nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sustainability & Environmental Forum

jacaranda

I'm interested in green issues and in a rigorous debate and examination of the subject.

I made a post in a thread which was fairly straightforward. “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66180980&postcount=31

A moderator then replied saying “You mean waste management companies that are engaged in recovering recyclabes also landfill some of their waste? Shocking.”

So I replied that, no, that was not what I meant and what I meant was what I had said.

The moderator then asked if some of the trucks carrying this label also recycled other goods, and I again replied that my view was that the word “recycling” was devalued.

Then he asked if I thought they should be barred from using the word “recycled” and I said “no”.

Then the same moderator said that he was looking for “clarification “as to what I meant, and I told him that I meant what I had said, nothing more and nothing less, and that he really shouldn’t try to interpret what I am saying, and should read it and not try to put words into my mouth.

He then replied that I am now banned from the forum, and has conveniently deleted most of his posts, claiming that his own posts are now “Irrelevant posts deleted”

The moderator seems more like a troll trying to provoke and goad me, and so now he asks "...If you think I'm misrepresenting what you have said, then explain how I have misrepresented you..."

When I reply that its not possible to explain how as he has deleted his posts which show this, he deletes my post, denying me teh ability to answer his question!

While the Sustainability and Environmental has a moderator who behaves like this, the best advice is to avoid posting there!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

You've used simple sentences and I've misunderstood you. Oh dear.

These repeated snide little rearks about someone's inability to understand simple english sentences being a relection of their intelligence are doing you no favours....especially when they follow you telling me that I've not understood you.

Snide little remarks? Because I hold the view that if someone is is unable to understand what is a fairly simple sentence, then perhaps being a moderator of a forum where people are likely to talk in sentences may not be the best choice for them.

bonkey wrote: »

Rather than trade insults, I've attempted to make it clear to you …

It’s a little ironic that you call my view above “snide little remarks” and then say “rather than trade insults….”

bonkey wrote: »

If, from your perspective, none of that is connected to the meaning of your sentence, then we can agree to disagree. However, getting angry that someone would have a viewpoint similar to mine (as in the case of djpbarry) seems unreasonable.

I agree and getting angry is never useful. I if you implying that you think I am, or have been angry, then you are mistaken.

bonkey wrote: »

You've repeatedly based your insulting of the moderator of a forum on the concept that only some sort of idiot could fail to understand the meaning of a simple sentence.

.

I haven’t “insulted” anyone and to make an observation, or a criticism of someone's behaviour, is not to insult them.

bonkey wrote: »

Along the way, both of us have misunderstood the other at times, or needed to discuss further points we had already made, in an attempt to make our point clear (having seen that it wasn't so the first time around).

We've had an enjoyable, mostly-civil discussion, which has both centered around the reality that simple words do not always suffice, and which has served as an illustration of exactly that point.

You've apparently been a willing actor in this discussion....although throughout it, you've insisted that someone who exhibits the traits that we've both shown and discussed must be stupid, or have a sub-standard grasp of the english language.

.

No, I have consistently said that someone who is unable to understand the simple sentence “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” is and unusual choice for a moderator in a forum which consists of many such simple sentences.

bonkey wrote: »

Might I suggest that you've successfully undermined the entire basis for your outrage? You've not only shown that you share the very flaws that got you so incensed, but also that you're willing to civiliy engage with someone (me) who's also showing the same traits.

You might, therefore, wish to reconsider why it was you got outraged. You may not wish to - that's your choice.

As I am not, and was not, either outraged or incensed,, it seems your judgement that I am, or was, is wrong. I have lots of flaws and never pretended otherwise.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

I haven’t “insulted” anyone...

Yes you have:

jacaranda wrote: »

I don’t think it unreasonable for a grown adult with a reasonable IQ to understand a simple sentence.

That's not a criticism of my behaviour, that is quite clearly an insult.

Oh look, we're disagreeing on the meaning of a post again.

jacaranda wrote: »

No, I have consistently said that someone who is unable to understand the simple sentence “Companies who landfill generally do have the word "RECYCLE" emblazoned on the side of their trucks. the word has been so devalued now as to be almost meaningless.” is and unusual choice for a moderator in a forum which consists of many such simple sentences.

