Re: Moderation
 

How about just a modern Forum, but Logos your point is well taken. Any forum that isn't moderated is really just a shout house with alot of the s and the h missing.

Re: Moderation
 

Yeah. Arguing about whether moderation is a good thing is an inherent waste of time. Discussing how much moderation to have, on the other hand, seems very valid to me.

Re: Moderation
 

I do, Crat.

And yes, I agree with you Logos, the "amount" of moderation and the reasons for it is a worthy topic to discuss.

Re: Moderation
 

I'm perfectly calm, and so is everyone else as far as I can see. Do you have a phobia for conflicting opinions?

What I meant is that it would help if Lasher is more clearly in charge and doesn't allow each moderator the freedom to turn their sub forum into their own little dictatorship with its own set of laws. One dictator either works or doesn't work.

With each dictator added, however, the chance of things not working increases. I think having 1 to 3 moderators tops (one of them being Lasher) works best, especially given there is probably an option to report posts which reduces the need for pro-active moderation.

Re: Moderation
 

If it helps, we're in communication with one another, and all forums have multiple moderators. That kind of cross-checking largely removes the "dictator" accusation. (As an aside, it's hard to take your posts seriously when this kind of hyperbole keeps surfacing.)

You're being rather generous with Lasher's time there, asking him to cover everything. You would also see an increase in response time-- Lasher isn't always going to be near a computer.

Re: Moderation
 

From the dictionary:

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power.
Dictator: a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct.

I'm just trying to use the proper word for the proper thing here. I'm aware the word is loaded, but that's only because the media only highlights bad dictators, while neglecting to praise dictators that are doing an excellent job.

The reason why I proposed 3 moderators is so that 2 active moderators can keep things under control while Lasher still has the final say in crucial matters such as banning annoying newbies.

Right now some forums have 6 moderators, and if one of them decides a message is offensive and deletes it there's little the other moderators can do about it. That is, without stirring the pot, which means a lot of trouble that can easily be avoided by turning your head the other way.

Re: Moderation
 

Ultimately, moderation and moderators need to simply have rules for the forums, and I'm sure they so here. It is a judgement call, always, when you moderate, but it's the site owner's decision on who he/she wants moderating. It's not up to the users to dictate how things are moderated.

The rules are set up to shape the community and try to encourage a certain type of behavior. Some communities encourage flame wars and allow for people to disrespect each other. Others don't. It really all depends on what the site admin wants in the community.

In my opinion, Lasher is attempting to make TMS a more friendly place, and if it's not more friendly, at least it's more civil. I, for one, an glad of this, and it's making me give TMS another chance.

Re: Moderation
 

Most of the really visible moderation has been done by me, and I'm a UK citizen ;) You may now proceed to decry me as a yank-hater!

Re: Moderation
 

You know, I've actually noticed that some of the most hardcore moderators from various forums in which I participate are from the UK. They usually are willing to take the heat and do the difficult work.

I wonder if it's something in the water over there.

Re: Moderation
 

Maybe it's all the tea and crumpets ;)

I'd just like to say that I know some people are unhappy with the recent changes regarding the moderation team on TMS, but please bear with us! I think we have a good team in place now and the teething troubles should start dying down now the rules are visible and in place. We're doing our best to make TMS a relevant place for discussion about MUDs that people can feel happy posting to without worrying about being brought down by the trolls.

Now, where did I put my Internet Button of Troll Slaying +5... If anyone finds it please let me know!

Re: Moderation
 

Except we don't allow unrestricted free speech. I can't yell FIRE! in a crowded room. I can't stand on a street corner and incite the masses to then storm the bank. I can't give a speech in which I say you're a child molester if it's not true. And this is concerning government, with criminal and civil penalties.

Yet, it seems to me that your position is that TMS should allow unrestricted free speech. While disregarding that TMS isn't a government body. It's a private organization with the ability to create its own rules for membership.

Re: Moderation
 

Quoted for truth!

People often misunderstand what "freedom of speech" is in the US. It's a legal term that has very specific applications, and it really can't be applied to a forum. Granted, some forums do allow unrestricted free speech. I don't traffic those. :)

Re: Moderation
 

Regardless, I can say things on US sites without persecution that would get me a visit from the police if I said it on a Dutch site, and I'm grateful for that. At best some women will deem me unfit breeding material because they dislike what they believe to be my political viewpoints, which suits me as well as a woman disliking me for my skin color.

