darkwall
Well-known member
I am bewildered by all of these responses. I had thought that the matter was a fairly private one, but it seems I have touched some sort of nerve. Someone mentioned that my ban was voted on, but I have never heard of this: if it is true, then obviously there is a constitution of some form: if so, why isn't it mentioned?
Someone else said that these were criticisms without remedy - clarifying the rules, as I originally suggested, seems a fair remedy to me. What has not been argued is that the system is VULNERABLE to abuse, whether the moderators are "better" than previous ones are not - that in fact proves my point as it would be a false inference to assume that because these mods are better than the last, the next ones will continue in the same positive vein.
I think the confusion in this thread may be explained by the nebulousness of A.L.L. itself - few know how it is run, and yet there is obviously some system in place that belies the "ONE RULE: BEHAVE!" directive. I recognise that the makers of A.L.L. wanted it to appear a place of freedom, not bent over with rules - however, using a false front can only ever lead to confusion.
The poster who talked about treating others fairly in kindergarten overlooked several key things: firstly, that as I have repeated the moderator was also guilty of breaching this rule by implying I was a liar; secondly, that in actuality as someone whose mother was a nursery teacher I can tell you that a nursery is in fact full of complex rulings and that this was a FRONT: their reaction to if you had shouted at someone would have been very different to if you had kicked and sworn at them.
So, really, your argument only goes to prove my point - that moderators should also be on some sort of level ground with us, and that this could be helped with rules, that being adults it would be very edifying to be able to see.
Darkwall
Someone else said that these were criticisms without remedy - clarifying the rules, as I originally suggested, seems a fair remedy to me. What has not been argued is that the system is VULNERABLE to abuse, whether the moderators are "better" than previous ones are not - that in fact proves my point as it would be a false inference to assume that because these mods are better than the last, the next ones will continue in the same positive vein.
I think the confusion in this thread may be explained by the nebulousness of A.L.L. itself - few know how it is run, and yet there is obviously some system in place that belies the "ONE RULE: BEHAVE!" directive. I recognise that the makers of A.L.L. wanted it to appear a place of freedom, not bent over with rules - however, using a false front can only ever lead to confusion.
The poster who talked about treating others fairly in kindergarten overlooked several key things: firstly, that as I have repeated the moderator was also guilty of breaching this rule by implying I was a liar; secondly, that in actuality as someone whose mother was a nursery teacher I can tell you that a nursery is in fact full of complex rulings and that this was a FRONT: their reaction to if you had shouted at someone would have been very different to if you had kicked and sworn at them.
So, really, your argument only goes to prove my point - that moderators should also be on some sort of level ground with us, and that this could be helped with rules, that being adults it would be very edifying to be able to see.
Darkwall