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I did not 'understand' your sentence?

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

I haven’t “insulted” anyone and to make an observation, or a criticism of someone's behaviour, is not to insult them.

And yet, you suggest that me referring to your "snide little remarks" is insulting.

You've made it clear that you don't understand my meaning at times, but suggest that it is somehow not acceptable for others.

You imply that my comment about your snide remarks is insulting, but then argue that your comments on other people's behaviour is an "observation", and therefore not insulting.

You've accepted without ire or insult me telling you that I've misunderstood you, me telling you what I've understood your meaning to be, me telling you what I've understoodd the inferences of your comments to be..and then courteously informed me that I'm wrong.

You have also made it clear that you've misunderstood me, you've told me what you've understood my meaning to be, and you've told me inferences of my arguments...and apparently courteously accepted me telling you you're wrong.

When it comes to djpbarry, however, you keep insisting that these are unacceptable traits for a moderator, are indicative of sub-par intelligence, and are sufficient justification for your truculence and subsequent outrage.

So when its you, its acceptable. When its me...its apparently at least acceptable enough to engage in civil discussion and to refrain from insults. When its djpbarry, its neither.

In short, it clearly suggests that the problem lies elsewhere.

Its up to you whether or not you wish to accept that.

Either which way, I'm done here.

You're free to continue, but you're only making it clea r

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

And yet, you suggest that me referring to your "snide little remarks" is insulting.

You've made it clear that you don't understand my meaning at times, but suggest that it is somehow not acceptable for others.

You imply that my comment about your snide remarks is insulting, but then argue that your comments on other people's behaviour is an "observation", and therefore not insulting.

Anyone can see that to call someone else about their "snide little remarks" is a value judgement. To call their remarks "little" appears patronising, and to generalise and say they are or have been "snide" (▸ adjective: expressive of contempt) is an opinion.

I’ve never said either is insulting and you are wrong to claim that I did.

Unlike some, I don;t find offence where none is intended, and i especially don't take offence where it is!

bonkey wrote: »

You have also made it clear that you've misunderstood me, you've told me what you've understood my meaning to be, and you've told me inferences of my arguments...and apparently courteously accepted me telling you you're wrong.

When it comes to djpbarry, however, you keep insisting that these are unacceptable traits for a moderator, are indicative of sub-par intelligence, and are sufficient justification for your truculence and subsequent outrage.

So when its you, its acceptable. When its me...its apparently at least acceptable enough to engage in civil discussion and to refrain from insults. When its djpbarry, its neither.

Again, your language is interesting as I have never insisted anything. Ironically, you keep “insisting” that I am outraged, even when I have already told you I am not!

bonkey wrote: »

In short, it clearly suggests that the problem lies elsewhere.

Its up to you whether or not you wish to accept that.

Either which way, I'm done here.

You're free to continue, but you're only making it clea r

It’s not up to me to accept or not your opinion that the problem lies elsewhere. That’s your opinion and is entirely valid as such, whether or not anyone agrees with you.

jacaranda

As a postscript, it seems no one has added to the thread in question since the moderator started issuing threats 16 days ago. Which is a shame, but understandable, as heavy handed moderation invariably seems to put members off posting.

Mahatma coat

Just finished reading this.

Jacaranda, I dont know it it will make you feel better or worse but you're not the only one to have a run in with A Particular Mod in that forum.

this Circlin of the Wagons is obvious from the first page, do not expect anything to be done about it, besides the Big Guns stepping in to berate you with eloquence.

BTW I found your statement of opinion rather clear and unambigious as I'm sure others responding to this thread would admit if they werent toeing the party line

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Jacaranda, I dont know it it will make you feel better or worse but you're not the only one to have a run in with A Particular Mod in that forum.

I assume by a "run in", you mean "unfair treatment"? If so, feel free to provide an example.

LoLth

If you have a complaint about a mod, please use the proper channels ie:

PM the mod in question or PM one of the co-mods to get their take.

If still unhappy, PM the cmod, if there is an issue they will take it up with the mods.

If you *still* feel that the mod's actions are questionable and that the cmods arent following up when it should be, then make a case on the helpdesk where an admin will look into it for you. BUT, please be sure that you have a valid complaint before starting a helpdesk thread.

by and large, the mods/cmods/admins arent unreasonable (its one of the traits we look for in mods and cmods) . As long as you are polite and willing to engage in dialogue and not just want to insult you'll be listened to.

