Lord Mauly Mall decision

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Carter-TFN, Sep 9, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Indecent Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 7, 2002
    star 1
    "Once more unto the breach...."

    Shocked. Dishearted. Dissapointed. All these and similar race through my mind as I attempt to grasp the topsy turvy logic in application here. You'll have to excuse me, I have given these pages of debate a cursory overview. I may stumble over a few thing, so please forgive... and don't attempt to twist my words to your own nefarious ends, because i'm sure you'll get the meaning... I will not be that oblique. And if a tinge of bitterness can be detected within that, your right. You'd think that being here since late 1998, i'd have learnt by now, but the politics of this internet 'Island of Doctor Moreuax' (I know its spelt wrong, reference above) still cause the pain of confusion to arc callously throughout my skull. A 2 day banning, and a weeklong demotion, 2 days of which are inclusive of the banning. Should I, at this point be shouting from the roof tops that justice has been served? I only wish it was so.

    The term DRAMA has been applied to the situation, in one of many attempts to lower the fog of war upon this verbal battlefield. Yet how apt that term is. For this is an unfolding drama. Not of the comical proportions that certain wags portend it to be, but of a shockingly obvious kind. We have once more witnessed double standards. First offence? I sincerely doubt it. Offence's have been obscured here in an attempt to brush this fiasco over. Duplicity has been enacted by our 'leadership'. Lord Maully Mall was given his status as thanks for his great work on the banners. A nice gesture. To wit, a saying... "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and indeed, I am sure the intention behind the promotion of this aspiring digital artist was full of good intentions.

    Carter[/i], Can you really deny that this act has blown up in your face? A time comes when covering up the misdeeds of a friend becomes no longer feasible. I understand your motivation... I personally would do my best to help out a friend. However, I must be horribly blunt, and point out (as many before me have) that your sheer ignorance of his catelogue of transgressions is nothing short of a travesty. Do you really belive that the general posting population holds the combined IQ of a McDonalds Drive Thru staff meeting? Lord Maully Mall blatanted paraded his status as a 'get out of jail free card'. This is unnaceptable. And behaviour such as his has resulted in instantaneous banning in others. I have witnessed this.

    It has been stated many times that the JC is a dictatorship, by moderators and posters alike. To the effect that what you say goes, and if we don't like it, we can find a new internet based home. I have seen first hand 2 such incidents. Consider... what is it to rule, if there is nothing to rule. I'd rather be a poor man in a rich country, that a king of a pile of rubbish (and before you leap, I am not calling the JC a pile of rubbish). Attitudes like this cause offence to all. Politics exist even in a dictatorship... you must keep those you dictate to happy... otherwise you risk revolt.

    The situation exposed by the rash actions of a headstrong, and arrogant moderator have called into question the reliability of the whole administration. How much faith can we as posters have in you, if we cannot trust your actions over this? You stated yourself that this was only a banning and temporary demotion based on his spamming. Hence you have blantantly disregarded his other actions. And Carter, for a PR admin (as I have been led to believe you are), you attitude towards the board populace leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe this conflict has aggravated you... understandably so. But that brings me to another point.

    The administration staff and moderators are to be held to a higher calibre than the general populace. They are to lead by example. This has been said before... if I am wrong in this, please correct me. Therefore thier punishment should be more public and more damning. It also leads me to the fact of moderation on these board
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Please see the "attitude" thread for an official update, courtesy of Vertical.

  3. DarthTunick SfC Part III Commissioner

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 10
    I disagree, Dagsy. I think we should find excuses to promote good mods rather than find excuses to keep bad ones.

    Why keep a moderator who breaks the rules and abuses his power? Why is it so important that he remain a mod? This doesn't just apply to LMM, but to any mod. It's not a lifetime appointment. He gave it a shot, and failed miserably. Move on. There's just no need to protect him so overtly.

    But I'm through piling on. This slap on the wrist will stand, no matter what any of us say. I just hope there are decent elements within the Administration who recognize that this is far short of acceptable, and will work internally to bring about needed change and raise the bar for standards within the ModSquad.




    i agree 100%. there are plenty users that would make good mods if it were to be decided that a mod is replaced for future abuses of mod powers.








    DarthTunick,
    you can't ignore the San Fernando Valley!


  4. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    Please continue this discussion in the LMM's Decision thread.

    Thanks

    :)
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/lord-mauly-mall-decision.8726914/page-8
boards.theforce.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-48
41423
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:WTNN3RBIQFAHUMOY43R3FBCRBS2OLG4W
<urn:uuid:6d1ddb1c-4ca6-4960-9d88-cc178ae5965f>
2015-11-30T14:01:45Z
50.63.136.209
sha1:PPMYUO2X3JHS23TNYA7VETZSEHIVIPSK
<urn:uuid:c35ee7cd-a66c-4930-b200-2a8e3fc9232b>
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/lord-mauly-mall-decision.8726914/page-8
response
<urn:uuid:b68a4a01-c12b-4d94-a6c1-b4501d697dbe>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-71-132-137.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for Nov 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf