Re: If and When I Offend........
I was going to post this early this morning, but I wanted to wait and go over it again to make sure the wording said what I meant. Well, what a difference eight hours makes:lol: Have decided to post this anyway, just to show that Cynic is not alone in her views. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to get on your case just to annoy you, Joe (although after reading your apology on that other thread, I feel awful about this
). But I think there are some issues here that warrant consideration. Remember, this was written yesterday.
Joe,
I think you're missing the point. First let me say that I absolutely agree that Cynic's signature was inappropriate and that it was right that she be asked to remove it. What I have a problem with is the way you handled the situation when all the signatures didn't immediately disappear and your continued attitude toward Cynic. To summarize the situation: Starting on March 15, Cynic had a signature that said, "The UN is about as effective as a traffic cop on valium!!! -Can I interest you in a vintage French Whine?" As far as I can tell, you posted her on the 16th that it was inappropriate and a few hours later, she posted that she had removed the signature. Unfortunately, because of a computer situation, Cynic had to remove each signature individually. This caused a delay in Cynic being able to remove all the signatures, although most of them were removed within about six hours of your initial post telling her to remove the signature. When you found a couple of posts that still had the signature, rather than PM Cynic to find out if there was a problem, you posted what I considered to be very heavy handed and accusatory "warnings" to her, eg, "Get your political signature out of the skating threads and into the Off Topic Le Cafe. We can see a barage of counter points to this and it is not about skating. Last warning." Even though Cynic was removing the signatures as quickly as possible, apparently you assumed she was not obeying your directive. However, I guess you never bothered to PM her to find out what the problem was. This is what I find problematic and inappropriate.
Also, Cynic never said she missed Fetal. She was simply comparing the way Fetal's inappropriate signature was treated compared to hers. You never posted bombastic warnings within 24 hours of your first notice to Fetal on the forum for him to remove his signature; it was all done via PMs. The point is: Why wasn't the same courtesy of using PMs afforded to Cynic?
And why the sarcasm in your post to Cynic,ie, "Cheer up, though. I believe your wish will come true" regarding the war? I sincerely doubt that Cynic is "wishing" for war. She simply supports the President's position. Also, why would you not allow Cynic to use the signature, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Joe, believe me, I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the unpaid and often thankless job the moderators do, but I hope you will be able to accept and consider what I intend as constructive criticism of the way you handled this situation. BTW, my decision to broach this subject with you was not just this situation, but also because of several others as well. It's just my opinion and I'm sure you will get other responses who disagree with me. And of course it's easy for me to look at something with 20/20 hindsight and say what should have been done. I wanted to discuss this with you privately, but as you know, I PM'd you about this several days ago and you never responded. (I'm now wondering if you missed it because of the new PM system. If so, sorry.) But I would still like to suggest that after a moderator asks that something in a post be immediately removed that you or anybody also PM the person and give them a couple of days to respond before posting notices accusing them of noncompliance. Not everyone checks in to GS every day and not everyone checks every post.
As far as Cynic's views on a war with Iraq are concerned, I'm sure Cynic is quite aware of how the country is divided and that other posters disagree with her. At least in Le Cafe, it was my understanding that differing views about the war are accepted, as long as they are stated with respect for others' opinions, which I (and apparently others) feel Cynic did. Also, Cynic never said she might leave, so why the section on "you have much to offer" etc.?
There is another issue I had written about when I started this that changed this morning when you finally edited out the "dumb" from your "dumb war" reference on the "ABC and the War!" thread--seven days after Maxell pointed out that it was inappropriate and did not belong in "The Edge." Kudos, to you Joe for editing out the "dumb," espcially since I found your use of "dumb war" to be a double standard regarding the way you treated Cynic. When Cynic posted on 3/16/03 that she had removed the signature you replied, "Thank you Cynic. Nothing wrong with your political beliefs but it doesn't belong with figure skating." I agree, absolutely, but at the time you wrote that, you had included the less obvious but IMO equally offensive "dumb war" political comment on 3/12/03, ie, "Anyone have any news if that dumb war starts that ABC will be entitled to pre-empt their regularly schecluded programs?" Two hours later, Maxell responded, "Not everyone considers it a 'dumb war.' Political threads go in the off-topic forum." Of course I'm glad you edited out the "dumb," but why did it take you seven days? You were reprimanding Cynic about her signature in a pretty heavy duty way less than 24 hours after you first noted it. I'm just trying to point out that lately I've been seeing a double standard in some of the ways you've chosen to moderate the forum. I hope you know that as b****y as all this may sound, I say it in all support as someone who considers you a friend.
As for what you wrote in today's post: "Why bring politics up at all?" Why did you start a thread about ABC possibly pre-empting Worlds because of "this dumb war"? There was nothing anybody could do about it, so why go bring it up? The reason, IMO, is that people like to get out their frustrations. You understand and enjoy your own "venting" posts, and others have their reasons for "venting." Besides, Cynic started removing the political signature as soon as you posted her on it.
Anyway, I don't agree with Cynic's views on a US war with Iraq, but as long as her posts are in Le Cafe I absolutely support her and anybody else's right to voice their opinions about the war. I know you have an often difficult and thankless job as a moderator, Joe, but in this case, I think you might want to think about how you handled this situation. I realize this is a sticky situation since this is a case where a forum member disagrees with the way a moderator has been handling a situation. In any case, I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is intended: Constructive criticism and food for thought. Also, I think it would go a long way toward resolving this whole situation if you apologized to Cynic. It's up to you, of course, but I hope you come to that conclusion.
Rgirl
), you will see that I have been informed that my former signature post about France and the UN offended some of the members. I am currently in the process with my outdated 26K modem of trying to find and remove the signature lines. If anyone finds a random one after tonight, please let me know and I will gladly remove it.
42