But what good is freedom of speech if it's invaded everywhere you go? Removing sleep leaving a 16 hour day if you spend 2 hours a day on TMS that's 15% of your life you don't have freedom of speech. If you spend 8 hours at work that's another 50% of your life without freedom of speech. If your wife doesn't allow you free speech that basically leaves you to road rage in your car on your way to work, which unsurprisingly happens to be what a lot of Americans do. So much for your rights and dignity, which you throw out of the window for some silly social stigmas.

Re: Moderation
 

See, what you sound like want to do is take someone's private property (TMS) and tell him how to run it. Part of freedom is the freedom to do with what is yours as you wish, within various limits. TMS is Lasher's. You seem to wish to rob him of his freedom to do with as he wishes with that which is his.

Would you appreciate someone coming to a party you threw and spending all his time screaming, "I HATE <pick your racial/religious/cultural/whatever minority?" Or would you decide that your freedom to run YOUR party as you wish is a lot more important than his freedom to act like a jerk and tell him to knock it off or get out? Are you violating his freedom of speech by doing so? Of course not, because there is no freedom to behave like that at someone else's party/in someone else's living room/on someone else's forums.

If you want to exercise freedom of speech in a forum, it is extremely cheap to simply start your own. Then you can exercise it all you like. What you're asking for isn't freedom of speech, but the freedom to intrude on other people's property, which is not a freedom that is protected in most cases, barring special circumstances (such as the UK laws protecting people's ability to use traditional hiking paths even if they cut through private property)

You have freedom of speech, within limits. What you don't have is carte blanche to do whatever you want with/on someone else's property, just like I do not have carte blanche to come into your living room and make myself comfortable regardless of whether you object or not.

--matt

Re: Moderation
 

Nope, I'm simply voicing my opinion. Now what you are doing is much more offensive and intruding. What you do is speak in the name of Lasher, telling me how Lasher feels about things, and how I should act because you have a psychic hotlink to Lasher and know exactly how he wants everyone to behave.

Would you appreciate it if I come to a party you threw and tell people that they cannot complain, and speak softly because they're on Logos' property and should keep their traps shut if anything obnoxious comes to mind because they're in Logos' house, and that Logos' can do with his property whatever the hell he wants. And that if they don't like that they should throw their own party?

Last time I checked you only own TIC and while I guess it's okay if you speak in the name of Andrew I'm not sure if Lasher appreciates your delusions of grandeur.

Of course you're free to pretend you're the one in charge here, and who knows, maybe Lasher doesn't mind you doing so at all, but your reasoning for why I couldn't voice my opinions is downright silly.

Re: Moderation
 

Scandum, NOWHERE in logos's last post does he mention how Lasher feels. In fact, the paragraph you included is pretty clearly -not- logos' assessment of Lasher's feelings, but rather, his observation of YOUR behavior.

In your first sentence, you say "I'm simply voicing my opinion." Great. You voiced it. Everyone's had a chance to read it. Move on.

Re: Moderation
 

I find it offensive that it isn't Lasher sending me threats,
but rather a mod. I've taken to CC'ing Lasher when I
receive them, because unless a mod is marked as
"admin", I don't see that they automatically have the
authority to out me on double secret probation.

Since I haven't heard Lasher object, I presume my
"thin ice" (and that's a quote from one of the PM's)
status is valid.

But I find it distateful that it's his people taking it upon
themselves to be tough guys, rather than him taking
his admin responsibility to avoid having a vacuum
where people step in and act like they're boss.

If Bob or Sue Moderator is in fact site co-admin, then
let's please have that documented somewhere.

For that matter, is there a mod list? How can you tell
who mods what board?

Is there a PM alias so that I can CC all mods?


Anyway, I've had another post deleted, this one
apparently on aesthetic ground, since I'm told
it violated no rules. I've been hunting around my
private thread cache and am still not quite finding which
one it was. It's quite tedious because my thread cache
is in ghostscript format and I have to grep by sight.

So I'd like to ask that if a post is in fact deleted, the
mods please take the time to specify which post it was
by quoting it, and explicitly declare the reason
for the deletion.

If I take the time to write more than one word in a
post, you can take the time to quote it in a PM
before deleting it.

