"I think that nearly everyone on these forums can be real bastards (including me) when we want to be. It's human nature. Why does that discount you from being an admin?"
Because part of being a leader is controlling that aspect of "human nature" in administrative actions.
Alshrim:
"As an admin of this place...If someone has a poor opinion about something you've done or said...try to understand why they don't agree..."
Exactly. That is another major part of being a leader.
BTW, I'm not actually an admin, but if you want to start a petition or something to change that, feel free to.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Frank: "OTOH, do the admins have any intrinsic motivation for doing a good job? From what I've seen, they don't."
And what about you? You're not Emily Post. There could be probably at least one situation where you had very poor judgement. No offense to you, but neither am I. I know of SEVERAL situations where I was a complete Jack@$$ as well, I just don't like talking about it.
------------------ I can resist anything....... Except Temptation
posted
Chuck has been more of a jerk than any other admin. I should know, not you Frank. I've been on the business end of Chuck being a jerk quite many times. So, should we disqualify him as an admin?
Frank, can you actually see into Chuck's rectum from where you are? And poor Chuckie... that's gotta hurt. Of all the things I say about Chuck, going that way isn't one of them (not that they're is anything wrong with that, if that's what you are)
------------------ "Oh no, I know a dirty word" - Kurt Cobain Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana
posted
Alshrim Dax: I have read your substantial post above and can't find anything to nit-pick apart from a few spelling errors (an error I am prone to, so I won't point them out).
I think it might be a good idea if the admins would agree among themselves to get a second opinion when they react to something posted in their part of the forums that makes them want to do something NOW! In practice, the offending post or thread could be locked or hidden, or the offending person banned, with the understanding that the locking or hiding or banning will be reviewed by a certain minimum number of admins. If the "administrational review" agrees with the action, the situation will be allowed to remain unchanged. If, however, a significant number (say, 2/3) disagree, the offending post or person will be unlocked, unhidden, or un-banned.
If such an action were taken, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the person(s) affected by the administrative action be notified what action had been taken, and reminded that the action in question is undergoing review, and that they will be notified as to the final decision. It's only fair.
Several times during (and before) my career in the military I have saved myself untold grief (not to mention jail time) by not decking the idiot who just pissed me off (there was one guy I was soooo tempted to pick up and hurl through the window, but that's another story). Since adverse actions against a member (or an admin) can have such a negative effect on our community, I entreat, but do not demand, that Charles and the rest of the admins adopt some such procedure.
--Baloo
------------------ The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them. --Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
CC, can you please add a spell checker to these forums... ehehehehehe...
I'm glad you agree Baloo. I respect you're opinion and agree with your post!
**Salut
I notice the spelling errors once I re-read the post.. but I'm too darn lazy to go back and change them.. hehe... I'm usually a nit-pick when it comes to stuff like that .. But here.. I'm sure everyone gets the drift !
------------------ - Alshrim Dax The Other Dax
[This message has been edited by Alshrim Dax (edited December 16, 1999).]
posted
Alshrim: Lee is also referred to as The First One, and used to be called USS Coyote. He was easy to spot, you just had to follow the trail of sarcasm.
Oh, and DT, are you standing up for Lee?
See, if even Mr Daniel Tydeman can get over arguing with Lee (and it was an argument that threatened to involve nuclear firepower), then I'm sure Boris could.
------------------ "Obesity. Adiposity. Corpulence. Whatever word you use, it represents one thing: being a big fatass."
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
Oh, and BTW... The issue is not whether the argument can be forgiven or not, but the manner in which Lee dealt with that argument, which was completely inappropriate, which caused me to react in the way that I did, which resulted in this entire fiasco.
*sighs, wishing he'd quietly closed the thread when noone'd posted to it for a few days...*
posted
Well, just don't throw anyone out the window over it.
--Baloo
------------------ You can't seriously want to ban alcohol. It tastes great, makes women appear more attractive, and makes a person virtually invulnerable to criticism. --Mayor Quimby http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
Printer-friendly view of this topic