led you to be different from me in that regard... You forgot that you are a biased human being, just as susceptible to fault as I am. You forgot why we need the scientific method in order to pursue this one passion we share in.
And for this setting, that is a shame.
You can call these rants. You can call it a vial of nitro glycerin. You can call me crazy. Maybe I am crazy.
But maybe others, if these posts are not deleted and are allowed to remain, just maybe these gems will receive a dissertation... that will lead to an improvement in how moderatorship is viewed and conducted. Maybe it will make some readers reconsider how we all, even me, treat eachother.
None of us deserve to be under a moderators Boot due to a bias, due to a misunderstanding or due to a willingness, as Neil Degrasse Tyson has so profoundly put it: To question authority, test ideas, and think for yourself.http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_t ... tyson.html