LoLth

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this Circlin of the Wagons

beign in agreement is not necessarily circling of the wagons. if I agreed with the user I would have no difficulty letting the mod know. I could just as easily take your input into this thread as an attempt to stir up trouble by egging on an other user to fight your fight but I'm hoping thats not the case.

Mahatma coat

djpbarry wrote: »

I assume by a "run in", you mean "unfair treatment"? If so, feel free to provide an example.

No, not quite, and this is a prime example, you ASSUME to know the motives of the posters, you ascribe meanings that are not there in order to take umbrage and use you Moderator powers to terminate any discussion that you disagree with and Bully other users into submission, here again in this thread it has been mentioned that you deleted the posts that showed you up as petty.

@Lolth I called it a wagoncirclin because I am astounded that you could find difficulty in understanding the sentence posted by the OP, to me it seemed like another 'How dare this upstart question a Mod' moments

Maybe some of ye did have difficulty understanding the Sentence, or the first response, but the fact that you see nothing wrong with the moderator ascribing meaning that simply wasnt there or contradicts the OP does display a shocking lack of the language skills required to Moderate debates between English speaking Adults.

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, not quite, and this is a prime example, you ASSUME to know the motives of the posters, you ascribe meanings that are not there in order to take umbrage and use you Moderator powers to terminate any discussion that you disagree with and Bully other users into submission, here again in this thread it has been mentioned that you deleted the posts that showed you up as petty.

So it’s no ok for me to ask a question in order to clarify what a poster means, but it is ok for you to accuse me of being petty based on the content of posts that you haven’t even seen?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Maybe some of ye did have difficulty understanding the Sentence...

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I did not 'understand' the sentence in question?

Mahatma coat

djpbarry wrote: »

So it’s no ok for me to ask a question in order to clarify what a poster means, but it is ok for you to accuse me of being petty based on the content of posts that you haven’t even seen?

Askin Questions is the point of a discussion, however ascribing motives to a post based on assumptions is not.

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I did not 'understand' the sentence in question?

well then why the need for clarification?????

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Askin Questions is the point of a discussion...

Indeed - what have I done other than ask a question?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

...however ascribing motives to a post based on assumptions is not.

Yet you accuse me of being 'petty' based on the content of posts that you have not seen?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well then why the need for clarification?????

Because a statement can obviously be understood to mean different things to different people, as has been demonstrated several times on this thread.

jacaranda

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just finished reading this.

Jacaranda, I dont know it it will make you feel better or worse but you're not the only one to have a run in with A Particular Mod in that forum.

this Circlin of the Wagons is obvious from the first page, do not expect anything to be done about it, besides the Big Guns stepping in to berate you with eloquence.

BTW I found your statement of opinion rather clear and unambigious as I'm sure others responding to this thread would admit if they werent toeing the party line

I've not had a run in with him, and started this thread to see what others views are on a moderator taking part in a discussion as a member, and then pulling rank and threatening his interlocutors when he doesn't like their responses.

To be fair most moderators don't do that and are reasonable & balanced in their outlook. I suppose, a little bit like school, there were always one or two prefects who took it all a little too seriously and got it a little out of proportion.

Looking at the Sustainability & Environmental Forum now, it seems very quiet compared to how is was in the past. I wonder how many members are put off posting there by what is viewed as heavy handed moderation which, for example, issues public threats on the forum to members who are polite and courteous.

I suppose the answer to that is that we will never know, but certainly compared to the forum in the past, which was both thought provoking and interesting, it is a forum of little activity.

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

Looking at the Sustainability & Environmental Forum now, it seems very quiet compared to how is was in the past.

Says the guy who signed up to boards all of nine weeks ago.

I'm done with this thread at this stage - it's little more than a medium for you (and now Mahatma coat) to cast aspersions about my ability as a moderator.