If you can't be bothered to have a "flames" or "offtopic"
board to archive removed material, at least help posters
maintain *some* record for themselves of the erased past.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

On the main index of the forum, click the "Forum Leaders" link at the bottom of the screen which is located next to the "Mark As Read" link I believe.

If there isn't a CC there should be one, thanks for pointing that out.

As for the rest, if you really want to discuss this here then allow me to illuminate to everyone else exactly what happened:

1 - Tangent in "What is free?" about professional vs hobbyist.
2 - Post by you in "What is free?" that says ONLY something along the lines of "This discussion is a tangent and should be placed in its own thread."
3 - I toddle along, agree, and move posts to a new thread on Professional vs Hobbyist.
4 - As the basis for your post is gone, it makes sense to delete your post as it is no longer relevant to the "What is free?" thread since it contains no information regarding that discussion.
5 - I send you a PM telling you said post was deleted.

You seem to be implying here, and in PMs to me, that my judgement is questionable and you demand evidence that the post didn't contain any other information. It's funny really, as I've suggested to the other mods that any deleted post be moved so Lasher has a bit of oversight but it's something we're still discussing and in this case, as it was obvious the post had no value to the "What is free?" discussion, I didn't think it would be a problem. If you cannot remember what was in your own posts without me quoting them back to you because of volume of posting, bad memory, or just plain forgetfulness, I fail to see how that is my problem. At the end of the day it was my decision to make and I cannot allow whether you trust my judgement or not to influence how I do my job here. Nor can any other mod. You're perfectly within your rights to query why the post was deleted if you think I wasn't clear enough, but to imply that I'm wrong just because I no longer have the post to quote at you (or "I destroyed the evidence" as you put it) doesn't necessarily mean that I was wrong.

Re: Moderation
 

I demand? I guess you can see it that way. I asked
you to provide me with a quote of the post. I don't
think it's unreasonable to ask for the post to be
quoted to the poster before deletion.

I keep hearing the moderator workload here is vast
and staggering and so on, but quoting text is so
trivial and deleting posts so harsh that I think the
effort to quote is worth it.

As you your judgment, I hope you are not
suggesting it is beyond question. I can think of
very few people whose judgment is simply beyond questioning.


Are you saying not even Lasher can oversee whether a
post was rightly removed? That is surprising and
shocking, if true.


In your opinion. Since I spent the time to type it out,
I obviously differ on that. The least I can expect
is for my effort in contributing to the site to be
respected just enough by a mod so that they realize
maybe their opinion of the post is not 100% objective
universal fact.


Oh, that's rich. So if you can delete posts without
people noticing, that's enough justification right
there?

Weren't you just suggesting something about
your judgment before? How does this position
reflect on your judgment?


Not caring about the opinions of contributors
is poor judgment. In my opinion.


I guess we'll never know.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

It's all a moot point, since from now on I'll be sure to move deleted posts to the mod discussion board so next time you try and show how corrupt the system is I can flat out prove you wrong.

Re: Moderation
 

Moving rather than deleting is an excellent idea and I
heartily support it. However, since (presumably) I do
not have access to the mod board, I'm asking that
deleted posts please be quoted in the PM to the
person who wrote it.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

<Snip: Please refrain from referring to deleted posts unless you wish to start a new thread - Xerihae>

I maintain, however, that it is a very good idea to have
a "flames" or "nasty" board to move these things to, that is opt-in-only,
so that people who do not get the vapors from reading
crude but earnest responses can judge for themselves.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Second that.

Re: Moderation
 

Or you could just show some respect instead of making repeated demands that have already been indicated will not be met. You yourself suggested, albiet sarcastically to Matt, that you should take the abusiveness elsewhere like TMC. Maybe you should take your own advice and quit antagonizing the moderators? At this point if you got banned nobody here would really need to question why it happened.

Having an "opt-in" flames board would be rather stupid as it would only encourage the behavior to continue so that folks who get off on being trolls would be able to point to it and say "see, I ****ed someone off again!". Personally I'd much rather the flamebait/trolling/etc just be deleted.

Re: Moderation
 

Xerihae is one of the people Lasher has asked to keep an eye on this forum, which is why he gave him the ability to moderate its content. Given that moderators are publicly listed, I'm not sure sure what the problem is.

They aren't taking it upon themselves. Lasher has previously asked each of us to participate and help him manage the site. There were emails and private discussions. Sadly, no cookies.

At the bottom of the main forums page is a link marked '' which lists Lasher's choices for each board.

