The Heavy-Handed Moderation Has to Stop

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

I doubt John cares about getting in trouble with some members...

When I say "echelon", I mean my International governing board, my president. And believe me, she's been known to email all kinds of press releases and other things with the full brigade of legal power she manifests... So, it's not about a few disgruntled members of AKA on GC, from my perspective, and I think through a few of my "GC sorority chapter" (LOL), our hands are tied more so as to what can and cannot be stated beyond the AKA international website.

ETA: It's basically CYAing our GC personas...

The problem comes in when craziness is posted in other non-GLO thread forums. Like homegirl who "pointblank" said her mother is an AKA and she thinks she should not go legacy and go under recruitment for NPC and this thread was in the GL forum. That is an inappropriate discussion anywhere and she needs to have a personal reflection about how to live her life...

As far as what you all discussing, like LL's stuff--welp, it was bound to be shutdown and while I agree with what she said, it was her tone and the manner she said it to parents, which is an unwise thing to do overall--folks just don't like to hear their little princess is a hellion--LOL. I have no opinion about why it was archived, though.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

with the full brigade of legal power she manifests...

Lol at "full brigade of legal power". That full brigade of legal power should be pointed elsewhere where there's discussion of AKA ritual and other business on the web. A full brigade of legal power really won't be too concerned with a message board, unless something really big is going down.

Again, what you're talking about and what's being talked about in this thread are two totally different things.

(I must talk to someone in my office about being part of a "brigade").

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by kddani

(I must talk to someone in my office about being part of a "brigade").

-Rudey

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'd be interested in hearing a few non-mod perspectives on that, or whatever policies people think ought to be universal.

I think that the suggestion Jen made would go a long way toward helping cooling things down. Just offer a brief explanation of "why" -- something I think you usually do already.

Sure, there are some posts/threads where no explanation is needed -- inappropriate discussion of ritual and offers of CHEAP NOKIA PHONES come to mind. But for the kind of things being talked about here, a simple explanation might have prevented a lot of heat. (Or, it might have made a mod think twice before overreacting to begin with.)

Originally Posted by kddani

Lol at "full brigade of legal power". . . .
(I must talk to someone in my office about being part of a "brigade").

Maybe the lawyers here can join forces and be the brigade of legal power GC manifests.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Many mods have supported such standards for a long time, but again, we cannot get a consensus about this.

It is hard for me to understand why some mods wouldn't agree. I believe it, but I don't quite understand.

I think it's fair to say that I am not a fan of conflict. I'm a mediator by nature, not a pot-stirrer, and I generally don't like to be yelled at, in person or online. In spite of all of that, as a moderator (elsewhere) I have never hesitated to explain my decisions so that people could better understand them, even if those decisions were very unpopular. I fully stand by my first post above, that a moderator's actions should never be so personal that they cannot be explained. If a moderator isn't willing to explain his or her actions, they shouldn't be volunteering to moderate in my opinion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Many mods have supported such standards for a long time, but again, we cannot get a consensus about this.

It's hard to get consensus about anything on GC.

Even if we did have standards, they would be virtually unenforceable.

[FSUZeta]

alphafrog, you are mistaken in assuming that the recruitment moderators are against this.

kevin's statement is exactly the type of remark that was made when i first made my suggestion in the mod forum.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

kevin's statement is exactly the type of remark that was made when i first made my suggestion in the mod forum.

I probably made that remark. I mean to say -- you give me any kind of "standard" and I'll bet there are a lot of situations which come up where that standard shouldn't really apply, or would make things worse.

I'd be interested in hearing a few non-mod perspectives on that, or whatever policies people think ought to be universal.