Mahatma coat

Tell ya what, Hows about thisa for a novel idea, Instead of stroppin off in a huff complanin that people are gangin up on you, You could maybe try to listen to the FEEDBACK being given here, take a little bit of it onboard and try to avoid creating situations like this in the firstplace.

this is not the first time Users of the Sustainability/Green Issues forum have raised their objections to your moderation style, but if you tried it might be the last.

or you could just throw yer toys out of the pram and shout a lot until someone with a bit of authority makes the nasty boys stops picking on you.

One aproach will see you cement your position as a respected moderator and valued contributor to your chosen Forum.
the other will not end well for you

Jusrt a thought like

bonkey

Here's an equally good idea.

How about you stop taking digs at people, with your comments about people abusing powers, circling the wagons, bullying others, etc.

You might call that Feedback, but its not....at least not in the sense that this forum is intended for.

If you want to offer Feedback, then give the the aggression, the anger, and the insults a rest. No-one will stop you from offering feedback.

jacaranda

I think my feedback from here is that

(i) Over zealous moderation seems to prevent members from participating in forums where that is apparent

(ii) It seems impossible to discuss in a thread with a member if he/she is suddenly going to turn around and put on his/her moderators hat, pull rank, and issue threats, in thread, if he/she doesn't like what his/her interlocutor(s) says.

While it remains a problem, the only solution to either (i) or (ii) above is not to participate in the threads where that behaviour is apparent, (which usually results in a decrease in activity on the forums affected) or, if one is participating in forums affected, not to engage with the perpetrator(s).

It's really impossible for boards to police all moderators, as they are voluntary and not employees, and in the main it is a thankless task and most moderators do a splendid job, from my observation. So currently members vote with their feet and cease contributing to those forums.

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

I think my feedback from here is that

(i) Over zealous moderation seems to prevent members from participating in forums where that is apparent

(ii) It seems impossible to discuss in a thread with a member if he/she is suddenly going to turn around and put on his/her moderators hat, pull rank, and issue threats, in thread, if he/she doesn't like what his/her interlocutor(s) says.

In both cases, my response would be that these would be problems where moderators overstep the mark. Where moderators overstep the mark, the poster effected has a right to seek recourse. We have a system for dealing with that.

While it remains a problem, the only solution to either (i) or (ii) above is not to participate in the threads where that behaviour is apparent, (which usually results in a decrease in activity on the forums affected) or, if one is participating in forums affected, not to engage with the perpetrator(s).

I don't see these as the only solutions.

I believe that there's at least a third option, which is to seek third-party arbitration to decide if a moderator overstepped their mark, and if so, to decide what should be done about it.

This is the system we have in place.

It's really impossible for boards to police all moderators, as they are voluntary and not employees, and in the main it is a thankless task and most moderators do a splendid job, from my observation. So currently members vote with their feet and cease contributing to those forums.

We have a system in place whereby users can deal with grievances. In that sense, we can and do police all moderators...in that users have the ability to hav someone look at their case.

We do not review every moderator action, regardless of whether or not there was a complaint....but if someone has a grievance, voting with their feet is not their only option. They can air their grievance.

That you, in the case that apparently started all of this, chose not to do is entirely your perogative.

If you feel you would prefer to vote with your feet rather then seek redress for what you see as a moderator acting inappropriately, that is (again) entirely your perogative.

It does not, however, suggest for one second that this is the only way to deal with such issues, nor that it is your only option.

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

In both cases, my response would be that these would be problems where moderators overstep the mark. Where moderators overstep the mark, the poster effected has a right to seek recourse. We have a system for dealing with that.

I agree, although also suggest there is a difference between what is viewed as over zealous moderation and overstepping the mark.

bonkey wrote: »

I don't see these as the only solutions.

I believe that there's at least a third option, which is to seek third-party arbitration to decide if a moderator overstepped their mark, and if so, to decide what should be done about it.

This is the system we have in place.

I wasn’t suggesting there were only two options, but from observation they seem to be the options more usually chosen by others.

We all have to decide these things for ourselves, and if anyone decides to choose a third or fourth option, that’s also their prerogative, and they should be encouraged to do so.

The problem arises where members vote with their feet and don’t choose to seek third party arbitration, for whatever reason. Thus the problem remains under the radar and the only indication may be forums which used to be busy and thriving becoming less busy, with less and less members posting there less and less frequently.

bonkey wrote: »

That you, in the case that apparently started all of this, chose not to do is entirely your perogative.

