Okay, we're going to change to registered users only.

Anything relating to the operation of this site.
mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:03 am

Abel Holzing wrote:Mike

I am also rather surprised at your decision to prevent Matt / Sandra / etc from posting altogether.

mgormez wrote:When we consider that perhaps children read here from the schools than we have to keep that in mind.


Are you sure that this is your true motivation? I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to it - this guy is expressing some views, hidden in between his crazy utterings, that don't fit in the mainstream of the postings so far. Are you sure that protecting innocent kiddies is what you are about? I am not suggesting any deliberate manipulation, but maybe subliminally ...


Yes Abel, protecting the kids is one point, not having to wade through the vulgar language about his/her sexual organ is another.

Abel Holzing wrote:
mike_w wrote:I think a bit of careful moderation by MikeG and some voluntary 'policing' by the more down to earth users can keep things in order.

In this case I see it differently. I like the soft approach but when someone is just out to wreck havoc then it is over as far as my tollerance is concerned. I am not talking about making a mistake of having some fun but this was way beyond that.


About half of readers' responses to MS' posts have been positive, half negative. Hardly a ringing endorsement by this community of your view that he "is just (sic!) out to wreak havoc". I feel you are overstepping the boundaries of an objective moderator.


Not at all. The (many) threads that have those reader responses are intact but locked. We can hold a poll to unlock those again. Infact I'll make one right away.

The only thread that was deleted was one in which s/he was having 'fun' and someone asking if this foul language could be dealt with.

Abel Holzing wrote:
Also, what should a parent think who got the letter from Boddy, came on here via search engines and saw all that language? I'd think they would take the strories much less serious.

That is outright disturbing. That really says it all. It cannot be the role of a moderator to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others.

With arguments such as this, all you are going to achieve is the loss of some of this forum's hard-earned credibility.


I rather suspect that with sexual explicit language we would lose more credibility.


Abel Holzing wrote:Mike, think again!

Something obviously has got to be done, and I agree with mike_w that "a bit of careful moderation by MikeG" and "some voluntary 'policing' ..." might do the trick.


I stand by my decision to remove the sexually explicit thread. Perhaps it was overbroad by also deleting his/her initial posting which seemed vaugly coherent.

Let me add that I am in communication with Matt/Sandra/Sandy. There's talk of a final posting he would like have done. I have agreed to post it for him/her unaltered when it does not contain vulgar language, insults or is outright kookie. And after December the 15th I'll lift his IP ban so he can read but I will not let him have his way again here despite his apology. Threats to make a mess here with multiple IDs tend not to go well with me and I simply can't trust him/her anymore.
Mike Gormez

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:01 pm

Mike

Thanks for replying.

mgormez wrote:
Abel Holzing wrote:I am also rather surprised at your decision to prevent Matt / Sandra / etc from posting altogether.

mgormez wrote:When we consider that perhaps children read here from the schools than we have to keep that in mind.

Abel Holzing wrote:Are you sure that this is your true motivation? I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to it - this guy is expressing some views, hidden in between his crazy utterings, that don't fit in the mainstream of the postings so far. Are you sure that protecting innocent kiddies is what you are about? I am not suggesting any deliberate manipulation, but maybe subliminally ...

Yes Abel, protecting the kids is one point, not having to wade through the vulgar language about his/her sexual organ is another.

What planet do you live on? Do you really believe that anyone old enough to have access to the internet (i.e. any of the kids coming here) can possibly be shocked by Matt's "vulgar language"?

In any case, I was arguing for "some careful moderation", not for "no moderation".

mgormez wrote:
mike_w wrote:I think a bit of careful moderation by MikeG and some voluntary 'policing' by the more down to earth users can keep things in order.

mgormez wrote:In this case I see it differently. I like the soft approach but when someone is just out to wreck havoc then it is over as far as my tollerance is concerned. I am not talking about making a mistake of having some fun but this was way beyond that.

Abel Holzing wrote:About half of readers' responses to MS' posts have been positive, half negative. Hardly a ringing endorsement by this community of your view that he "is just (sic!) out to wreak havoc". I feel you are overstepping the boundaries of an objective moderator.