Not to my knowledge, though 'report post' and other buttons automatically contact the right people.

Re: Moderation
 

Forgive me, I missed the post where Lasher said this would
not happen.

Maybe his post got deleted.

I'm not inclined to think that, though, so could you please point
to the post I missed that says this?

In any case, as I've said before, dissent is not disrespect.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

I'm not questioning Xerihae's mod status.


Since I'm not in on mod discussions, I have no way of
knowing whether Lasher authorizes mods to issue
ban threats.


-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

My reference to the deleted post was the predicate for
my expression of support for an opt-in board. You
removed on-topic material directly relevant to the
point of my post.

Please put it back. Thanks.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

That one's pretty tough. It seems inescapable to me that moderation policies have to forbid resurrection of deleted posts.

If I were a moderator, I'd probably ask that, if their existence and nature were going to be the basis of a proposal, reference to them should be kept carefully abstract and nonspecific.

Re: Moderation
 

Not everything that happens on a site happens in full public viewing. I base my belief that this isn't going to happen on the fact that it's been suggested before and hasn't been done yet, and on my own experience as a forum administrator myself. I know I wouldn't put one of these kinds of things in place for that very reason. The concept of it is stupid and would be wasteful of database space to keep crap like that around. So I think it's reasonable enough to assume I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Dissent may not be disrespect, but the way you're conducting it here has been very disrespectful. You've all but accused the staff of being fascist and nazis. You make outright demands in an effort to get your way. I think they've been more than patient with you but even in the field of customer service there comes a time when someone crosses the line and are asked to knock it off. Maybe you can't see it, but it seems clear to me that you've been asked to knock it off. The only recourse left if you refuse is to punish you in some way.

In a retail setting, security would physically escort you out of the building. I know. I worked retail for 8 years. I've seen it done on occasion. The person will protest loudly, scream abuse, brutality, and even racism, but when all is said and done, there's a mountain of evidence to support the action taken.

On a forum, unruly posters will be banned from participation. I know. I run a forum and I've had to ban someone once already for exactly that. The person will protest loudly, scream abuse, censorship, bias, make demands, and even act like a raving lunatic, but when all is said and done, there's a mountain of evidence to support the action taken.

So are you trying to help them build this mountain on purpose?


On a side note, I always get a chuckle out of seeing automated profanity filtering blot out a word. Leaves so much to the imagination even when the original word is relatively harmless :)

Re: Moderation
 

Not sure I agree, but in any case, note the
title of the thread. Deletion is necessarily relevant
in a thread that discusses it.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

I strongly disagree.

You make assumptions in your post that don't really bear that
much scrutiny. You assume, for example, what
the policy will be despite admitting to not being privy to
its (ongoing) development. I think I'll let that stuff lie.


What I will say is that your comparing me to a customer
escorted out of a store is not fair. A security problem or
a public disturbance is very different from a community member
who is reasonably arguing in a context that is specifically for that.

This is a forum. It's for discussion. That's what I'm doing.

I am not hurting anyone with my words. I am attempting to
contribute. You don't see that. Ok. But it is true.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

The forum is for discussion. Not for disrespectful behavior, making demands of the moderators, and making a general ass of oneself. Your words don't need to be hurtful to anyone. You don't need to be offensive, crude, rude, belligerent, sarcastic, witty, nice, a suckup, miss congeniality, or even just a regular guy. If the mods decide you're misbehaving, then that's pretty much it. They set policy. They enforce it however they see fit.

Just like being disruptive and unruly in a retail establishment. You will get kicked out eventually if you continue to be rude and abusive to the employees. If enough of them complain to management then management will take action to remove you. Penalties in "the real world" can result in being charged with disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and trespassing. It might even get you civil penalties if the store sues to recover costs incurred in calling the cops.

So I figure getting a few posts deleted and a warning or two that you're on "thin ice" is getting off easy, but I dare suggest that thin ice won't hold you up forever.

Re: Moderation
 

Okay. I get it.

I don't think I've been disrespectful, an ass, etc, etc, and so on as
you list. But evidently I can't sufficiently justify my behavior
to you, so I guess I'll stop trying.

I continue to find your comparison to retail establishments
fallacious, but whatever. You're locked into it. Enjoy it.


I suspect that's what the "thin" part means, yep.