Of course. Actually it never occurred to me that there was a formal procedure.

Having said that, I’d have to work out first what I was hoping would be the bottom line before making a formal complaint. I am not interested in getting the particular moderator removed from his post. Neither am I interested in him receiving a rebuke, as that seems unlikely and a little pointless, if one follows the logic of that through.

He seems to enjoy it or get something out of it, so my view is to let him continue to enjoy it if adds something to the happiness of his life.

bonkey wrote: »

If you feel you would prefer to vote with your feet rather then seek redress for what you see as a moderator acting inappropriately, that is (again) entirely your prerogative.

It does not, however, suggest for one second that this is the only way to deal with such issues, nor that it is your only option.

I agree wholeheartedly. While it’s not the only option for anyone, I've looked at some threads from the past, and from the number of posts in the past on the forum when compared to recently, all one can say with confidence is that the forum appears a lot quieter nowadays than it has been in the past.

bonkey

jacaranda wrote: »

I agree, although also suggest there is a difference between what is viewed as over zealous moderation and overstepping the mark.

I'm not sure I see how. Either a moderator is acting acceptable as a moderator or they're not. If they're not overstepping the mark, then you seem to be saying that "over zealous" is - at times - acceptable. To be honest...if its acceptable, then its acceptable.

I wasn’t suggesting there were only two options, but from observation they seem to be the options more usually chosen by others.

My bad. When you said "the only solution", I assumed you meant that the options you presented were the only options.

The problem arises where members vote with their feet and don’t choose to seek third party arbitration, for whatever reason. Thus the problem remains under the radar and the only indication may be forums which used to be busy and thriving becoming less busy, with less and less members posting there less and less frequently.

Agreed. That's why I disagreed with your suggestion that options for the "only solution" ruled out choosing third party arbitration. I would encourage people to take that option, because at the end of the day, the forum exists for them....not for the people running it.

Neither am I interested in him receiving a rebuke, as that seems unlikely and a little pointless, if one follows the logic of that through.

He seems to enjoy it or get something out of it, so my view is to let him continue to enjoy it if adds something to the happiness of his life.

Again, I don't follow your reasoning.

You're suggesting that it would seem pointless to do something about a moderator acting unreasonably..and that if he's enjoying himself, thats more important then the right thing being done. All this coming on the back of pointing out that people will vote with their feet...and you're certainly not suggesting that its a good thing that a forum lose a lot of members.

How does that work? On one hand, its a bad thing if a moderator is driving people away from the forum. On the other hand, as long as he's enjoying himself, thats more important?

I agree wholeheartedly. While it’s not the only option for anyone, I've looked at some threads from the past, and from the number of posts in the past on the forum when compared to recently, all one can say with confidence is that the forum appears a lot quieter nowadays than it has been in the past.

The forum has its ups and downs, like many forums. There are certainly fewer people, at present, who just want to deride AGW, Climate Change, or whatever else you may prefer to call it, but I suspect that whenever the next big media storm arrives (for events either supporting or knocking this) that it'll all kick off again.

Before Politics grew into the monster that it is today, we used to see a similar pattern. Its common on a lot of forums, really....a cyclical pattern.

So yes...it has been busier at times in the past. Its also been comparatively quiet at times. It varies.

If, however, someone suspects that this is being caused by moderation, then I would say that they have a choice to make...whether they care enough about the forum to stand up against what they perceive to be wrong, or are just happy to stand by and watch it sink...all the while going "I told you so. I wasn't willing to do anything about it....but I told you so".

jacaranda

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure I see how. Either a moderator is acting acceptable as a moderator or they're not. If they're not overstepping the mark, then you seem to be saying that "over zealous" is - at times - acceptable. To be honest...if it’s acceptable, then it’s acceptable.

.

Over stepping the mark is not acceptable, whereas over zealous suggests someone who is over eager and who may, or may not, overstep a mark. But that’s just semantics and finer tuning, as it were.

bonkey wrote: »

Agreed. That's why I disagreed with your suggestion that options for the "only solution" ruled out choosing third party arbitration. I would encourage people to take that option, because at the end of the day, the forum exists for them....not for the people running it.

.

