Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Never been a moderator and have no idea what their charge and duties are.
Here's where the line is drawn in my mind. When someone personally attacks a person or organization, he/she has gone too far. When someone does something that is illegal, he/she has gone too far. When someone is blatantly and purposly (did I just invent a new word? Is it purposfully?) disrespectful to a person or group, he/she is skating on very thin ice.
There's a big difference between laughing with someone or at someone.
In terms of banning someone, I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
|
Ok....see this is where my issue is. And I am kinda glad that this topic is being brought back to the surface, so to speak.
Tau(insert #'s) WAS annoying and he/she WAS stirring up trouble... hey, he/she even got me a little riled up. To me, banning in this case was a pretty good idea, because they had absolutely nothing of merit to lend to the convos. It really doesn't matter how you look at it, Tau's posts were worthless (except to draw attention, an area in which he/she was quite successful).
HOWEVER...to revisit a related topic...
I think that DeltAlums quote above illustrates the double-edged nature of the monitoring of posts on GC. I felt that the mocking of another org's motto in the Greek Life forum was "blatantly and purposly...disrespectful to a person or group." I think the same applies to the guys that were directing very personal attacks toward certain posters on that same forum. But he defended their posts.
Now mind you, I acknowledge that you, DeltAlum, are not a moderator. But certainly your opinion is shared by those that ARE mods. Or do you guys disagree, and just don't vocalize it?
It just serves to illustrate that it matters who you offend.