As I've said before, I'm not trying to get banned. I'm saying
the things I say because I think they are true. Perhaps I
will get banned (note the picture I created for the occasion).
But there's no shame in losing a fight if the fight was right.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

There are numerous styles and methods of posting. Some are sarcasm and some are outright invitations to argument. I think if you have many people complaining about your "style" or you find your posts being deleted or moderated, it might be a time to change tact or at least modify it slightly.

Offense is subjective. Some may be offended by racial slur, others by vulgarity, others by personal insults, and still others by third party insults. Expecting the moderators to accept your style is not part of these forums as far as I can tell, if your style breaks the rules.

The trouble arrises when someone plays on the grey area of the rules. Tiptoe'ing around the cutting edge and every so often stepping over the line, but then retreating so as not to get moderators on them. Just because you "feel" you are not acting agressive or offensive, doesn't mean others do not. The most obvious way to get a moderator to bring their finger near the delete button, is to direct something personal and agressive to another member.

Re: Moderation
 

My style is utterly conventional and while I am a forceful
advocate, I am neither trying to be offensive, nor do I
think I am being so. I am also not breaking rules, and
I am not playing games with them. You see me standing
right up to what I think is wrong. Tiptoeing is not what I'm doing.

I am a standard-issue forceful advocate. Blunting my
approach to discussion blunts my participation.

If this site is going to be about fuzzy pillows and rounded
edges, and forceful advocacy is not permitted, then you
can probably look forward to my ejection.

In my opinion that would be a grave sign indeed.

But since I can be wrong, maybe my ejection will
actually make the sun shine brighter and and the
grey skies blue.

Just strap in and we'll find out.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

And all I'm saying is that continuing to do so when it's been clearly pointed out as being against policy is exactly what will get you banned. You think it's a just cause, that's fine. Obviously nobody is going to be able to convince you that it's not.

The retail comparison is perfectly valid. A store is a private entity and can refuse service to a customer for any reason they see fit, even if the customer thinks it's wrong. A website such as TMS is also a private entity who can refuse service to a member for any reason they see fit, even if that member thinks it's wrong. I don't see how that's an invalid comparison.

Re: Moderation
 

Taken from the rules posted by Lasher a couple of days ago:

Scandums post contravened the rule about personal attacks. Cratylus' post contravened the rule about not responding to posts that contravene the rules (confused yet?). Rather than delete the post, I snipped the reference to the deleted post and left the opinion about a flame board as I felt this stood on its own as a viable contribution to this thread.

If you are still unfamiliar with the new rules posted by Lasher, you can view them .

Re: Moderation
 

There is a very fine difference between being a forceful advocate for your position, and being an annoying jerk while advocating your position. I concede it's an entirely subjective distinction and have never claimed it wasn't but that's really beside the point. Continuing to rail against it when the mods are patiently trying to give you the hint isn't going to serve any other purpose but to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you're being a jerk.

Re: Moderation
 

The discussion is about deletion. The deletion in this discussion was relevant
to the discussion of deletion. Discussing it did not break continuity. Deleting my
statement about it did disrupt continuity. If we keep going on like this,
we're going to wind up dividing by zero.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Are you trying to get your post deleted so you
can then say you support the deletion?

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

No, but if my post gets deleted you won't see me railing on about it for 4 pages either. I'll accept the decision and move on. Which is basically what the mods have been trying to tell you all along.

Re: Moderation
 

It's unfortunate that so much of this thread
seems to be about how objectionable I personally
am, because that's not the point. And yet this
seems to be the thing that is most interesting
to folks apparently opposed to my position.

Let me try to clarify a couple of things.

1 I think moderation is a necessary part of forums.
2 I think rules are good.
3 I think discussion of rules is good.
4 I think that discussion of the application of rules is good.


Now, if you don't think there is benefit to be gained
from discussing the rules or their application, then
perhaps you could, you know, not discuss them with me,
rather than tell me to shut up.

On the other hand, I think there is value in such
discussions, and that is what I am attempting to do here.

In particular, I think that while the rules that govern
moderation are not themselves objectionable, the application
of moderation has been immoderate.

While making this point, I keep getting my on-point,
non-flamatory, rules-compliant posts deleted or edited,
which provides me further evidence that my opinion is correct.

In the meantime, since the posts are gone, I am unable
to provide others the evidence that my posts are righteous.

Which provides me with further motivation to point
out the excess with which the post deletions are happening.