Not at all. The (many) threads that have those reader responses are intact but locked. We can hold a poll to unlock those again. Infact I'll make one right away.

What are you talking about? If you read the first paragraph of my post again, you will find that my concern is that Matt is being prevented from posting - I am fully aware that his threads are "locked but intact".

And you didn't address whether it is really your considered opinion that he "was just (!) out to wreak havoc"? That he contributed nothing? I personally feel he made a few great contributions, giving me completely new insights into what the schools were really like in the early years. Yes, he caused "some" havoc in the process: hence a case of "careful moderation" rather than total exclusion.

mgormez wrote:The only thread that was deleted was one in which s/he was having 'fun' and someone asking if this foul language could be dealt with.

An example of "a bit of careful moderation" - so it can be done after all, you see?

mgormez wrote:
mgormez wrote:Also, what should a parent think who got the letter from Boddy, came on here via search engines and saw all that language? I'd think they would take the strories much less serious.

Abel Holzing wrote:That is outright disturbing. That really says it all. It cannot be the role of a moderator to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others.

With arguments such as this, all you are going to achieve is the loss of some of this forum's hard-earned credibility.

I rather suspect that with sexual explicit language we would lose more credibility.

I have dealt with the issue of sexual explicitness.

But your reply doesn't exactly address my main point, which was that it can't be an objective moderator's job to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others. I feel you need to draw a clearer line between your role as moderator, and your role as a contributor expressing personal opinions - for the sake of this forum's credibility.

Abel Holzing wrote:Mike, think again!

Something obviously has got to be done, and I agree with mike_w that "a bit of careful moderation by MikeG" and "some voluntary 'policing' ..." might do the trick.

mgormez wrote:I stand by my decision to remove the sexually explicit thread.

I have my doubts, but OK.

mgormez wrote:Perhaps it was overbroad by also deleting his/her initial posting which seemed vaugly coherent.

I am sure you were "overbroad" here - and even "overbroader" to prevent him from posting here for good.

mgormez wrote:Let me add that I am in communication with Matt/Sandra/Sandy. There's talk of a final posting he would like have done. I have agreed to post it for him/her unaltered when it does not contain vulgar language, insults or is outright kookie. And after December the 15th I'll lift his IP ban so he can read ...

Are you kidding? You are even preventing him from reading??? What on earth for?

mgormez wrote:... but I will not let him have his way again here despite his apology. Threats to make a mess here with multiple IDs tend not to go well with me and I simply can't trust him/her anymore.

This is not about you, Mike. It is about the credibility of this forum. So I suggest that you put your personal feelings aside, and start approaching this in terms of "best practice of discussion group moderation". You have done a great job so far, and I am sure you are perfectly capable of putting your personal views aside when wearing the moderator's hat.

AH

User avatar
mike_w
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:25 pm
Contact:

Postby mike_w » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:53 pm

Without going to the trouble of quoting etc. I didn't see the posts swiftly deleted by Mike, but I agree with Mike deleting them on the basis that no one needs to go to such extremes to express themselves - a few well placed ****'s will do.

I 100% support the actions you have taken thus far, ie leaving the existing posts, and changing the settings to registered users only. I had thought you were going to delete ALL of the posts.

As I see it Mike's point of view is that he's the forum admin, he'll get all the complaints etc. from those who feel what's contained is beyond acceptable, he has to choose his own fine line of moderation. A simple deletion of post with a follow up explanation if the 'offender' bothers to ask why should suffice. no need to get into trying to edit individual posts or you could end up with a full time job! :eek:

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:57 pm

For what it's worth, I think you've handled this just right, Mike (Gormez). Dutch tolerance is all very well but there have to be limits!

Tom

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:04 pm

Are you kidding? You are even preventing him from reading??? What on earth for?


That is how IP level bans work, not my idea because I don't mind him reading but it is the only way to stop him abusing the forum again with guest postings. After the registered user phase is in place he can read again.
Mike Gormez

The Analyst
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:24 pm

Postby The Analyst » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:14 pm

How did he manage to get on again???? He must be really desperate to be included.......

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:37 pm

Abel Holzing wrote:It can't be an objective moderator's job to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others.