It’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves. For example, I might decided for myself that a moderator is over zealous, or is petty, or is irritating, but that doesn’t mean I will also decide that I want to have him reprimanded, or go to the bother of making a complaint about him, even if I thought that there was enough evidence for a complaint. It’s quite possible that he is all those things and there is not enough evidence to make a successful complaint.

I can’t speak for others but, in life, if it’s a choice between action and inaction, inaction usually wins out for 99 people out of 100.

bonkey wrote: »

You're suggesting that it would seem pointless to do something about a moderator acting unreasonably..and that if he's enjoying himself, thats more important then the right thing being done. All this coming on the back of pointing out that people will vote with their feet...and you're certainly not suggesting that its a good thing that a forum lose a lot of members.

How does that work? On one hand, its a bad thing if a moderator is driving people away from the forum. On the other hand, as long as he's enjoying himself, thats more important?

.

Actually, here we do disagree. I’m not sure it’s a case of which is more important to me as a member, but I imagine that I’ll probably not want to make a formal complaint, recognise that the moderator in question must be getting something out of it for himself, and will either move on and avoid the forum again or, perhaps, dip my toe in the water occasionally to see if the moderator is still behaving in the same way from time to time.

bonkey wrote: »

a lot of members.

The forum has its ups and downs, like many forums. There are certainly fewer people, at present, who just want to deride AGW, Climate Change, or whatever else you may prefer to call it, but I suspect that whenever the next big media storm arrives (for events either supporting or knocking this) that it'll all kick off again.

.

Perhaps you are right. Although looking through the forum I also notice that the same moderator closes down threads because he doesn’t like them, or for other reasons personal to himself.

Again, that puts me off contributing there as, to me, that says that the moderator sees himself there not as a moderator to assist the forum and assist others in discussing what they want to discuss, but seems to see it more as his personal fiefdom who seems to arbitrarily censor what others want to discuss, (“I don't think we need a separate thread for every model of electric vehicle” or “Windman has not posted anything since 2005 - I think it's unlikely that he'll be back any time soon”). The fact that some members might want to discuss topics appears less import to the moderator than his own personal desires seems less like moderation and more like a fiefdom.

bonkey wrote: »

Before Politics grew into the monster that it is today, we used to see a similar pattern. Its common on a lot of forums, really....a cyclical pattern.

.

I also read about a large number of similar complaints being made about a moderator’s behaviour on the politics forums. It may appear to be a coincidence, but the politics forums have grown to the wonderful monster it is today since that moderator ceased to moderate there.

Interestingly, those complaints were ruled at the time to be without substance. On one of those threads, http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055375700, the venom and antagonism shown to a member who raised the issue hardly encourages others to make similar points for fear of receiving a similar response.

bonkey wrote: »

So yes...it has been busier at times in the past. Its also been comparatively quiet at times. It varies.

If, however, someone suspects that this is being caused by moderation, then I would say that they have a choice to make...whether they care enough about the forum to stand up against what they perceive to be wrong, or are just happy to stand by and watch it sink...all the while going "I told you so. I wasn't willing to do anything about it....but I told you so".

I think, if I am honest, I don’t feel responsible for any forum at boards to sink or swim. While I hope all the forums are successful, I’m an occasional user of boards and don’t have a huge emotional or intellectual involvement in it. I am not encouraged to use it more by what I view as unacceptable behaviour by the particular moderator, and whether or not I am typical of others I have no idea as I only speak for myself.
For the most part I enjoy boards and hope, as you suggest, that the Sustainability & Environmental Forum once again becomes a thriving and exciting place of interesting debate.

vulcano

bonkey wrote: »

Agreed. That's why I disagreed with your suggestion that options for the "only solution" ruled out choosing third party arbitration. I would encourage people to take that option, because at the end of the day, the forum exists for them....not for the people running it.

It's ironic that you should encourage anyone to take that option. the old profile, jacaranda, has been deleted and I am no longer able to post here. It seems that you don't like anyone who makes a criticism, even if its meant as a way to improve the site. Its sad to see a site delete a profile to stop the individual making arguments you don't like.

As a result, I have made a copy of this correspondence and will publicise it and encourage my friends to copy it to their friends, as a demonstration of how you run this site, and will encourage anyone to boycott and not use a site which treats people in such a cavalier fashion.