Perhaps someone else would meekly bow their head when
confronted with misapplication of authority. I don't
see what there is to gain by this here.

As long as authority continues to be misapplied
against my reasonable statements of opinion, I will
object to that misapplication. I enjoy participating
on this site, I don't think it's headed in the right
direction with this trigger-happy deletion, and
I'm going to try to help by protesting it.

If you don't like it, then for heaven's sake, just
don't read it. But calling me a jerk that should shut up
before security tosses him out is just not that useful.

By the way, in case you're tempted to repeat it, let
me head you off: the mods are in charge, they do what they want.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

You're making this as a statement of fact, when it's merely your opinion that their authority is being misapplied. That's the entire core of the argument. It's why I've tried to explain it in as many creative ways as I can, and have even been blunt about doing so at times. Calling the moderation activity "trigger happy deletion" is only furthering your problems because it continues to present the attitude of open defiance and a desire for anarchy, despite you're previous statements in the very same post claiming to support moderation as a necessary activity.

I'm not sure how elese to explain this to you without getting a post deleted in the process, but surely you can see how there's confusion when trying to understand what your real position on the issue is?

Re: Moderation
 

I form my statements to indicate how I see things, and
that is how I see them. Someone opposed can then
examine them for validity and attempt to refute them.

That's debate.


Heh, no, actually, I don't see that, so maybe this
is where we can just agree that we disagree.

I don't see how much clearer I could make it.

What I said, I meant.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Ok, then if you'll indulge me in one last (futile?) attempt to make the point clear, here's how I'm interpreting your position:

Moderation is a necessary activity. Rules are a necessary thing. Application of the rules is a necessary thing. Until they're applied to me, and then I'm going to yell, scream, cry, complain, stomp my feet, make an ass of myself, and be a general annoyance - to the point where I'm threatened with banishment, and call it discussion of the application of the rules.

I can't make it any clearer than this without then violating the rules myself.

Re: Moderation
 

No, I'm explaining that freedom means that it's Lasher's party. What he thinks is up to him, but it's his forum.


That'd be absolutely fine if I had appointed you to do that job. Just like the moderators have been appointed to do our jobs. Here is a Wikipedia link to help explain it:

I have no idea what TIC is.

--matt

Re: Moderation
 

Then let me try one more time too.

It is not about the rules being applied at all.

It is about me disagreeing with the way they are applied.

I understand that to you it looks like I'm being
a big baby just because the bad thing is happening to me.

I'm sorry you think so poorly of me.

But this is not what I'm doing here.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

It's a joke. He's referring to The Mud Connector as The IRE Connector.

You might have missed it, but there was some controversy there a
while back because IRE muds always show up at the top of any search.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Therein lies the problem. You see it as a fight. You had a post deleted in a thread where you stated the thread had moved onto a tangent. The thread was split off into that tangent. The post was out of place in the old thread and out of place in the new thread, it no longer 'fit' anywhere. You are arguing for arguings sake.

Whenever I encounter someone who is just outright determined to be a victim I tend to oblige them early on and the group/game/team goes back to their daily business. Good faith makes all the difference. Someone who needs (and will respond to) some guidance but means well, or someone who doesn't know any better, is an entirely different situation. Putting the phrase 'good faith' in every other post doesn't make it true.

I do not believe you are here to help promote and discuss MUDs which is the goal of this forum. Obviously this is a subjective judgement and I may be wrong, but it is made. Thankfully, I know you understand as this is a rule from your own forum:

It's also reassuring to see that underneath it all you do understand the dilemma we're in when someone is sucking up your time on their own agenda. Another quote from your own rules:

Having read this reinforces my belief that you know exactly what you're doing here, although I can only make wild guesses as to why.

Is this a flame? It could be. Should this be in a PM? Absolutely. It is addressed to someone who has asked that they be dealt with in public rather than privately. Instead of having a public interpretation of what was said make it back to some post or other, you can see the exact words here. Maybe I should have posted nothing more than "Cratylus is no longer a member" but this is a new situation with a new team and requires elaboration.

If nothing else, in a thread about moderation it is a glimpse into the thoughts of the administrator so that others can make a better informed decision on whether or not they want to take part in these forums.

If others have concerns about what this means for your own status on TMS feel free to post them or PM me, but please refrain from piling on with boos and cheers unless they add something to the discussion.