Abel, once again you completely miss the point. Where exactly did Mike say this? Go back and read carefully exactly what Mike has said in this thread and you will find he has said no such thing.

Matt Stollar was banned because of the negative effect his posts had on the credibility of this forum. Any other motives you have imputed are a figment of your imagination.

If you cannot see why Stollar's posts were damaging the credibility of this board then perhaps you need to take a cold shower and re-read all of his posts. Many of them are no more refreshing or enlightening than someone urinating on your front door step.

You have also forgotten the simple fact that this is Mike G's forum. All of us - you, me and formerly Matt Stollar - are here as Mike's guests. He started the board, he pays for it and he puts in considerable time running it. If you invited someone into your house as a guest and they started shouting and disrupting other guests then you would be entitled to kick him out. So please stop insulting Mike with petty point-scoring on his spelling and suggestions that he doesn't live on this planet.

By the way, if you are really unhappy with Mike's moderation, you can always go and set up your own discussion group. It really isn't that difficult. Ask Mike_W how he set up his Yahoo group.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:14 am

Abel Holzing wrote:What planet do you live on? Do you really believe that anyone old enough to have access to the internet (i.e. any of the kids coming here) can possibly be shocked by Matt's "vulgar language"?


Abel, I've been involved in discussions on the Internet for over 10 years and I have seen this type way too many times before, including semantic hair spliting. You believe I have some dark motive and I have an exam to take on Wednesday.

I could spend a lot of time trying to get your perception fixed but truth is we both know it would be a futile attempt on my part. And frankly I'd rather spend my time on the books than on you and imo your faulty reasoning like above.

Just because the 'Net is full of vulgar language does not persuade me to have the same here. Likewise there should be a lot of childporn out there, the press reports, but I fail to see the need to host that on this site.

So we have to agree to disagree. I am not going to play this game.
Mike Gormez

matt

Postby matt » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:38 pm

I am deeply moved by Abel Holzings defence of me. As you can see the discussion is futile as I'm here.
I love this site.
However I think the allegations can be whittled down basically to the teachers who used 'mad' violence and weird methods. The caning was parent supported. Blame your parents for sending you to a crazy school. There always had to be a letter of consent.
So you can't blame Debenham unless you feel he overdid it and concealed this also to the parents.
This is why I am being banned because I AM UNDERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS FORUM not through foul language but through having a STRONG different view on the allegations.
I am not mad at all.
I just want to see the ST JAMES schools and the S.E.S change further than they have.

Matt

Once again I love this site

Matt

Postby Matt » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm

ALSO I AM NOT INFACT UNDERMINING THIS SITE IN TERMS OF THE WAY I AM SUGGESTING THE INQUIYR SHOULD BE RUN.

Here is a copy of a post under my thread 'prison'

The only way for this enquiry not to be a farce is to hand the matter of to the relevent authority ( the police? the child abuse agency? ) and let them choose who to conduct the independent inqiury) That St James get to choose the independent chairman is so obviously farcical.

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:29 pm

Hi Daffy

Daffy wrote:
Abel Holzing wrote:It can't be an objective moderator's job to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others.

Abel, once again you completely miss the point. Where exactly did Mike say this? Go back and read carefully exactly what Mike has said in this thread and you will find he has said no such thing ... Matt Stollar was banned because of the negative effect his posts had on the credibility of this forum.

I was paraphrasing Mike - not quoting him verbatim.

OK, let's see what he actually said (and now I am quoting!):

mgormez wrote:Also, what should a parent think who got the letter from Boddy, came on here via search engines and saw all that language? I'd think they would take the stories much less serious.

It is perfectly possible for there to be credible forums with less than credible stories, and for there to be forums with little credibility but the occasional credible story. The two are connected, but in no way identical. An objective moderator would be concentrating on preserving the credibility of the forum, but never the credibility of contributors or their stories - they would stand or fall on their merits, and nothing else. A subtle but important difference. My point was that Mike - in one specific case - failed to make this distinction: he certainly had the credibility of the forum in mind, but his words and actions show that he went beyond that and sought to protect (in his own words) the "credibility of others".