I will also deleted this profile and hope you can rethink your bully boy tactics which, when demonstrated in email , will not reflect well on the administration of this site.

LoLth

nothing to do with "bully boy" tactics.

you were banned for re-registering multiple accounts to bypass forum bans and post crap.

Its amazing how trolls , even clever ones like yourself, always resort to the "admins/cmods/mods are bullies!" when they break clearly stated rules and then refuse to accept that the real reason for their ban is the actual reason.

yes. the admins were so threatened by your ability to post coherently that we ganged up on you in a souper sekrit meeting and gagged your voice of inspiration for fear of the masses awakening from their torpor and taking back the massive amounts of money that users are charged for access to the stire and its resources....oh wait...

vortec

I have created this profile specifically to answer the lies in Lolth’s response to the post by “vulacno” at 14.14 today.

LoLth wrote: »

nothing to do with "bully boy" tactics.

you were banned for re-registering multiple accounts to bypass forum bans and post crap.

It is simply a lie to suggest that I have “multiple accounts” or “re-registered”, and that you have to stoop to such lies is revealing. If you consider that I post crap, then no one forced you to respond to crap from me or anyone else you consider produces crap, but it is also revealing that you cite that as a reason to ban someone.

It’s easy to make such accusations, even when they are lies, and I am sad for you that you feel the necessity to make up lies as justification for your actions.

It is no coincidence that your timing to have decided that I have “multiple accounts” and have “re-registered” is now, at the point where you found what I had to say uncomfortable. Funny how you didn’t decide that, before I started to make you uncomfortable with what I had to say here.

LoLth wrote: »

Its amazing how trolls , even clever ones like yourself, always resort to the "admins/cmods/mods are bullies!" when they break clearly stated rules and then refuse to accept that the real reason for their ban is the actual reason.

QUOTE]

Again, you are simply wrong. If it gives you some comfort to believe your lies above and your claim that I have accused that the “"admins/cmods/mods are bullies!", then you are either deluded, or else trying to find excuses for your lies.
Either way, I really can’t care too much as any site where admins stoops to lies to justify their decisions to delete a members account is not a site that I, or many others who I know, would want to be associated with.

Sadly, I will circulate this correspondence to those in my address book and ask them to pass it on to those in their address books and so on, and ask that they think twice before using a site where the admins see themselves as judge, jury and hangman, and where there is no natural justice allowed, and where members are vilified and bullied with no recourse.

That makes you come over as a little man who feels the need to lie to justify your actions to yourself, and no one reading this will be taken in by your obvious lies and your obvious timing of the ban

Naturally, you’ll want to have the last word here and I won’t bother creating another profile to answer whatever lies you further come up with. By your words you are known, and you are known now as a liar.

LoLth

vortec wrote: »

Again, you are simply wrong. If it gives you some comfort to believe your lies above and your claim that I have accused that the “"admins/cmods/mods are bullies!", then you are either deluded, or else trying to find excuses for your lies.

It gives me comfort banning re-reg users so normal users dont have mod/cmod and admin time taken away from meeting their requirements.

Either way, I really can’t care too much as any site where admins stoops to lies to justify their decisions to delete a members account is not a site that I, or many others who I know, would want to be associated with.

well, at least we can agree on the result if not the reason then. see? there is a happy medium to be found in every dispute!

Sadly, I will circulate this correspondence to those in my address book and ask them to pass it on to those in their address books and so on, and ask that they think twice before using a site where the admins see themselves as judge, jury and hangman, and where there is no natural justice allowed, and where members are vilified and bullied with no recourse.

and again we are in agreement. that is actually quite sad.

That makes you come over as a little man who feels the need to lie to justify your actions to yourself, and no one reading this will be taken in by your obvious lies and your obvious timing of the ban

oh stop. you'll make me blush. you had me at "I created this profile because my other one was banned". oh, and neither bonkey nor myself banned the jacaranda account. it was banned for re-regging multiple times, nothign to do with this thread but, if you wish to believe otherwise and see this as a personal vendetta against you personally, then I shall do all in my power to make your wishes come true.

Naturally, you’ll want to have the last word here and I won’t bother creating another profile to answer whatever lies you further come up with.

do you pinky swear?