Daffy wrote:You have also forgotten the simple fact that this is Mike G's forum. All of us - you, me and formerly Matt Stollar - are here as Mike's guests. He started the board, he pays for it and he puts in considerable time running it.

But it is run as a public forum - so your reasoning that because he started it / pays for it / puts in a lot of time he should be beyond criticism doesn't hold water.

Daffy wrote:If you invited someone into your house as a guest and they started shouting and disrupting other guests then you would be entitled to kick him out.

I have no problem with that side of the argument. But he was also kicked out because his presence might "the stories [of some of the other house guests] to be taken much less serious" - only that part of the argument I objected to.

Daffy wrote:So please stop insulting Mike with petty point-scoring on his spelling ...

Don't get it - where did I do that?

Daffy wrote:By the way, if you are really unhappy with Mike's moderation, you can always go and set up your own discussion group.

What makes you believe I am "really unhappy" with his moderation? This is the first time ever that I have objected to something he has said or done, in 5 1/2 months of being a member. Aren't we a bit touchy here?

AH

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:09 pm

Hi Mike

mgormez wrote:
Abel Holzing wrote:What planet do you live on? Do you really believe that anyone old enough to have access to the internet (i.e. any of the kids coming here) can possibly be shocked by Matt's "vulgar language"?

Abel, I've been involved in discussions on the Internet for over 10 years ...

So have I. So what?

mgormez wrote:... and I have seen this type way too many times before, including semantic hair spliting.

And in my time I have seen people confusing / mixing the roles of objective moderator and personal contributor, reducing the credibility of forums as a result, and dismissing constructive criticism as "semantic hair splitting" ...

mgormez wrote:You believe I have some dark motive ...

No, but maybe just a little bit of paranoia: this is the first time in 5 1/2 months of membership that I have objected to a decision you have taken, or anything you have written; and in my first post in this thread I specifically stated that "I [was] not suggesting any deliberate manipulation" on your part ...

mgormez wrote:I could spend a lot of time trying to get your perception fixed but truth is we both know it would be a futile attempt on my part. And frankly I'd rather spend my time on the books than on you and imo your faulty reasoning like above.

Hmmm, you have got the right perception, you have got the truth, mine needs fixing but then I wouldn't get it anyway, my reasoning is faulty, and you can't get bothered engaging in debate. Wow! You'd make a perfect cult leader.

mgormez wrote:Just because the 'Net is full of vulgar language does not persuade me to have the same here.

That was a point I had conceded, remember? And the other points I had raised ...

mgormez wrote:So we have to agree to disagree. I am not going to play this game.

... you are not willing to address.

mgormez wrote:... and I have an exam to take on Wednesday.

Hope it goes well and all this isn't too much of a distraction.

AH

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:55 pm

Abel, I can see why you regard Matt as a kindred spirit and why you want him around here, but he's gone, hopefully for good. Now get over it.

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:18 pm

Daffy
Daffy wrote:Abel, I can see why you regard Matt as a kindred spirit and why you want him around here, but he's gone, hopefully for good. Now get over it.

Don't you get it?

It's not about Matt, not about Mike, not about myself - it's about the credibility of this forum, and what it is trying to achieve.

AH

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:20 pm

Hi Abel,

mgormez wrote:You believe I have some dark motive ...

No, but maybe just a little bit of paranoia: this is the first time in 5 1/2 months of membership that I have objected to a decision you have taken, or anything you have written; and in my first post in this thread I specifically stated that "I [was] not suggesting any deliberate manipulation" on your part ...[/quote]

Here again you play a word game. This is what your post said:

Are you sure that this is your true motivation? I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to it - this guy is expressing some views, hidden in between his crazy utterings, that don't fit in the mainstream of the postings so far. Are you sure that protecting innocent kiddies is what you are about? I am not suggesting any deliberate manipulation, but maybe subliminally ...



While I above address your questing of my motivation, you reply smoothly with a non-sequitur about manipulation, and lovingly leave out your use of 'subliminally'.

I don't call that straight shooting Abel.

Anyway, I consider the case close. The board is closed off for anons (sadly) and Matt can find a new sandbox to urinate in.
Mike Gormez


Return to “Housekeeping”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest